CGEM / CGEM DX
Posted 25 January 2014 - 03:44 AM
I was looking at this or the CGEM DX but was put off reading here about the 8/3 PE but then I have seen images using these mounts with an SCT. Is it just that they need guiding or are they just no good for imaging (or is it just a few bad ones that have this issue with PE and can't be used for imaging)?
Also how much difference does the sturdier tripod for the DX make? Does this make it any better for imaging? My understanding is the CGEM should now be able to handle the same capacity.
As I say, reviews here have put me off but the local stockist insists they are fine for both visual and AP. He could obviously be giving a biased view but he did advise that the DX was overkill and the CGEM perfectly fine for visual and imaging with 1100 Edge (with guiding...and did warn me as others here have that much harder at long fl), so doesn't seem to just be trying to push me to the most expensive Celestron mount.
Posted 25 January 2014 - 09:09 AM
Posted 25 January 2014 - 10:37 AM
Posted 25 January 2014 - 12:36 PM
What do you think of the DX, would it make any difference?
There's the CGE Pro with the 1100 Edge but if I get into that price bracket, at the moment the LX850 seems to be better value for money...both would stretch my budget.
Posted 25 January 2014 - 01:13 PM
I've been out of the game for a long time (career, marriage,kids, etc.) but with two soon-to-be astrophysicists in the family, it seemed to be a good time to get back in
I wanted to do AP on a larger (11" ) scope and I was very determined to get what I needed to do it. The more I researched it though, I began to (very reluctantly) admit that I was biting off more than I could chew. In the right hands and with the right equipment, a C11 can create amazing images. I just had to come to terms with the fact that I wasn't going to be that person for awhile and adjust my goals.
Personally, I ruled out the DX for time exposure because I felt it was too "iffy" for AP, based on reviews and user reports I have read, but others with direct experience may say otherwise. In the end, it comes down to what your expectations are and your tolerance for experimenting.
Posted 25 January 2014 - 01:24 PM
My basic plan is to buy a large sct, get back to being used to visual oberving over a year then buy a small apo for imaging but eventually also work up to imaging with long focal lengths. However, with 3 small children I doubt I'll ever be able to save this amount of money again so want to get a mount / OTA combination which can do it all (with the exception of intro to imaging apo which I can hopefully save for)further down the line. Hard to make the choice though as I can't afford the really top end AP mounts everyone seems to talk about. Top end of my budget is CGE Pro or LX850 but was re-visiting the idea of buying the CGEM / DX for imaging and getting a big dob for visual now (like the looks of the Orion xx16g).
Posted 25 January 2014 - 01:48 PM
Funny, I was looking at the same Orion scope! I finally decided that it was probably going to be too much hassle to set up for casual observing and I couldn't image with it, so I skipped it.
The LX-850 looks promising, but I'm still a little wary of Meade at the moment. I think the worst is behind them, but we'll have to see what the future brings. Even though I'm in the Celestron camp for now, I really *want* Meade to succeed.
Posted 25 January 2014 - 01:49 PM
As visual astronomers, we are conditioned to think that aperture is the most important thing. In imaging, I would say that focal length is the most important thing. For a given camera, focal length determines both field of view and imaging scale.
New imagers are often tempted to think that bigger scopes are better, when nothing could be further from the truth. When you are getting started out imaging, the most important thing is to keep the focal length short. Shorter focal lengths make *everything* easier. After you learn the ropes with a short focal length (I usually recommend 600mm as a good starting point), you will have a set of skills to help you get going with longer focal lengths.
Much has been said about the importance of focal ratio in imaging. I don't want to open the can of worms here (there are plenty of threads to read already), except to say that I think of focal ratio this way: Pick a focal length that, for your camera, gives you the field of view you want and a reasonable image scale. And then pick the most aperture your budget and mount will easily allow at that focal length. This strategy tends to get you to the best focal ratio that meets your goals and budget.
I hope that this is helpful,
Posted 25 January 2014 - 02:39 PM
Wade, was wondering with regards to the above...would you say the Edge HD optics are not worth the extra vs. the ordinary Celestron SCTs on anything other than a premium mount? Conscious their main advantage is for AP but they are f10 and very long focal length so I'm assuming you'd need a top end mount to image with them?
Posted 25 January 2014 - 04:14 PM
Posted 25 January 2014 - 05:01 PM
Think you're right that my kids would really like the video aspect of observing as it would be easier for them to make out what they are looking at.
Posted 25 January 2014 - 05:35 PM
Wade, was wondering with regards to the above...would you say the Edge HD optics are not worth the extra vs. the ordinary Celestron SCTs on anything other than a premium mount?
In my opinion, the EdgeHD optics are worth every penny above the standard Celestron SCTs. If I were in the market for another SCT, I would definitely get the EdgeHD.
And this is not just about imaging. I think that the EdgeHDs are much better visual scopes than standard SCTs.
For imaging, I would not recommend that anyone start out with any SCT. An 80mm ED refractor is a much better starting instrument.
Posted 25 January 2014 - 05:54 PM
Posted 25 January 2014 - 10:06 PM
Posted 26 January 2014 - 04:35 AM