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
starbob1
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 03/11/07

Loc: IN
iEQ45 vs Cgem new
      #5804840 - 04/17/13 04:19 PM

I was told that the Cgem is quite better mount. Has anyone compared,Them. I do like some of the Feature of the iEQ45 and their support seems good. Thanks Bob

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

Reged: 10/19/10

Loc: Rapid CIty, SD
Re: iEQ45 vs Cgem new [Re: starbob1]
      #5805138 - 04/17/13 06:11 PM

Bob,

I think you'll find they each have their issues. I thought the iEQ45 had balance problems due to stiction and of course the CGEM has cogging/an 8/3 harmonic.

There are plenty of examples on both sides who use them for AP successfully. I think visually they're the same.


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

Reged: 08/24/11

Loc: Chattanooga, TN
Re: iEQ45 vs Cgem new [Re: Raginar]
      #5805343 - 04/17/13 07:49 PM

I think Chris is right in his assessment. As a iEQ45 owner the things I like over the CGEM is the polar alignment scope, the lighter weight and iOptron's responsive customer service. However the CGEM has the All Star Polar alignment routine, can't do that with the iOptron. One thing to note is that to use the iOptron with a heavier scope (lets say over 35 pounds of gear) is that you have to purchase the counterweight shaft extension.

I would have been happy with either, the main reason I went with the iOptron is the lighter weight so I can carry the mount out, tripod and all in one go.


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


Reged: 06/28/10

Loc: Greece-Athens and Rome-Italy
Re: iEQ45 vs Cgem new [Re: mgwhittle]
      #5805622 - 04/17/13 09:55 PM

Well support is important and i wouldn't underestimate at this point.If Ioptron is very responsive i find it a thing to keep in consideration.

Edited by Mike X. (04/17/13 09:56 PM)


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


Reged: 12/08/09

Re: iEQ45 vs Cgem new [Re: Mike X.]
      #5805985 - 04/18/13 01:12 AM

The Dec sticktation is solved by V2 for the IEQ45, I have owned both and I prefer the IEQ45 by far ...

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
John Carruthers
Skiprat
*****

Reged: 02/02/07

Loc: Kent, UK
Re: iEQ45 vs Cgem new [Re: vdb]
      #5806114 - 04/18/13 06:03 AM

I would go with the ieq45 every time, all the bugs in the first version have been sorted and a minor query to their support dept was dealt with within the hour.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
starbob1
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 03/11/07

Loc: IN
Re: iEQ45 vs Cgem new [Re: John Carruthers]
      #5806170 - 04/18/13 07:34 AM

Well my ieq45 would be pier mounted and what I read says their polar scope is very good. Really do not need the all star rotine. Plus support is very important to me.

Look like this mount would be easy to pier mount also. I own a cgem and it was okay. It also was hard to balance in declination.Thanks


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


Reged: 06/18/08

Loc: Los Angeles
Re: iEQ45 vs Cgem new [Re: starbob1]
      #5806388 - 04/18/13 10:35 AM

I have the iEQ30 and it's been great for polar align, and the new firmware update on the HC has added some more polar align routine (not needing Polaris) - haven't been able to try it out yet ("Dang you weather! Dang you!"), but, although it's probably not the All Star, with the polar scope, should get you very close, very quickly.

And the customer support is fantastic.

Paul


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


Reged: 03/21/11

Loc: Fort Saskatchewan,Ab ,Canada
Re: iEQ45 vs Cgem new [Re: psandelle]
      #5806421 - 04/18/13 11:03 AM

I have had my iEQ45 for a year . I like it simple fast polar alignment , the one star align routine ( which will center my target in the fov always ) ,its heated hand control allowing operation down to - 20 degrees C , its dec guiding adjustments which are very smooth.
The Ra guiding however could be better I find it just ok for my 1.77 arc/secs per pixel scale (750 mm fl).


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


Reged: 12/08/09

Re: iEQ45 vs Cgem new [Re: nomosnow]
      #5806506 - 04/18/13 12:11 PM

Hmmm I did use the IEQ45 with a GSO RC 8 to shoot an APOD Bubble nebula at pixel scale 0.7 ...

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


Reged: 02/15/12

Loc: Romania
Re: iEQ45 vs Cgem new [Re: vdb]
      #5806855 - 04/18/13 02:46 PM

How good will be a IEQ45 with a C11 + DSLR + guiding stuff(~15-16kg) for astrofoto?

Is it better for astrofoto with 15-16kg than a AZ EQ6/EQ6 Pro or worse?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Erik30
member


Reged: 10/16/12

Loc: Cottage Grove, MN
Re: iEQ45 vs Cgem new [Re: Moromete]
      #5806913 - 04/18/13 03:23 PM

I have a CG-5 and wanted an upgrade. I looked at the CGEM and iEQ45 and went with the iEQ45. I could not be happier, the goto's are all spot on. Only issue I had was the object I was observing would travel out of the fov. I found that one tripod leg had slipped about an inch throwing the level out. Other than that I love it.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
orion69
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 05/09/10

Loc: Croatia
Re: iEQ45 vs Cgem new [Re: Moromete]
      #5807246 - 04/18/13 05:54 PM

Quote:

How good will be a IEQ45 with a C11 + DSLR + guiding stuff(~15-16kg) for astrofoto?



Not a good idea.

Quote:

Is it better for astrofoto with 15-16kg than a AZ EQ6/EQ6 Pro or worse?



Also not a good idea.


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


Reged: 06/28/10

Loc: Greece-Athens and Rome-Italy
Re: iEQ45 vs Cgem1620mm) new [Re: orion69]
      #5807513 - 04/18/13 07:07 PM

I think that those focal lengths are a serious limit for all these mounts.At least at f/10.
I got an azeq6 because i didn't wanted to mess with the Cgem cogging issue nor the 8/3 and i guide.The mount so far promises well but a c11? I don't know.nevertheless there are people that have taken images with 1800mm with success on an azeq6 and with no problems at all..But I never tried it.
So maybe if you reduce it and use an oag...I wouldn't even mess with such fl personally. (2000+mm)

Edited by Mike X. (04/18/13 07:12 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
orion69
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 05/09/10

Loc: Croatia
Re: iEQ45 vs Cgem1620mm) new [Re: Mike X.]
      #5807535 - 04/18/13 07:21 PM

Some probably won't agree but I'll say that C11+DSLR+low end mount like CGEM or EQ6 or IEQ45 is a good way to hate AP.

Unless you want to shoot only planets of course.

Edited by orion69 (04/18/13 07:23 PM)


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


Reged: 03/21/11

Loc: Fort Saskatchewan,Ab ,Canada
Re: iEQ45 vs Cgem1620mm) new [Re: orion69]
      #5807569 - 04/18/13 07:38 PM

As I said before I am really happy with my iEQ45 because... I image with a 6 inch F-5 Newtonian and have no frustrations at all. But...my mount would not work well for longer focal lengths due to jumpy RA guiding . I know people have been working hard at improving the RA tracking and you can follow their good work on the yahoo ieq45 imaging group
.
But still for the price this is a great mount.


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

Reged: 01/23/08

Loc: Hilton, NY, Yellow Zone (Bortl...
Re: iEQ45 vs Cgem1620mm) [Re: nomosnow]
      #5807687 - 04/18/13 08:51 PM

I have not owned the CGEM, but after comparing the two and doing a lot of CN research, went with the iEQ45. Very happy with the decision.

I agree with those above who say that the C11 is not the best choice OTA for doing AP on the iEQ45, CGEM or the Atlas. I'm sure there are those who do it, but it seems like a recipe for frustration to me.

-Dan


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

Reged: 08/11/09

Re: iEQ45 vs Cgem1620mm) new [Re: Midnight Dan]
      #5812039 - 04/20/13 11:08 PM

I upgraded from an AS-GT to an iEQ45. At one time the CGEM was on the top of my list, but a combination of reading about lots of problems with (at least) the early ones and the fact that the '45 is considerably lighter pointed me at the iOptron. Overall I am quite happy with it -- I was concerned about the learning curve of going from the Celestron HC to the iOptron one, but that's been largely a non-issue. My imaging "adventures" with it, using a 480mm F/L refractor, thus far have been quite positive, although for some reason unguided imaging is pretty much a non-starter; I got better results with my AS-GT for 1 or 2 minute exposures. (This is really a non-issue for me as I will always want to do guided imaging, due to wanting 5 to 10 minute exposure times.)

I recently bought a C8 OTA; I haven't done any imaging with it yet but I would opine that just based on using it for visual stuff so far on the '45, I think a C8 with a small guidescope (e.g. Orion's 50mm, used along with the 0.6x Celestron reducer for the C8) is probably nearing the top of the '45's capacity. IOW, I would never try a C11 with it, and would wonder about even a C9.25 other than for "just visual".

In closing: I am sufficiently impressed with the mount as well as iOptron's support that I am probably going to buy one of their new ZEQ25 mounts to use at my vacation home, with a 66mm refractor. Overall, iOptron seems to be able to deliver a given level of performance at a significantly lighter mount weight based on my experiences thus far. ALso, they have been pretty regular with HC firmware updates, most recently adding what sounds like an "All Star" polar alignment routine, although I have not tried it since I can see the Big P from my location.

imaging setup: http://smu.gs/15tzu6v

C8 on iEQ45: http://smu.gs/106F1b8

Horsehead Nebula taken using the iEQ45: http://smu.gs/106ETZ9

regards,

Dave B.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1


Extra information
7 registered and 30 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: 1349

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics