Quote:Quote:I would not have had an issue with Celestron coming out with the DX as an upgraded CGEM (as Vixen has done with their mounts) if they didn't tout it carrying a C-14. That's the ONLY issue i have with it since it's NOT a replacement for the CGE. If they would've said something on the order of "For the imager with our C-11 and smaller cats the CGEM-DX features upgraded features such as....." OK...it can't carry a C14 because? The CGEM head is actually larger than that of the CGE.
Quote:I would not have had an issue with Celestron coming out with the DX as an upgraded CGEM (as Vixen has done with their mounts) if they didn't tout it carrying a C-14. That's the ONLY issue i have with it since it's NOT a replacement for the CGE. If they would've said something on the order of "For the imager with our C-11 and smaller cats the CGEM-DX features upgraded features such as....."
Celestron 8" Edge Apogee 80mm ED refractor Hypertuned CGEM Bogen 3046/Unistar light Modded Canon 450D/ Canon EF200mm F/2.8 A whole bunch of other stuff
Quote:"But hardly perfect and not without its share of problems. I also doubt people would be willing to pay what Celestron would have to charge to continue production."How can Losmandy still offers G11 with new Gemini 2 for the same price that has been selling for many years (and still made in the USA) ?The G11 is a much nicer mount than the CGE IMHO.
Quote:Quote: first I need to have a new CW shaft made that is 6-8" longer so that it can handle 75#!! You have read Celestron's specs on the mount, right?
Quote: first I need to have a new CW shaft made that is 6-8" longer so that it can handle 75#!!
Quote:Don't the mounts bearings and motors have a bigger role to play than just size alone?
Uncle Rod Uncle Rod's Astroblog: http://uncle-rods.blogspot.com/
Quote:But they are marketing it as a replacement for the CGE which it is not.
Dark Arts Observatory - Brockport, NY - Skyshed POD XL5 with iOptron iEQ45 Mount
Scopes: C8, C5, SV110 ED, EON-72 ED, ST 80, ATRC6, Megrez 90
Quote:The CGEM-DX is not a replacement for the CGE but IMO a stopgap until the popular CGE resumes production at a Chinese factory.
“I am the only person to ever ace a 1951 USAF resolution test. My 'to observe' list says 'done'. I do not use charts or atlases when I starhop; men do not use maps. One of my sketches won an SBIG deep sky imaging contest. I am the life of star parties I have never attended. I never say anything looks like a faint fuzzy - not even a faint fuzzy. Pilots aim green laser pointers at me. Don Pensack proofreads my CN forum posts.” - The Most Interesting Astronomer in the Universe
Quote:"I also doubt people would be willing to pay what Celestron would have to charge to continue production..."...in California, USA, one of the most expensive places to do business on Earth.Now instead of the CGEM and CGE Pro, what if they (a) updated the CGE to cure its poor RA and Dec cable socket/board design, and (b) set up shop manufacturing improved/updated CGEs in one of the lowest cost places to do business on Earth?Maybe offer an improved CGE with CGE capacity for a *lower* price than when the mount was made in the US? A more reliable, modestly updated, $2000 CGE could have become *the* mount for anyone unable or unwilling to pay the Tak or A-P price for like capacity. Probably woulda been the end 'o Losmandy too, which would have helped Celestron's marketshare numbers in the long term. While I wouldn't call the CGEM DX a "marketing ploy" I would say that it's somewhat ill conceived. One of the nicest things about Atlas-class mounts is decent portability for their capacity. The CGEM is simply the combination of a 45# capacity EQ head with a tripod designed for a 90# capacity mount. The problem with this approach is that the otherwise transport friendly CGEM becomes a CGE-class pain in the tail to schlep around, but without the reward of the CGE's capacity. The tripod alone weighs 40#. Dat's just nutz.Also, I don't think the dimensions of the CGEM head vs. the CGE head are as relevant as the difference in the mass of those two heads. I haven't put my mount heads on a scale yet, but SOTP I suspect the CGE head has a lot heavier metal. At least that's what my back tells me when I set it up. Regards,Jim