Quote:

---

"beefier motors" (no idea how much beefier)

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Not really sure if I really buy the extra 10 pounds being worth an extra $500 of purchase price.

---

Well.., that's the trick question, isn't it

Personally, I figure its a slick play by Celestron to provide folks with an option above the CGEM / Atlas payload at a price that is still well below that of the Losmandy G11 - by some margin, to boot.

Regards,

skybsd

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

If it can carry the C14 as well as the regular CGEM carries the C11 then it is definitely worth an extra $500 IMO.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If it can carry the C14 as well as the regular CGEM carries the C11 then it is definitely worth an extra $500 IMO.

---

It won't.

---

I tend to agree. Ten lbs more capacity for at least 16 lbs more scope (my 11" HD weighed in at 29.7 lbs w/dovetail). But perhaps "C" will have a 14"HD set up on a CGEM DX at NEAF for a look-see in April.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I had a CGE and now I have a G11 and I think the later one is a much better mount specially with the new Gemini2 computer.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If it can carry the C14 as well as the regular CGEM carries the C11 then it is definitely worth an extra $500 IMO.

---

It won't.

---

Whew...I'm glad to see a posting from somebody who has used the DX...uhhh...you _have_ used it, right?

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

OK lets put it this way then: Take a standard CGEM, install a Losmandy saddle and stick it on a concrete pier. That's basically a CGEM-DX (in fact probably sturdier). Now stick a C-14 on it. See how it wobbles. Oh, i forgot about the thicker counterweight shaft....ooh, THAT's gonna make a big difference in carrying capacity. My mistake.

---

IOW: "I haven't used one or even fully read the product specs."

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

The "new" non-edge C14's reportedly 53#...how is it gonna ride on a mount rated for 50# with accessories added?!?! Perhaps an older 45# C14 maybe, but not one with the heavier rear cell IMO. Linky...

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

High Point just called and said they would be shipping DX's next week. What the heck, I'm going to give it a rip.

JayW

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

II agree with Jason.It is a $600 marketing ploy. They would have done MUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCH better if they had just kept the CGE. THAT IS the answer to "thier issue of not having a mid level mount"..as the product manager for "C" so elegantly put it in that video!
And IMHO, the CGE is not a "mid level mount" IF the CGEM DX is going to be considered a mid level mount. In that case, my CGE on my concrete pier is a freakin CGE-PRO...come on guys..

---

The CGE is a NIIIIIIICE mount.

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.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

first I need to have a new CW shaft made that is 6-8" longer so that it can handle 75#!!

---

Post Extras:

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....."

---

Post Extras:

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.

---

C'mon Rod. The head is larger because the electronics are located there. On the CGE they're in the pier. You_know_that.

Post Extras:

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.

---

Post Extras:

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?

---

65lbs..., as it always was..,

Regards,

skybsd

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Don't the mounts bearings and motors have a bigger role to play than just size alone?

---

They have a role to play. But will the DX be worse than or better than the CGE? That will only become clear when somebody actually USES one.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

But they are marketing it as a replacement for the CGE which it is not.

---

Post Extras:

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.

---

Post Extras:

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

---

We'll know its "ill conceived" when it's in the hands of consumers. Till then neither you nor I know how it will be received or how well it will work. One thing I do know...the CGE is history. Would it have been nice to see a CGE II for about the same price as the original? One with internal cabling and other improvements and fewer faux pas? Yes.

Have you hefted a CGE Pro? The problem for us old geezers ain't the tripod. Or at least not only the tripod.

Post Extras: