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)
aa6ww
scholastic sledgehammer
*****

Reged: 10/23/11

Loc: Sacramento, Calif.
Celestron CG5 Computerized honest weight capacity?
      #6442299 - 04/01/14 08:12 PM

Is anyone out here experiences with the new Celestron CG-5 Advanced Series Computerized Equatorial Mount - 91518

I've had a GP-DX for ages, and was thinking on getting a small computerized mount for my small scopes like my TSA-102, my Celestron Omni 150R F/5 and my C8 SE OTA.

Of these 3 scopes, both refractors are rock solid on my Vixen GP-DX at any magnification, but my C8 has some settling time.

The Celestron CG5 Advanced Series Computerized Equatorial Mount - 91518

https://www.highpointscientific.com/index.php/celestron-cg5-advanced-series-c...

claims a crazy high weight limit of 35 pounds, which seems like quite a bit for a CG-5, and my Vixen GP-DX claims 22 pounds for its weight limit. I remember years ago my friends C6R had no problem on his Computerized CG-5 mount also.

My question is, is the new Celestron CG-5 really that much more robust than my GP-DX or is this just another marketing claim?

There's been more light polution in my back yard over the years, and a small GoTo mount seems like a nice way to keep observing some of the dimmer objects with out having to use a larger scope or go to a darker location.

Anyone have any thoughts or comments on the weight capacity of the new CG-5 Computerized mounts and their weight capacity claims?

Thanks in advanced for any information.

...Ralph in Sacramento


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
T1R2
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 06/11/13

Loc: NeverWhere, 35*N
Re: Celestron CG5 Computerized honest weight capacity? new [Re: aa6ww]
      #6442344 - 04/01/14 08:42 PM

well the GPDX is slightly larger than the SP, so if the CG5 is along the lines of the SP then that could account for the weight capacity difference but I think 15-20# would be a better measure, most manufactures over rate their mounts

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mclewis1
Thread Killer
*****

Reged: 02/25/06

Loc: New Brunswick, Canada
Re: Celestron CG5 Computerized honest weight capacity? new [Re: T1R2]
      #6442386 - 04/01/14 09:08 PM

The published capacity is accurate for visual work ... if you are careful. The tripod under the ASGT mount is a heavy 2" steel tubed model, effectively the same as what is used under the heavier CGEM mount.

There are plenty of examples of folks running 30lb setups (C11 etc.) on ASGT mounts. Some have problems with that type of setup, others do not. Large refractors are more likely to be a problem than large SCTs.

I have used a side by side C6/80mm refractor combination on my ASGT for many years for both visual and short exposure (under a minute) video observing. My setup is around 20lbs.

For more serious imaging I would want to keep the equipment weight under 20lbs, but for visual (and video observing) the mount can comfortably handle another 10lbs or so.

If you are going to use 30+lbs on an ASGT you'll need 3 counterweights (it's not a good idea to use 2 counterweights and extend the existing small diameter CW bar), a good solid 12v power source (2+ amps), and be able to accurately balance the whole setup.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
RTLR 12
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 12/04/08

Loc: The Great Pacific NorthWest
Re: Celestron CG5 Computerized honest weight capacity? new [Re: T1R2]
      #6442391 - 04/01/14 09:12 PM Attachment (16 downloads)

I have CG-5s and run up to 30+ lbs on them without any problems at all. The mount handles the weight and the GoTo and Tracking are perfect. I have also done long exposure AP with the mount loaded to almost full capacity and I have had good success doing so.

I mount my WO FLT132 APO that weighs in at 26.5 lbs mounted amnd I mount my C8 with my Onyx 80 EDF stacked on top with 2 cameras and AP equipment.

Stan


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
RTLR 12
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 12/04/08

Loc: The Great Pacific NorthWest
Re: Celestron CG5 Computerized honest weight capacity? new [Re: RTLR 12]
      #6442397 - 04/01/14 09:13 PM Attachment (14 downloads)

The C8 and Onyx

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
T1R2
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 06/11/13

Loc: NeverWhere, 35*N
Re: Celestron CG5 Computerized honest weight capacity? new [Re: RTLR 12]
      #6442476 - 04/01/14 09:51 PM

I'm perfectly aware that a C8 will ride on a CG5, and without looking at the weight of the C8 or the 150, I figured 15-20# is good since he's only putting those scopes on it, and a C8 weights 12.5#, even with a 80mm guide scope its only around 20#

apparently I only thought I typed "all your scopes will work on a CG5" but I only thought I did. I have a bad habit on thinking it without actually typing it.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
RTLR 12
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 12/04/08

Loc: The Great Pacific NorthWest
Re: Celestron CG5 Computerized honest weight capacity? new [Re: T1R2]
      #6442566 - 04/01/14 10:29 PM

My C8 plus the Onyx 80 EDF, dovetail, mounting rings, finder, cameras, filter wheel, barlow, extension/adapter et al, weighs in at just over 30 lbs.

Obviously the 20 lb load on your CG-5 with C8 and 80mm guide scope was lighter than mine.

Stan


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
tjugo
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 11/06/07

Re: Celestron CG5 Computerized honest weight capacity? new [Re: RTLR 12]
      #6442614 - 04/01/14 11:00 PM

Hi,

The weight capacity depends on many factors. I had a friends who used to load his CG5 with a C11+WO66+DSLR+Guidecam, the mount worked and he was able to take 30s subs with good results (0 wind was a must).

For me, the CG5 was confortable with a C6 for visual. A C8 was OK, but little shaky when focusing. For AP it handles a WO90 + 50mm finder just fine.

Cheers,

Jose


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

Reged: 08/03/11

Loc: Western Oklahoma
Re: Celestron CG5 Computerized honest weight capacity? new [Re: tjugo]
      #6442661 - 04/01/14 11:33 PM

I regulary put my 10 inch reflector on my CG5 mount. It is really steady and perfectly balanced when I do it. When slewing it sounds exactly the same as it does when it is carrying my little 80mm refractor and only one weight. My avatar came from that 10 inch setup. I love my mighty CG5.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jrcrillyAdministrator
Refractor wienie no more
*****

Reged: 04/30/03

Loc: NE Ohio
Re: Celestron CG5 Computerized honest weight capacity? new [Re: oldstargazer]
      #6442674 - 04/01/14 11:42 PM

I've owned a couple of CG5-GT mounts and they are a very good vcalue. I've also owned a couple of GPDX mounts (and still have one) and I don't think anyone could go from the GPDX to a CG5-GT without being disappointed. If your GPDX isn't stable with your C8 and accessories I'd blame the tripod rather than the mount (loose leg hardware, perhaps?). At one point I was using a GPDX on a CG5-GT tripod to carry my FS-128 and that was rock solid but I got tired of dragging that heavy tripod around. I'm using an upgrade wood tripod now and I'm very happy.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
T1R2
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 06/11/13

Loc: NeverWhere, 35*N
Re: Celestron CG5 Computerized honest weight capacity? new [Re: oldstargazer]
      #6442675 - 04/01/14 11:42 PM

yeah, but can you put you're eye on the ep at 200x and look at Jupiter, without it bouncing all over the place?

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

Reged: 08/03/11

Loc: Western Oklahoma
Re: Celestron CG5 Computerized honest weight capacity? new [Re: T1R2]
      #6442725 - 04/02/14 12:14 AM

I never put my eye on an ep no matter what scope it is in. Been observing for over 50 years and never put my eye on an ep.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
aa6ww
scholastic sledgehammer
*****

Reged: 10/23/11

Loc: Sacramento, Calif.
Re: Celestron CG5 Computerized honest weight capacity? new [Re: tjugo]
      #6442989 - 04/02/14 07:09 AM

Excellent response Jose,

I find the same issue with my GP-DX. with a C6, its rock solid, and with the C8, it has a slight dampening time when focusing. Its very slight but its nevertheless, still there and unacceptable.

My friends GM-8 holds my C8 like my Vixen holds my C6.

Its my other consideration. A mount that isnt 100% rock solid is annoying to me. Ive used my G11 for my C8, just for that reason, but am considering something lighter now.

I may look into a GM-8 now. Thanks again for your input and thank you also for everyone's comments.

... Ralph

Quote:

Hi,

The weight capacity depends on many factors. I had a friends who used to load his CG5 with a C11+WO66+DSLR+Guidecam, the mount worked and he was able to take 30s subs with good results (0 wind was a must).

For me, the CG5 was confortable with a C6 for visual. A C8 was OK, but little shaky when focusing. For AP it handles a WO90 + 50mm finder just fine.

Cheers,

Jose




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

Reged: 02/01/06

Re: Celestron CG5 Computerized honest weight capacity? new [Re: aa6ww]
      #6443128 - 04/02/14 09:20 AM

Who knows what "Honest" means.

People on CN have reported good results while overloading about any mount ever made, so your mileage will vary.

But the primary difference between your mount and the CG5 is the tripod.

Even the HAL 110 or HAL 130 (much less the AL 110 and AL 130) is not nearly as stiff as the current large diameter steel tripod legs on the later CG5s.

These were for a while sold with C11s!!!!

Anyway, the tripod on the HAL 130 is not as roubust, and the plastic spreadry assembly is likely the fault point. so the Vixens have always probably been conservative based on the weakest point, which is the tripod sperader.

The CG5 does not depend on the spreader for any mechanical strength. The spreader is only there for anti-vibration, while in the Vixen HAL 110, it is absolutly structural.

No question though, the CG5 can handle more weight than even the GP-DX. But it is the tripod that seperates them.


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

Reged: 11/17/05

Loc: Manhattan
Re: Celestron CG5 Computerized honest weight capacity? new [Re: Eddgie]
      #6443162 - 04/02/14 09:42 AM

I feel that when I have my C9.25 mounted up I am at the limit. And that is just visual.

Al


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

Reged: 07/06/07

Re: Celestron CG5 Computerized honest weight capacity? new [Re: aa6ww]
      #6443291 - 04/02/14 10:51 AM

Quote:

Is anyone out here experiences with the new Celestron CG-5 Advanced Series Computerized Equatorial Mount - 91518






It's not new. As a matter of fact, it's been replaced by the Celestron VX mount.

Anyhow...

For imaging a C8 is the max. A smaller aperture refractor or Newtonian may be too much because of the longer tube.

For visual, a C11 works fine.



Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
aa6ww
scholastic sledgehammer
*****

Reged: 10/23/11

Loc: Sacramento, Calif.
Re: Celestron CG5 Computerized honest weight capacity? new [Re: rmollise]
      #6443474 - 04/02/14 12:43 PM

The VX looks nice. They list the weight capacity at 30 pounds which seems more realistic than the 35 pounds of the CG5 Ive been talking about.
This is good information, thank you.

...Ralph

Quote:

Quote:

Is anyone out here experiences with the new Celestron CG-5 Advanced Series Computerized Equatorial Mount - 91518






It's not new. As a matter of fact, it's been replaced by the Celestron VX mount.

Anyhow...

For imaging a C8 is the max. A smaller aperture refractor or Newtonian may be too much because of the longer tube.

For visual, a C11 works fine.






Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
T1R2
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 06/11/13

Loc: NeverWhere, 35*N
Re: Celestron CG5 Computerized honest weight capacity? new [Re: aa6ww]
      #6443876 - 04/02/14 04:48 PM

here is the problem Ralph, as soon as you posted this all the AP'ers showed their rigs, but the fact is visual requirements of the mount are much more stringent than for ap I'll explain: you can load a mount to the max with guide scopes, filter wheels and other what nots, and as long as its balanced, you'll get results. after all your not touching the scope at all, your mount is acquiring the object and your setting at the computer ripping off frames, the only thing they pray about is that a 5mph breeze doesn't come up.

who is the person that said its ok to overload, because "Its for visual only." and its ok for the mount to bounce??? that's Hogwash,

see if you eye is on the ep, most people the side of their nose or the orbital bone underneath the eye lightly touches the ep when viewing, that will bounce the image all over the place with every breath or turn of the focuser, in fact most that say its ok for visual have already learned to raise their eye off the ep so it wont bounce, that's not always an option if you wear eyeglasses and have limited ER.

viewing like this might work for low power, but replace that camera on that 10" reflector and jack it up to 250x, or that CR6 and it will be an exercise in frustration

visual and AP are 2 different beasts, with visual being the most demanding....after all who wants to look through a bouncing telescope and try to pick out features on Jupiter?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Mike X.
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 06/28/10

Loc: Greece-Athens and Rome-Italy
Re: Celestron CG5 Computerized honest weight capacity? new [Re: T1R2]
      #6443909 - 04/02/14 05:06 PM

Here are my 2 cents for hat they worth.
I guess much depends also from the FL that we intend to use with a mount so we can say if it's ok or not for a certain load...plus the different need every user has...

I used and still use a CG5 fot AP.

Load it with 35lbs for that use is...just too much.The mount it won't break but i think is counter productive.

The maximum load which i managed to do AP in a productive way in absence of wind is around 10kgs 25-26lbs (CW non included) and with short OTAs. 80mm for AP and C6 for guiding and vice versa.

Though..the best results i got them around 7-8 kgs. 80mm ED+102/660 for guiding and a Canon.

Personally i preffer to stick at that weight.Not because the mount can't handle more but..because it is more problem free.

Hope i've been of help.

I

Edited by Mike X. (04/02/14 05:10 PM)


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

Reged: 05/16/03

Loc: Franklin, Ohio
Re: Celestron CG5 Computerized honest weight capacity? new [Re: aa6ww]
      #6444409 - 04/02/14 10:25 PM

Quote:

I find the same issue with my GP-DX. with a C6, its rock solid, and with the C8, it has a slight dampening time when focusing





Both the CG5 and the AVX carry a C8 like it was made for one...hmmm, maybe it was. Rock solid.

I'm a little surprised about the GP-DX capacity but I haven't used one...

Patrick


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

Reged: 08/10/09

Loc: Singapore
Re: Celestron CG5 Computerized honest weight capacity? new [Re: Patrick]
      #6444472 - 04/02/14 11:21 PM

The GPDX is much more robust than the GP clones like the CG5. I bet with the CG5 2" tripod or say a Berlebach Uni it would blow away the CG5 in the stability department.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jrcrillyAdministrator
Refractor wienie no more
*****

Reged: 04/30/03

Loc: NE Ohio
Re: Celestron CG5 Computerized honest weight capacity? new [Re: orlyandico]
      #6444481 - 04/02/14 11:29 PM

Quote:

The GPDX is much more robust than the GP clones like the CG5. I bet with the CG5 2" tripod or say a Berlebach Uni it would blow away the CG5 in the stability department.




That was my experience. The GPDX is much more expensive and, since the SS2K was discontinued, lacks a goto system with a familiar user interface. I think that for these reasons sales have dropped and most folks just haven't seen or used one so they presume a greater similarity than is there. What there is is only skin deep.


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


Extra information
26 registered and 33 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Dave M, richard7, bilgebay 

Print Thread

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


Thread views: 755

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics