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 | 3 | (show all)
jason_milani
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 09/03/04

Loc: Northeast Ohio
Re: CGEM-DX... any thoughts? new [Re: rmollise]
      #4411973 - 02/26/11 12:58 AM

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: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
akua
member


Reged: 03/01/06

Re: CGEM-DX... any thoughts? new [Re: BlueGrass]
      #4411993 - 02/26/11 01:10 AM

"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: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jason_milani
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 09/03/04

Loc: Northeast Ohio
Re: CGEM-DX... any thoughts? new [Re: akua]
      #4412052 - 02/26/11 01:44 AM

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.




I agree.
They're making everything in China now so with the reduced labor costs there is no reason they couldn't manufacture the original CGE over there and sell it here for 3 grand.

I'm not against them using the CGEM as a platform and improving/adding upon it. But they are marketing it as a replacement for the CGE which it is not. Period.


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

Reged: 02/01/08

Re: CGEM-DX... any thoughts? new [Re: rmollise]
      #4412218 - 02/26/11 04:34 AM

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

Reged: 07/06/07

Re: CGEM-DX... any thoughts? new [Re: BlueGrass]
      #4412395 - 02/26/11 08:45 AM

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

Reged: 01/23/08

Loc: Hilton, NY, Yellow Zone (Bortl...
Re: CGEM-DX... any thoughts? new [Re: rmollise]
      #4412506 - 02/26/11 10:01 AM

Quote:

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




I have not heard any marketing statement that this was replacement for the CGE. They just said that the CGE left a gap between the CGEM and CGE-Pro which this mount now fills.

That's a big gap and can be filled in many ways. The "new" mount to fill that gap could be closer to one end than the other. But it's not necessarily designed to be a replacement for the CGE ... just a mount which gets a user farther up the capacity scale without the huge jump in cost to the CGE Pro.

-Dan


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

Reged: 10/28/05

Loc: Loomis, CA
Re: CGEM-DX... any thoughts? new [Re: Midnight Dan]
      #4412866 - 02/26/11 12:39 PM

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

Reged: 07/06/07

Re: CGEM-DX... any thoughts? new [Re: mistyridge]
      #4413119 - 02/26/11 02:29 PM

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.




The chance of that happening? IMHO slim to none. Unless you have some information to the contrary, I'd say the CGE is dead. It's an old design with some problems, and expensive to produce, even in China.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jrbarnett
Eyepiece Hooligan
*****

Reged: 02/28/06

Loc: Petaluma, CA
Re: CGEM-DX... any thoughts? new [Re: rmollise]
      #4413537 - 02/26/11 06:41 PM

"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

Edited by jrbarnett (02/26/11 06:50 PM)


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


Reged: 10/01/06

Loc: Belleville, MI
Re: CGEM-DX... any thoughts? new [Re: jrbarnett]
      #4413841 - 02/26/11 09:35 PM


Jim,
Pardon my ignorance RE:SOTP, but I went over to Wikipedia to find out what it stood for .

In David Letterman style here is the Top Ten List:

#10. Saturn Orbiter/Titan Probe

#9. State of the Planet

#8. Shadows of the Past

#7. Sum of the Parts

#6. Sounds Of The Past

#5. Sitting on the pot

#4. Sins Of The Past

#3. Scared of the Police

#2. Sex Offender Treatment Program


#1. Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants

Now from the_ seat of the pants_ I know that none of the above are correct.

Garry


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jrbarnett
Eyepiece Hooligan
*****

Reged: 02/28/06

Loc: Petaluma, CA
Re: CGEM-DX... any thoughts? new [Re: Garry]
      #4414033 - 02/26/11 11:36 PM



"Seat of the Pants"

Regards,

Jim


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

Reged: 07/06/07

Re: CGEM-DX... any thoughts? new [Re: jrbarnett]
      #4414556 - 02/27/11 10:05 AM

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: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Destrehan Dave
member
*****

Reged: 12/01/05

Loc: Destrehan, LA
Re: CGEM-DX... any thoughts? [Re: rmollise]
      #4421709 - 03/02/11 03:09 PM

Mine is on its way. I purchased it with the following assumptions:

1) It's not the ultimate mount. I'd really like a Paramount MX, but I can't afford it.

2) I won't get a whole lot of money by selling my existing CGEM for under $1,000.

3) I don't have the same expectation of quality coming from Celestron that I would if I could afford a TEC scope from YURI.

4) It might have problems, but at least my good buddy Dean over at S*@&!%0_@ was nice enought to give it a once over before shipping it to me,

5) If I were King Celestron for a day, I might have taken a different approach by offering an electronics and tripod update option, and would have engineered some different 'innards' and sold it for around $2,500.

All that being said, I can't wait for it to get here. I'm certain it will perform well for me and my humble 5" refractor.

I'll let you know how well it works out soon..

Destrehan Dave


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | (show all)


Extra information
21 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: 7608

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics