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
David Pavlich
Postmaster
Reged: 05/18/05
Posts: 9705
Loc: Mandeville, LA USA 30.22 X 90....
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Unless you are unable to see Polaris, I don't understand why anyone makes a big deal about using a polar alignment scope. I can get very accurate polar alignments with the polar scope and reticle in 5 minutes. It is a simple, straight-forward procedure.
Daryl
I think the reasons are:
1) you don't have to buy a polar scope and can save some money.
2) it's much much easier to use the Celestron routine than the scope (and you don't need to see polaris)
What Phil said. It's so easy to use the included PA routine that the polar scope becomes redundant. Save your money.
David
--------------------
Proud Member; PAS NOLA,
"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research..."
A. Einstein
|
lineman_16735
Tak-o-holic
Reged: 12/04/04
Posts: 2754
Loc: Central PA
|
|
I agree I don't have a polar scope for my AP 900 I just drift align. When I had a G-11 I had a polar scope but it was only accurate to about 10 arcminutes. I know I could have shimmed it to make it better but why bother when drift alignment is so easy especially with software assistance from programs such as Pempro?
--------------------
Chris
Takahashi 7x50 finder
8300 chip
Astro Physics 900 GTO CP3
Astrodon Filters & Takometer
www.thegeekshed.com
|
Arbacia
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 04/18/07
Posts: 788
Loc: Madrid, Spain
|
|
My observation colleague has a G11 gemini, I own a CGE. He express some sort of admiration for my CGE as I do the same for his G11.
My impression is that both are extrematelly similar each other, but each one has peculiarities in the design and use the other has not in the same way.
Nobody mention the noise of the motors, lower and smoother in CGE as they are enclosed in the chasis.
Patricio
--------------------
LightBridge 12", 70´s C8, C11. CGE. ETX125
Set of Takahashi LE EPs; Ethos; DMK 31AF03.AS
CN image gallery
http://www.astrohenares.org
http://www.asociacionhubble.org
|
skybsd
professor emeritus
Reged: 02/01/08
Posts: 712
|
|
Hi David,
I think that if you take a simple straw poll of those that fall into the "Why bother with a polar scope?" category, you'd find that its more than likely that they are are also comprised of folks that have their mounts permanently mounted to begin with,
Its very easy to dispense with a function if its not a feature you neither need (due to permanent mounting) regularly, nor a is a gating prerequisite to your objective (photography) as performing a drift alignment may be.
In my case, my G-11 Gemini was always intended to also be my grab 'n go mount, so the polar alignment scope to me is a hard requirement for my visual, gawking sessions.
Regards,
skybsd
|
jrcrilly
Refractor wienie no more
Reged: 04/30/03
Posts: 25880
Loc: NE Ohio
|
|
Quote:
Hi David,
I think that if you take a simple straw poll of those that fall into the "Why bother with a polar scope?" category, you'd find that its more than likely that they are are also comprised of folks that have their mounts permanently mounted to begin with,
I think that it's more of a generation gap. Folks who grew up knowing that a PAS was the only way to do it use 'em and don't explore alternatives. With easy alternatives built into so many controllers these days, folks who never got into the habit of using polar alignment scopes just naturally acquire the habit of the more modern methods.
My grab'n'go mount is a Vixen GP/DX with its very nice PAS but it's easier to use the SS2K. In the observatory I have a Tak with an even better PAS (probably about as good as they get) but it was easier to use PolarAlignMax when I installed it.
--------------------
John C
Urban Observatory
A&M/Astreya 76mm F/6 APO
Meade 80mm F/6 APO
TMB/LOMO 80mm F/7.5 APO
Meade 152ED, 178ED F/9 "APO"
Meade 12" SCT
Teeter 20" F/3.8 truss Newt w/ServoCat
NJP, LXD700, CGE, GPDX/SS2KPC
ST-10XME, DSI Pro
|
Luigi
Postmaster
Reged: 07/03/07
Posts: 5272
Loc: MA
|
|
>>>"Why bother with a polar scope?" category, you'd find that its more than likely that they are are also comprised of folks that have their mounts permanently mounted to begin with,<<<
>>>Folks who grew up knowing that a PAS was the only way to do it use 'em and don't explore alternatives.<<<
Neither apply to me. I started before polar scopes were common and owned a non-Gemini G11 for 10+ years. For visual, I found (and still find) it easier to simply use a compass (allowing for magnetic dec) and setting latitude. This can be done without having Polaris visible and during day or dusk when setting up. For anything better, I'd add a quick drift align. It's only recently that I got a computerized mount (CG5) but I still prefer to star-hop and don't like bothering with doing star-alignments etc.. I just want it to track in RA. I'll do the polar alignment and locate the objects, thank you.
For imagers though, I can see where precise go-to and software assisted polar alignment (as in the Celestron) would be a real asset. It certainly works slick on my CG5 after I updated the MC and HC S/W to the latest versions from the Celestron website.
--------------------
17.5" f/5 Dob. IM-715 MCT. 120ED. Lunt 60mm Ha.
Zeiss, Leica, Fujinon, Nikon, Pentax, Bushnell bins
|
mish
super member
Reged: 02/10/09
Posts: 137
Loc: East Astronomics
|
|
Quote:
For visual, I found (and still find) it easier to simply use a compass (allowing for magnetic dec) and setting latitude. This can be done without having Polaris visible and during day or dusk when setting up. For anything better, I'd add a quick drift align.
This is exactly the approach I've taken for many years, too. But I picked up a box-stock G11 yesterday (sans Gemini), and added the polar alignment scope as an option to learn whether it could cut down the time spent drift aligning. I've never used a polar scope before, and what better way to learn than just to do the experiment?
I'd say this worked pretty well. The attached image is a reduced (compressed and resized) version of the first image taken with this mount, and it's a 3-minute unguided exposure of Vega taken immediately after my perfunctory attempt at a quick polar align via the G11 polar scope.
This is taken using an AT66 (fl=400mm) piggybacked on a C11, with 35 lbs of counterweights. The field curvature of the AT66 is obvious, but the stars are nice and round in the central (non-vignetted) region of the image.
Long unguided exposures with the C11 (fl=1800) showed some trailing, but given how quick-and-dirty the polar alignment was, I'd say that using the polar scope works remarkably well for unguided imaging, and should work really well with an autoguider.
|
AlanT
professor emeritus
Reged: 08/20/07
Posts: 502
Loc: 122º36' W, 47º37' N, WA USA
|
|
This thread is really shifting, but personally I like using a polar scope when setting up at remote sites. I have and have used the polar scope for my CGE and even though it mounts separately (and temporarily since I don't leave it on the mount) I found it to be pretty accurate. I also use one with my GM-8 and found it to be accurate.
When setting up to do AP I: level the tripod; set up & align the mount using the polar scope; on power up, do a drift align 1st thing (which goes quick since it's very close to begin with), then do a quick pointing alignment (sometimes just one star). This gets me a great polar alignment with no guesswork, and because the polar is great, a quick pointing alignment is plenty good enough for me to find my targets.
For just visual I'd do it differently since the polar alignment isn't as critical, and pointing alignment becomes more important as there's a lot more slewing around the sky to see various objects.
Just my 0.02
al
--------------------
al
Meade 80mm APO
Celestron 6" SCT
CGE, GM-8, & CG-5 GT
ST-2000xcm, DSI Pro II, DSI Pro
( www.alberts-astro.com/astro )
|
Phil Cowell
professor emeritus
Reged: 05/24/07
Posts: 520
Loc: Southern Tier NY
|
|
Quote:
I think that it's more of a generation gap. Folks who grew up knowing that a PAS was the only way to do it use 'em and don't explore alternatives. With easy alternatives built into so many controllers these days, folks who never got into the habit of using polar alignment scopes just naturally acquire the habit of the more modern methods.
It's an impact on comfort factor as well. Some like the way things were and don't like change. My guess is PA scopes will be around in 10 years time but newbies then will view them as relics and it'll be just the most stick in the mud old timers or the non goto folks using them.
--------------------
If it'll fit on a sig you don't have enough
|
Arbacia
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 04/18/07
Posts: 788
Loc: Madrid, Spain
|
|
Again I would like to have a PAS (why not? It should be nice to have another gatchet). However, in practice, I fount that is enough a raw initial alignment of about 10-12º away celestial pole as the 2+4 stars routine and the new Polar aligment of the Nexstar HC is really good. Of course, would be great to start with a few seconds away polar star and a sharp coordinates (with referential GPS) and time (atomic clock) but is not necesary for a good use of the telescope.
--------------------
LightBridge 12", 70´s C8, C11. CGE. ETX125
Set of Takahashi LE EPs; Ethos; DMK 31AF03.AS
CN image gallery
http://www.astrohenares.org
http://www.asociacionhubble.org
|
David Pavlich
Postmaster
Reged: 05/18/05
Posts: 9705
Loc: Mandeville, LA USA 30.22 X 90....
|
|
Quote:
Hi David,
I think that if you take a simple straw poll of those that fall into the "Why bother with a polar scope?" category, you'd find that its more than likely that they are are also comprised of folks that have their mounts permanently mounted to begin with,
Its very easy to dispense with a function if its not a feature you neither need (due to permanent mounting) regularly, nor a is a gating prerequisite to your objective (photography) as performing a drift alignment may be.
In my case, my G-11 Gemini was always intended to also be my grab 'n go mount, so the polar alignment scope to me is a hard requirement for my visual, gawking sessions.
Regards,
skybsd
My comments were directed at the CGE. I may have not been very clear on that. Actually, my first CGE was not in an obs. When I used it visually, it was the ole' compass routine, then do the star alignment. Worked very well
For imaging, it was the compass, then the PA routine and it did well for imaging.
As John has mentioned, he has a Tak mount and as we mount junkies know, the Tak PA scope is THE best in the industry. Nobody does a PA scope like Tak. And when done right, the Tak guys don't even bother with a drift.
BUT...John did mention Polar Align Max. Now that's a PA routine!! Once it's figured out, it doesn't get any better.
David
--------------------
Proud Member; PAS NOLA,
"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research..."
A. Einstein
|
darylf96
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 08/28/04
Posts: 1397
Loc: Danville, California
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Unless you are unable to see Polaris, I don't understand why anyone makes a big deal about using a polar alignment scope. I can get very accurate polar alignments with the polar scope and reticle in 5 minutes. It is a simple, straight-forward procedure.
Daryl
I think the reasons are:
1) you don't have to buy a polar scope and can save some money.
2) it's much much easier to use the Celestron routine than the scope (and you don't need to see polaris)
What Phil said. It's so easy to use the included PA routine that the polar scope becomes redundant. Save your money.
David
Not everyone has a go-to system. In terms of cost savings, it would take me $1,650 for Gemini. Since I use DSC to locate objects, good PA is a big plus. Once learned, using the polar scope takes only a few minutes and is very effective. When it comes to comparing the G-11 to the CGE, I think that only those who have owned and used both mounts can make a fair comparison. I would like to hear from those who have owned both the G-11 and the CGE and sold one of them. It would be interesting which one they kept.
Daryl
--------------------
Intes Micro MN66 - Meade 10" SCT
Orion EON 120mm ED f7.5 Apo
Skywatcher 150mm f8 Achro
G-11, CG5A-GT Mounts
DM-6 With Sky Commander DSC
Astro-Tech AT80 Refractor f6.9 APO
Stellarvue 20x85 binos - Unimount
Kunming United Optics 7x50 binocs
Canon Rebel XT, Canon 20D, Canon SXi
SBIG ST-8XE
|
Phil Cowell
professor emeritus
Reged: 05/24/07
Posts: 520
Loc: Southern Tier NY
|
|
Quote:
Not everyone has a go-to system. In terms of cost savings, it would take me $1,650 for Gemini. Since I use DSC to locate objects, good PA is a big plus. Once learned, using the polar scope takes only a few minutes and is very effective. When it comes to comparing the G-11 to the CGE, I think that only those who have owned and used both mounts can make a fair comparison. I would like to hear from those who have owned both the G-11 and the CGE and sold one of them. It would be interesting which one they kept.
Daryl
I had the CI-700 with Gemini and used a CGE. I now have a CGE Pro (same controller as the CGE. Hope that answers your question. If you want to see comments to my views on Gemini you can look at older posts. I personally think the Celestron controller is an order of magnitude up from the Gemini. And on that I'll not mention the Gemini again in this thread.
--------------------
If it'll fit on a sig you don't have enough
Edited by Charlie Hein (11/02/09 06:28 AM)
|
mish
super member
Reged: 02/10/09
Posts: 137
Loc: East Astronomics
|
|
Quote:
I had the CI-700 with Gemini and used a CGE. I now have a CGE Pro (same controller as the CGE. Hope that answers your question. If you want to see comments to my views on Gemini you can look at older posts. I personally think the Celestron controller is an order of magnitude up from the Gemini
This is not a complaint, but merely an observation: this thread has evolved into a discussion of controllers and go-to software, not mounts. I can't speak for others, but I find it worthwhile to evaluate the mechanicals and the electronics separately, as each is a fundamental component, but also a distinct component.
Some manufacturers bundle the two together (e.g., Celestron), others do not (e.g. Losmandy). I can't speak to the needs of other CN-ers, but for me, mechanicals are by far the most important part of the picture, i.e., I'd much rather have constraints in slewing speed if the other side of the bargain is a rock-solid mount or a substantially reduced price tag or the ability to fix things myself.
After a couple nights of visual and imaging work with the new G-11, I gotta say that I am REALLY impressed with its design, construction, and assembly. I am going to have fun using this contraption for a long, long time.
|
Phil Cowell
professor emeritus
Reged: 05/24/07
Posts: 520
Loc: Southern Tier NY
|
|
Quote:
This is not a complaint, but merely an observation: this thread has evolved into a discussion of controllers and go-to software, not mounts. I can't speak for others, but I find it worthwhile to evaluate the mechanicals and the electronics separately, as each is a fundamental component, but also a distinct component.
Some manufacturers bundle the two together (e.g., Celestron), others do not (e.g. Losmandy). I can't speak to the needs of other CN-ers, but for me, mechanicals are by far the most important part of the picture, i.e., I'd much rather have constraints in slewing speed if the other side of the bargain is a rock-solid mount or a substantially reduced price tag or the ability to fix things myself.
After a couple nights of visual and imaging work with the new G-11, I gotta say that I am REALLY impressed with its design, construction, and assembly. I am going to have fun using this contraption for a long, long time.
Well if you read the start of the thread it was comparing the G11 and the CGE. The CGE is only available with electronics, controller, goto etc. Therefore the comparison has to be like against like does it not?
--------------------
If it'll fit on a sig you don't have enough
|
mish
super member
Reged: 02/10/09
Posts: 137
Loc: East Astronomics
|
|
Quote:
The CGE is only available with electronics, controller, goto etc. Therefore the comparison has to be like against like does it not?
Good question, but I would say "no", it doesn't have to be "like against like".
A mount (controller or no) is just another technology, i.e., a set of engineered systems designed to provide some desired capability, such as tracking objects in the sky, or perhaps finding them from an atlas, or whatever one's requirements demand.
When we compare technological capabilities, we compare systems based on what capabilities we desire, not on what capabilities a technology supplier might want to sell us in addition to what we need. Our requirements are just that: our requirements.
So if I want to buy a land line telephone, and company A sells a good one for a reasonable price, while company B sells a similar one that also comes with home networking and video-on-demand at an increased price, it would be silly to add video and networking costs to company A's offering just so the comparison would be "like versus like". Wouldn't you agree?
Now if I really need these additional capabilities as part of my requirements, then the "like versus like" makes a lot of sense. But for those of us who don't require those (a priori unstated) requirements, not so much...
My point is simply that a thread titled "G11 vs CGE (not Pro)" in the MOUNTS section of Cloudy Nights might be considered to involve a comparison more oriented towards mount quality (i.e., capabilities, price, etc), and less oriented towards specific questions on the underlying software, especially when one of the mounts mentioned is widely available without controller software.
Your mileage may vary, of course, but since you asked...
|
7331Peg
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 09/01/08
Posts: 969
Loc: North coast of Oregon
|
|
Quote:
... When it comes to comparing the G-11 to the CGE, I think that only those who have owned and used both mounts can make a fair comparison. I would like to hear from those who have owned both the G-11 and the CGE and sold one of them. It would be interesting which one they kept.
Daryl
I had a CGE for two years and had no problems with it whatever. But at two years, the warranty expired, and the thought of having to send it back to Celestron if something went wrong and wrestling with them over repairs was not all that appealing. Since it couldn't be used manually if it malfunctioned, I thought it was time for a change.
I bought the basic G11 without the Gemini system because I really didn't need GOTO any longer - and it was just too much additional money in my opinion to add a feature that wasn't important to me.
The G11 should last forever. It's very well built, it's well thought out, it's simple, and it holds far more weight than I intend to put on it. Even the tripod is more basic than the CGE tripod, and it's as solid as a rock.
When the mount is properly polar aligned, it seems like it tracks all night without adjustment.
Again, I never had a problem with the CGE, and I certainly wasn't dissatisfied with it. But mechanically and electronically it was more complex, and therefore more expensive to repair should it fail, so I felt it was time for something more basic and easier to repair.
It just came down to the old KISS concept.
John
|
Phil Cowell
professor emeritus
Reged: 05/24/07
Posts: 520
Loc: Southern Tier NY
|
|
Quote:
Good question, but I would say "no", it doesn't have to be "like against like".
So if I want to buy a land line telephone, and company A sells a good one for a reasonable price, while company B sells a similar one that also comes with home networking and video-on-demand at an increased price, it would be silly to add video and networking costs to company A's offering just so the comparison would be "like versus like". Wouldn't you agree?
Your mileage may vary, of course, but since you asked...
Ah no your logic is more like rating cars without engines based on which one has the best suspension system when you push it down the road. Hey but if thats important to you.
The majority of people who buy a G11 or CGE us it as a go to mount. Non got sales are dwindling (Orion are dropping the Atlas non goto due to that reason). It's easy for the G11 as goto is an after market item and bolted on as a step in the process.
The G11 mechanically is not a bad mount and you can spend a lot of money making it a better mount (it'll never be an AP as some folks pretend but it's not bad).
Electronically it's a different story and if the board fries for either mount your not repairing it at home, for most folks your sending the board/servo's back.
--------------------
If it'll fit on a sig you don't have enough
|
Charlie Hein
Postmaster
Reged: 11/02/03
Posts: 8423
Loc: 26.06.08N, +80.23.08W
|
|
Quote:
(Orion are dropping the Atlas non goto due to that reason)
...but Skywatcher still sells the identical mount with a dual axis controller, so it's not as if the manufacturer stopped making the dual axis drive version. It could be just as easily argued that Orion decided to stop offering the dual axis controller in order to boost sales on the go-to model that were being lost to them because of the EQMOD ASCOM driver. It's hard to know for sure why companies do what they do. I've given up trying to second guess this kind of thing.
To put the conversation back on track though, comparisons between the CGE and G-11's electronics do seem to inevitably arise whenever someone starts a thread looking for comparisons. I don't think that makes taking the electronics out of the equation for a bit a fruitless gesture, even if it sort of takes the CGE out of the conversation when you do it. The subject still should be covered, if for no other reason than providing thorough coverage of the options.
Here's an article on one guys impressions of the dual axis drive G-11. Hope it helps.
--------------------
"He's dead, Jim - I'll get his wallet, you get his tricorder." - Leonard "Bones" McCoy
Weston CSC:
|
mish
super member
Reged: 02/10/09
Posts: 137
Loc: East Astronomics
|
|
Quote:
Ah no your logic is more like rating cars without engines based on which one has the best suspension system when you push it down the road.
With all due respect, Phil, that's not even close to the situation at hand. If you think a GEM without a Go-To system is like a car without an engine, then you simply live in a different astronomy world than I do.
And if you truly believe your analogy is apt, then I'll point out that a very robust market exists for "cars without engines"... those are called bicycles, and lots of folks (me included) enjoy that simpler form of technology for a lot of the same reasons we might eschew mounts that don't work if the Go-To system goes on the fritz, e.g., the desire for simplicity, quiet, etc.
What I would suggest you do to appreciate the underlying point is simple: look at thread titles in the mounts section of Cloudy Nights. See how often terms like "G11 with Gemini" or "G11/Gemini" show up, to indicate that the thread refers to a mount AND a distinct controller setup.
And then note the title of this thread. That should do the trick...
|
|
19 registered and 16 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: Charlie Hein, lineman_16735
Print Thread
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Thread views: 2921
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
