Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home pageAstronomics discounts for Cloudy Nights members
· Get a Cloudy Nights T-Shirt · Submit a Review / Article

Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums

Privacy Policy | Please read our Terms of Service | Signup and Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu… uh, User

Equipment Discussions >> Mounts

Pages: 1 | 2 | (show all)
blave
member
*****

Reged: 08/11/09

Ah criminy. Not again - Which Mount? (<$2000)
      #5476047 - 10/17/12 10:57 PM

I just sold my trusty Celestron AS-GT (CG-5GT) mount to a friend. I got a lot of good use out of it both visually and for AP, but want to move up a bit. I *think* I want an Ioptron IEQ45 (with New Modified Clutch), but I'm very familiar with the Celestron hand controller logic, and yet another friend of mine is recommending an Atlas mount instead, so that I can take advantage of the "eqmod" ecosystem. I'm confused!

I want to do imaging of DSOs... Right now I have an Orion ED80 and Canon XSi DSLR, but might move to a bit more refractor aperture (e.g. 102mm or so). My guider setup will be the Orion 50mm scope with the SSAG camera, so that's pretty light.

My preferred imaging location is on the upstairs deck of my house (in suburban San Jose, CA -- yes it's very light-polluted), which has a rather precarious access door, making mount weight a concern so that I don't fall 10 feet and go boom 8^) . That, combined with having to set the mount up every evening I want to view/image, is what's pointing me at the IEQ45.

What say you? I welcome everyone's input on this!

thanks,

Dave B.
San Jose, CA


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ranger Tim
scholastic sledgehammer
*****

Reged: 03/25/08

Loc: SE Idaho, USA
Re: Ah criminy. Not again - Which Mount? (<$2000) new [Re: blave]
      #5476121 - 10/18/12 12:00 AM

Imaging on a deck is an exercise in futility - unless you can get the building occupants, wind, your own heart rate, etc. to cooperate. Every slight tremor in the deck will manifest itself in the image.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Patrick
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 05/16/03

Loc: Franklin, Ohio
Re: Ah criminy. Not again - Which Mount? (<$2000) new [Re: blave]
      #5476133 - 10/18/12 12:15 AM

I can't speak first hand about the IEQ45, but I did a 3 month comparison between the Atlas and CGEM mounts. I still have the CGEM. In the end, I simply did not like the requirement of running a computer to get the functionality the CGEM has built into the hand controller. I also found EQMOD a PITA to use.

Patrick


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
chboss
professor emeritus


Reged: 03/24/08

Loc: Zurich Switzerland
Re: Ah criminy. Not again - Which Mount? (<$2000) new [Re: Patrick]
      #5476174 - 10/18/12 01:04 AM

I use an iEQ45, great mount, intuitive hand controller and much lighter than the CGEM or the Atlas. The original Tripod is not one of my favorites though, I use mine on a sturdy pillar instead.

With a narrow access door I would specifically look at size and weight .

best regards
Chris


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Midnight Dan
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/23/08

Loc: Hilton, NY, Yellow Zone (Bortl...
Re: Ah criminy. Not again - Which Mount? (<$2000) new [Re: chboss]
      #5476468 - 10/18/12 07:33 AM

I use the iEQ45 and love it. I have a bad back so weight is a concern and the iEQ45 is very easy to handle.

I too was familiar with the Celestron handset. While the iEQ45 is not quite as friendly as the Celestron, it is still pretty easy to use.

But ... I have to agree with Tim. If your deck is a wooden deck, imaging will be a serious problem. Way too flexible.

-Dan


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Phil Sherman
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 12/07/10

Loc: Cleveland, Ohio
Re: Ah criminy. Not again - Which Mount? (<$2000) new [Re: Midnight Dan]
      #5476589 - 10/18/12 09:30 AM

I'm a "portable setup" Atlas/Canon user and can offer the following thoughts for you:

1. You'll be using a computer for imaging so there's no reason not to use it to control the mount. This eliminates all differences between hand controllers.

2. Your deck, if supported on posts, isn't the ideal base for an imaging scope but will definitely work better if you run the scope and camera(s) from inside the house. Vibration dampening pads under the tripod legs can also help here. A deck that's on top of part of the house (ie the garage) will probably have vibrations from people moving around inside the house.

3. EQMOD, a fabulous tool for running an Atlas mount, has an unbelievably accurate pointing mechanism that works best with a permanently mounted scope. If you're setting up every evening, then you'll need to build a new pointing model every night. I usually build mine as I image, with only two or three initial alignment stars. EQMOD's polar alignment routine, combined with the Atlas polarscope, should give you a good enough polar alignment that your guide scope and camera will easily give you 3+ minute exposures with the Canon camera. I'd expect that your light pollution will limit you to shorter exposures than that.

4. If you're not using your deck for other things, you could consider a simple waterproof cover for the mount and tripod and occasionally leave it out during the daytime. If you do this, you'll need a way to attach the tripod to the deck to prevent its being blown over in a high wind. I have a dark site in SW New Mexico and cover my scope this way when I'm there for a week or so.

The Ioptron mount is quite a bit lighter than the Atlas. Its high weight limit is most likely a visual use limit. The Atlas, also known as an EQ6, has a number of weight limits depending on who is selling it. Orion's 40lb is at the lower end of the weights. The general weight rule for imaging with these mounts is to image at not more than 50% of the mount's maximum limit. In all cases, good balancing of the mount is critical to obtaining good images.

The Ioptron is still a relatively new mount, only a few years old. The Atlas has been around for a much longer time and there's been a lot more time to get its kinks worked out.

I suspect that whichever mount you get, you'll have a learning curve to climb before you become somewhat happy with it. Like many things, you'll always suspect that the grass was greener on the other side of the hill and you should have gone there first.

Phil


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jsines
sage
*****

Reged: 09/06/11

Loc: Berkley. Michigan
Re: Ah criminy. Not again - Which Mount? (<$2000) new [Re: Phil Sherman]
      #5477212 - 10/18/12 03:19 PM

I just upgraded from an EQ-3 with RA motor. I narrowed my options down to the Atlas, the Sirius, and the iEQ45. I went with the Sirius because the iEQ45 hasn't been out as long, the Sirius has the same internals as the Atlas, and I am transporting the mount inside/outside each night I image. I'm imaging with an ED80T and a Canon 1000D, and even if I move up to a 100mm+ refractor, the weight won't be an issue (guided/unguided).

I'm very happy with my Sirius so far, and it runs great. Of course, I'd probably be saying the same thing about anything higher than an EQ3.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
oo_void
professor emeritus


Reged: 11/13/09

Loc: San Francisco, CA
Re: Ah criminy. Not again - Which Mount? (<$2000) new [Re: jsines]
      #5478574 - 10/19/12 10:52 AM

Either an Atlas or CGEM would be a good choice. It's more of a SyncScan vs. Nexstar decision; What's your patience with technology?

SyncScan lacks some of Nexstar's cooler features. As Patrick pointed out, what really makes the Atlas shine and closes that functional gap is EQMod, but that means you almost always have a computer dependency. Sometimes though, it's just nice to go out without the computer and simply enjoy the views. With a CGEM you have the option to go simple and just rely on the hand controller, or full blown computer aided with gamepad, etc.

Edit: One more thing, since you're in San Jose you have the option of buying your mount at either the Orion shop in Cupertino, or Scope City in San Francisco. Mounts in this class are still mass produced. Most are great, but there are always a few that slip through the QC cracks. Buying through traditional retail will make dealing with any returns / replacements much easier should any issues arise.

Edited by oo_void (10/19/12 11:03 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rmollise
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 07/06/07

Re: Ah criminy. Not again - Which Mount? (<$2000) new [Re: oo_void]
      #5478834 - 10/19/12 01:27 PM

Well, lots of folks put down the poor old SynScan HC. But it does very well on those very things, casual viewing with no fuss and muss. With a middling good polar alignment, and a 3-star in the HC it will put anything in the C8 from horizon to horizon.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Raginar
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 10/19/10

Loc: Rapid CIty, SD
Re: Ah criminy. Not again - Which Mount? (<$2000) new [Re: rmollise]
      #5478894 - 10/19/12 02:07 PM

Find an old GM-8 or a non-GOTO G-11.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rmollise
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 07/06/07

Re: Ah criminy. Not again - Which Mount? (<$2000) new [Re: Raginar]
      #5478904 - 10/19/12 02:10 PM

Well, with an old GM8 or G11 non-go-to, you don't have go-to, which is a downer for most folks these days.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
BWAZ
Pooh-Bah
*****

Reged: 11/21/05

Loc: CA
Re: Ah criminy. Not again - Which Mount? (<$2000) new [Re: rmollise]
      #5478967 - 10/19/12 02:52 PM

Wait for the new AZEQ6, a better mount than either the Orion Altas (NEQ6) or CGEM.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rmollise
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 07/06/07

Re: Ah criminy. Not again - Which Mount? (<$2000) new [Re: BWAZ]
      #5479267 - 10/19/12 06:31 PM

MAYBE it will be a better mount. I assume you have not used one yet...and have not talked to anyone who has...I certainly have not.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
BWAZ
Pooh-Bah
*****

Reged: 11/21/05

Loc: CA
Re: Ah criminy. Not again - Which Mount? (<$2000) new [Re: rmollise]
      #5479386 - 10/19/12 07:48 PM

Quote:

MAYBE it will be a better mount. I assume you have not used one yet...and have not talked to anyone who has...I certainly have not.




Actually, I've talked to a buddy who has used the mount, take a look: new AZEQ6


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rigel123
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 06/29/09

Loc: SW Ohio
Re: Ah criminy. Not again - Which Mount? (<$2000) new [Re: rmollise]
      #5479518 - 10/19/12 09:25 PM

Quote:

Well, lots of folks put down the poor old SynScan HC. But it does very well on those very things, casual viewing with no fuss and muss. With a middling good polar alignment, and a 3-star in the HC it will put anything in the C8 from horizon to horizon.




I've never used anything but the Synscan HC and I have no issues finding whatever I want to image. I do a 3 star alignment after doing my PA with the PA scope (pretty much what Rod describes) and the Atlas nails anything I tell it to point to. One night earlier this year I decided to have fun and just used the Night Sky Tour and did some quick shots of 14 different DSO's from one side of the Meridian to the other. Each one was placed right where I needed it. I've never tried EQMOD but can't imagine it pointing any better than what I get just using the HC. I'm sure it's a great program, I simply don't need it.

Just for fun, here was that 14 DSO evening.



Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Raginar
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 10/19/10

Loc: Rapid CIty, SD
Re: Ah criminy. Not again - Which Mount? (<$2000) new [Re: rmollise]
      #5479958 - 10/20/12 06:46 AM

Quote:

Well, with an old GM8 or G11 non-go-to, you don't have go-to, which is a downer for most folks these days.




Funny Rod I guess I just had buyer's remorse and think I should've bought a more-quality mount from the get-go. Not that I didn't appreciate my CGEM for what it was good at.

Want to image? Go big


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rmollise
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 07/06/07

Re: Ah criminy. Not again - Which Mount? (<$2000) new [Re: BWAZ]
      #5480103 - 10/20/12 09:59 AM

Quote:

Quote:

MAYBE it will be a better mount. I assume you have not used one yet...and have not talked to anyone who has...I certainly have not.




Actually, I've talked to a buddy who has used the mount, take a look: new AZEQ6




IF his experience is going to be typical, it will indeed be what I've hoped for.

From the pictures and the graph, anyhow. Hard to tell much from the text, which appears to be a cotton-picking Google translation.

Edited by rmollise (10/20/12 10:00 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rmollise
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 07/06/07

Re: Ah criminy. Not again - Which Mount? (<$2000) new [Re: Raginar]
      #5480108 - 10/20/12 10:04 AM

Quote:

Quote:

Well, with an old GM8 or G11 non-go-to, you don't have go-to, which is a downer for most folks these days.




Funny Rod I guess I just had buyer's remorse and think I should've bought a more-quality mount from the get-go. Not that I didn't appreciate my CGEM for what it was good at.

Want to image? Go big




Or not. PLENTY of people are doing excellent work without going big (and expensive and heavy). The CGEM can take good pictures. So can the Atlas. Hell, so can the CG5. You get a somewhat jaundiced view reading the posts on these boards...what STILL matters most is the man or woman behind the camera, not the cost or pedigree of the dadgum mount.

As for go-to? One of the best astrophotography aids to ever come down the pike. I'd never buy a mount without go-to nor would I advise anyone else to do so, whether for imaging or visual use.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
EFT
Vendor - Deep Space Products
*****

Reged: 05/07/07

Loc: Phoenix, AZ
Re: Ah criminy. Not again - Which Mount? (<$2000) new [Re: BWAZ]
      #5480228 - 10/20/12 11:38 AM

Quote:

Wait for the new AZEQ6, a better mount than either the Orion Altas (NEQ6) or CGEM.




I'm not sure why you would think this when all it will be is an EQ6 with a different base and a slightly modified motor housing. It is obvious from the pictures that none of the fundemental components (like worms and ring gears) will be changed. In addition, they have gone to the network style plug for the hand controller that everyone hates on the Celestron mounts. All the AZEQ6 will be is an Atlas/NEQ6 with an Alt/Az configuration available. That doesn't make it better than the CGEM/Atlas, just different.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
WarmWeatherGuy
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 08/27/11

Loc: Orlando, FL 28° N, 81° W
Re: Ah criminy. Not again - Which Mount? (<$2000) new [Re: EFT]
      #5480266 - 10/20/12 12:03 PM

It doesn't matter which mount you get. Due to the light pollution you won't be getting any pictures you like. This is something you learn after you get the mount and start taking pictures, or you SHOULD learn by advice from Cloudy Nights members. I'm surprised nobody had mentioned this yet.

If you're not willing or able to drive to a dark site then save yourself the grief and money and get a much cheaper mount.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
gillmj24
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 12/06/05

Loc: PA
Re: Ah criminy. Not again - Which Mount? (<$2000) new [Re: WarmWeatherGuy]
      #5480272 - 10/20/12 12:05 PM

No you can do long exposure narrowvand photography in a full moon let alone light polluted skies. You'll need longer exposures and a mount that can handle that.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
orlyandico
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 08/10/09

Loc: Singapore
Re: Ah criminy. Not again - Which Mount? (<$2000) new [Re: WarmWeatherGuy]
      #5480367 - 10/20/12 01:07 PM

Agreed. So long as it's clear (which where I am, its not) aggressive filtering will let you pull in a lot of emission nebulae even with massive light pollution.

Prepare for REALLY LONG exposures though (20 minute subs should be a minimum, and you'd need lots of them). Or get a really fast optical tube like a hyperstar or powernewt.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Namlak
member


Reged: 06/14/12

Loc: Northridge, CA
Re: Ah criminy. Not again - Which Mount? (<$2000) new [Re: rmollise]
      #5480719 - 10/20/12 05:24 PM

Quote:

Hard to tell much from the text, which appears to be a cotton-picking Google translation.




Odd, Google Translate works wonders when I use it to read your blog!

(Love the blog, BTW)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rmollise
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 07/06/07

Re: Ah criminy. Not again - Which Mount? (<$2000) new [Re: WarmWeatherGuy]
      #5480767 - 10/20/12 06:03 PM

Not strictly true. Bob Gendler has taken blow-you-away images from his less than perfect driveway. Not that all of us or any of us are going to approach his work, but it is possible to get good results from imperfect locales.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
pfile
Post Laureate


Reged: 06/14/09

Re: Ah criminy. Not again - Which Mount? (<$2000) new [Re: rmollise]
      #5481231 - 10/21/12 12:20 AM

yeah - i live in oakland and the LP here is horrendous. maybe i am a glutton for punishment but i have no problem going up to 8, 10, 12 hours, both RGB and narrowband, and i'm pretty happy with my images.

i know i could do much better in a much shorter amount of time if i went to a dark site, but i'm still enjoying AP here in the soup.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
BWAZ
Pooh-Bah
*****

Reged: 11/21/05

Loc: CA
Re: Ah criminy. Not again - Which Mount? (<$2000) new [Re: EFT]
      #5481326 - 10/21/12 02:15 AM

Quote:

Quote:

Wait for the new AZEQ6, a better mount than either the Orion Altas (NEQ6) or CGEM.




I'm not sure why you would think this when all it will be is an EQ6 with a different base and a slightly modified motor housing. It is obvious from the pictures that none of the fundemental components (like worms and ring gears) will be changed. In addition, they have gone to the network style plug for the hand controller that everyone hates on the Celestron mounts. All the AZEQ6 will be is an Atlas/NEQ6 with an Alt/Az configuration available. That doesn't make it better than the CGEM/Atlas, just different.




I suppose at least lighter weight and more capacity can be classified as "better".


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rmollise
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 07/06/07

Re: Ah criminy. Not again - Which Mount? (<$2000) new [Re: BWAZ]
      #5481638 - 10/21/12 09:49 AM

I would say so. I am all for "lighter weight" as compared to the Atlas.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
EFT
Vendor - Deep Space Products
*****

Reged: 05/07/07

Loc: Phoenix, AZ
Re: Ah criminy. Not again - Which Mount? (<$2000) new [Re: BWAZ]
      #5481789 - 10/21/12 11:34 AM

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Wait for the new AZEQ6, a better mount than either the Orion Altas (NEQ6) or CGEM.




I'm not sure why you would think this when all it will be is an EQ6 with a different base and a slightly modified motor housing. It is obvious from the pictures that none of the fundemental components (like worms and ring gears) will be changed. In addition, they have gone to the network style plug for the hand controller that everyone hates on the Celestron mounts. All the AZEQ6 will be is an Atlas/NEQ6 with an Alt/Az configuration available. That doesn't make it better than the CGEM/Atlas, just different.




I suppose at least lighter weight and more capacity can be classified as "better".




I think that we all know about the wieght capacities specified for mounts by certain manufacturers. I see nothing in that mount that would suggest that it should carry more than a standard Atlas. In fact, the more open and taller base of the mount might suggest a lower capacity. The only visible improvemet in that regard is an improved counterwieght bar, but that only makes it equal to the CGEM in that regard.

I haven't seen anything to suggest that it is lighter than the Atlas/CGEM even though they have clearly trimmed some of the metal off of the motor housing and base (the motor housing is phyically smaller and the solid metal sides have been replaced with thin metal plates). The wieght I see listed is 20kg (44lbs).

Will this be a nice mount? Probably, if you feel the need for Alt/Az. Will it be a miracle? No. Would I be a first adopter for AP use? No. If I'm really wanting a larger capacity convertable Alt/Az mount for visual use, then I would wait for this one.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Starhawk
Space Ranger
*****

Reged: 09/16/08

Loc: Tucson, Arizona
Re: Ah criminy. Not again - Which Mount? (<$2000) new [Re: EFT]
      #5481794 - 10/21/12 11:37 AM

I've found the CGEM to be very willing, easy to set up and use, and just flat-out capable. You may find it needs a small amount of drive adjustment, but there are folks who can help.

-Rich


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
orlyandico
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 08/10/09

Loc: Singapore
Re: Ah criminy. Not again - Which Mount? (<$2000) new [Re: Starhawk]
      #5482069 - 10/21/12 02:46 PM

I've had my CGEM for two years.. and it never behaved properly. Only today (when I was testing it because I was going to sell it) did I finally find what was wrong with it - the encoders were not correctly spaced, causing it to lose ticks.

I notice that one of the things Ed does as part of his hypertune service is check this very thing. I had hauled this CGEM hundreds of miles (twice!) only to have to screw up in the field. If I had known this fix sooner...

My point just is, these things happen. Maybe they are rare, but they do happen. Arguably the Atlas is less prone to these problems because it has no encoders. But CGEM or Atlas, Ed's service seems well worth considering. You could come in at $2000 (ish) with a CGEM or Atlas and send it straight to Ed. Avoid hair loss experiences like mine..


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Starhawk
Space Ranger
*****

Reged: 09/16/08

Loc: Tucson, Arizona
Re: Ah criminy. Not again - Which Mount? (<$2000) new [Re: orlyandico]
      #5482453 - 10/21/12 06:11 PM

If you get a happy CGEM, the 2 + 4 aligned GOTOs are scary accurate (like, leave the 3mm eyepiece in and keep going.

And let's face it, Ed isn't hiding; he stands front and center behind his work.

-Rich


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
FaronD
sage


Reged: 03/25/10

Loc: Richmond Hill, Ontario
Re: Ah criminy. Not again - Which Mount? (<$2000) new [Re: blave]
      #5484033 - 10/22/12 05:19 PM

Hi Dave, I can't comment on the other two mounts you mentioned but I can comment on the EQ6/Atlas. Based on my experience as an imager, the EQ6 is a very capable mount. It is a heavy mount, relatively speaking, I guess it really depends on the individual. For me it isn't that heavy, unless of course you try to move the mount with the tripod and counterweights. The EQ6 has earned it's place in the below 2000.00 mounts for the imaging crowd. The support from users is fantastic as well.
I'm not sure if you plan to use a PC for direct storage and mount control or not. Contrary to what Patrick says, EQmod is quite simple actually. Once you get used to the interface, the involvement of EQmod is merely seconds. Trust me, using a planetarium program is better than any hand controller out there. The EQ6 generally works right out of the box.

If you want to use the hand controller only, the Celestron is a slightly better than the EQ6. I had a CPC1100 once so I have experience with the software. Prior to the CPC1100, I had an Meade LX200 gps. The meade software blows the Celestron away in terms of tours both built in and custom user tours available on many groups.

Back on track, you say you're going to be imaging on an upstairs deck?? That deck better had be solid. If it isn't, then the results will be the same from any mount.

Faron

Edited by FaronD (10/22/12 05:29 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JoLo
sage


Reged: 02/09/10

Loc: Highland, IL
Re: Ah criminy. Not again - Which Mount? (<$2000) new [Re: WarmWeatherGuy]
      #5485566 - 10/23/12 04:11 PM

Atlas w/ EQMOD, you will never look back. When i don't want to hassle with the computer (rare) I still use the HC, best of both worlds.

With filters and growing expertise with imaging software, LP is not the issue Mr. Warmweatherguy is making it out to be. Is it a challenge? Yes. Does it require patience? Yes. Can you get great images from light polluted suburbs? Most definitely.

As far as the go big comment is concerned, many of us out here do just fine without a Planewave CDK on a gigantor mount; we also have money left in the bank and our backs aren't sore....


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
blave
member
*****

Reged: 08/11/09

Re: Ah criminy. Not again - Which Mount? (<$2000) new [Re: WarmWeatherGuy]
      #5486316 - 10/24/12 12:26 AM

Folks,

Thanks for all of the replies! Firstly, the only non-goto scope I'll ever deal with again is my Questar 3.5.

re: deck - it's not really a deck (although I think of it as such), it's a well-supported, solid roof (that once held a hot tub) with some of those interlocking square wood things thrown down over the roof sheeting. I've imaged some brighter objects (M42, M81, M82, Saturn, Jupe) with pretty good results for a beginner -- through a 66mm scope on the CG5GT. Example: http://blave.smugmug.com/Photography/Astrophotography/Deep-Sky/i-M5NzbFH/0/M/Neb-Sunday-cropped-to-M42-PS-M.jpg. That's a total of 240 seconds of OSC exposure, which I was happy with at the time. Yup, there's some noise etc. etc. but the point is I got some imaging done, from the roof, with a teeny scope and average mount. I do plan to occasionally drive everything 40 miles south of there for some darker skies, but I'll at least be trying to re-do some of the brigter objects from here.

re: new "AZ" mount -- I'll never buy a brand new model. I was on a waiting list for the Meade LX80 and thank my lucky nebulae that I cancelled the order before it came out. The Ioptron seems to have enough history to be "reasonably good" now, not accounting for the occasional lemon from the slave camps in China.

Re: scope/mount cover -- I have one; it's a nice one (forget the brand) that is intended for extended use. I had it over the CG-5 and ED80 for probably two months and only had a couple of hex screws get a little rusty. It's nice to not have to re-align every night! I would get a Pod dome, if the wife would let me (nope).

Summary: at this point the IEQ45 is still at the top of my list. For a long time I thought I wanted a CGEM but from what I've read the build quality/useability of any one example is all over the map, and the Ioptron seems to get better marks overall.

Again, thanks for taking the time to respond. I love CN!

best,

Dave.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
orlyandico
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 08/10/09

Loc: Singapore
Re: Ah criminy. Not again - Which Mount? (<$2000) new [Re: blave]
      #5486375 - 10/24/12 01:42 AM

I just got my CGEM working reliably, and it's great.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Phil Wheeler
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 12/31/05

Loc: 3 miles WNW of Celestron
Re: Ah criminy. Not again - Which Mount? (<$2000) new [Re: rmollise]
      #5487572 - 10/24/12 08:07 PM

Quote:

Or not. PLENTY of people are doing excellent work without going big (and expensive and heavy). The CGEM can take good pictures. So can the Atlas. Hell, so can the CG5. You get a somewhat jaundiced view reading the posts on these boards...what STILL matters most is the man or woman behind the camera, not the cost or pedigree of the dadgum mount.

As for go-to? One of the best astrophotography aids to ever come down the pike. I'd never buy a mount without go-to nor would I advise anyone else to do so, whether for imaging or visual use.




Glad to hear you say some good things about the CG5, Rod. Mine arrived from OPT down the road a piece yesterday. Looks really nice. Hope to have it probing my LP-rich skies next week. Neat thing about GoTo is it can find those faint fuzzies -- which are even fainter, but still findable in many cases, even with LP. That is if go-to works. I had one go-to I started calling the "Went-Where?" mount, because it never got it right.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | (show all)


Extra information
11 registered and 26 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Dave M, richard7, bilgebay, iceblaze 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 2917

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics