Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

CEM60 Mount Vibration

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
62 replies to this topic

#26 orlyandico

orlyandico

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 9,595
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2009

Posted 18 December 2014 - 11:04 PM

well.. I think the CGEM is junky because I got a bad one.  But there are many happy users and even I admit that for visual it can't be beat (except for the weight).

 

But the CEM60 even the non-EC is twice the price of a CGEM.  One would expect better results as one climbs the scale, I believe that is a reasonable assumption?

 

Even the HDX 110 has had some reports of problems and it's perilously close to $5K.

 

Of course the OP would have a negative report and that is totally understandable.  It's up to the internet to do its own research, but his input is definitely valuable.

 

Many times there are knee-jerk reactions from users who feel the need to defend their purchases.



#27 WebFoot

WebFoot

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,687
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2005

Posted 18 December 2014 - 11:37 PM

So, What your trying to get across is that all CEM60 mounts are junk because you had a problem. I just did a search and found many complaints about the G 11. I think you can do a search on just about any brand and find complaints. That is unless you spend 10 grand. Here's one statement I found about the G 11.---- (Scouring the internet for information (as always), I found a host of other GM8 / G11 owners who's mounts suffered identical symptoms (same as when I started researching my G11 problems). Actually there were so many others, that I started getting that sinking feeling deep inside. (the first of several).------- When I was looking for a new EQ mount a few years back just about the same time the CGEM DX came out, Everyone spoke highly of the mount so I pulled the trigger and bought one.  After 2 trips back to Celestron, one to fix and one to replace it. Also one trip to Hypertune it. All of my efforts failed and now the mount resides in the box it came in. I use the C11 HD on CEM 60 and the CGEM DX tripod is modified to fit the CEM60. Although my CEM 60 does not wobble I do suffer from some software glitches which I hope the new update will take care of when it comes out. Long story short, When you buy in this price range your either going to get a good one or more often then not your going to have to work the glitches out.

 

Tim

Wow; one never really gets an idea of the poor reading comprehension levels out there until one spends time on the internet.

 

I'll make this simple--What I was "trying to get across" is that I had two CEM60 mounts, and both were junk.  And the vaunted iOptron customer support seemed to exist only to string me out for at least 30 days.

 

All that is fact.  You can draw whatever inferences you want from that.  And anyone who wants to be an early adapter of iOptron's unfinished products should feel free.  

 

Why do you take my posts personally?  I reported facts.  And lots and lots of others have reported facts, all of which paint a picture.  Obviously, different people will see different pictures.

 

Sheesh....



#28 neptun2

neptun2

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,153
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2007

Posted 18 December 2014 - 11:44 PM

Well statistics is clear that if somebody is happy with something he bought he will tell this to an average of 1 person and if he is not happy he will complain to at least 3. This is normal. I understand the OP frustration but this does not mean that everybody have similar problems with the CEM-60 or ioptron support. Quite the contrary in fact. Yes the cem-60 is not a 1000$ mount but it is also not 10000 mount. It is something in the middle. The idea is good but it needs some tweaking to perform to it's potential just like every mount below 10000$. I am optimistic that cem-60 ec will be able to perform at premium level at least concerning the RA error. The OP had bad cem-60 and bought good G11. Glad that it works well but that does not mean that all G11s are perfect and neither means that all cem-60s are bad. Good thing is that the G11 solved the problem. If there was perfect mount we would all be using it after all. :) 



#29 George N

George N

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,732
  • Joined: 19 May 2006

Posted 19 December 2014 - 12:22 AM

........

Even the HDX 110 has had some reports of problems and it's perilously close to $5K.

 

.......

 

Some years ago a friend of mine bought a new Astro Physics 1200 GoTo. We watched it stop dead on the first slew and it took about 6 weeks to get it fixed. Two years ago at the Black Forest Star Party I watched another brand new AP 1200 fail to even slew. Gary Hand of "Hands on Optics" stopped by and confirmed that the mount was not functional. That’s two bad ones. So I guess AP mounts are crap? ;)


Edited by George N, 19 December 2014 - 12:23 AM.


#30 orlyandico

orlyandico

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 9,595
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2009

Posted 19 December 2014 - 02:52 AM

George N, that's why I said it's up to the internet to decide on such things. My point was there shouldn't be any muzzling of WebFoot's opinion, because his opinion is based on his experience.

 

Me, personally, whenever I buy something, I never read the positive reviews, only the negative ones.  It's better that way because it gives you an idea of what can go wrong.  And these two AP's you relate are the first time I've heard of such... but I'm not surprised, I believe there also are reports of issues on Paramounts.



#31 whwang

whwang

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,135
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2013

Posted 19 December 2014 - 04:42 AM

I think it is fine as long as people are reporting facts--things actually happened.  I even believe that sharing facts (no matter positive or negative) should be strongly encouraged in our community.  No one should be blamed as long as what he/she shares are facts.  Then it is up to the readers to decide whether these are isolated cases or a general trend for that particular product.



#32 WebFoot

WebFoot

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,687
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2005

Posted 19 December 2014 - 08:43 AM

Well statistics is clear that if somebody is happy with something he bought he will tell this to an average of 1 person and if he is not happy he will complain to at least 3. This is normal. I understand the OP frustration but this does not mean that everybody have similar problems with the CEM-60 or ioptron support. Quite the contrary in fact. Yes the cem-60 is not a 1000$ mount but it is also not 10000 mount. It is something in the middle. The idea is good but it needs some tweaking to perform to it's potential just like every mount below 10000$. I am optimistic that cem-60 ec will be able to perform at premium level at least concerning the RA error. The OP had bad cem-60 and bought good G11. Glad that it works well but that does not mean that all G11s are perfect and neither means that all cem-60s are bad. Good thing is that the G11 solved the problem. If there was perfect mount we would all be using it after all. :)

You're far too kind to iOptron.  They released a product while it was still in alpha-testing stage. Some people got mounts that work; some people got mounts that work well enough, and some people got mounts that don't work.

 

My "frustration" was that I paid full price for a mount that would not perform according to specifications; it's supposed to be a mount that will carry 60 pounds just fine, and it would not carry 30 pounds at all.  Twice.  Searcn the internet, and you will see lots of others with exactly the same problem.

 

IOptron refused to back up their product; refused to acknowledge that my mount simply didn't work, and charged me US$300 to ship it back to them so that they could do nothing with it.  And then another US$400 so that they could take it back.

 

So I lost US$700 on a product not ready for prime time, from a company not prepared to back up their product.

 

If you got one that meets your needs, that's great.  Many of us didn't, and lost a bunch of money in the process.  And that's due to iOptron's failure to either make a mount that performs according to specifications, or do what's necessary to bring it up to spec.  Shame on them, not me.

 

Mark



#33 tazer

tazer

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,887
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2011

Posted 19 December 2014 - 08:46 AM

So, What your trying to get across is that all CEM60 mounts are junk because you had a problem. I just did a search and found many complaints about the G 11.

 

I had a CEM60 with similar issues as WebFoot's and a similar customer service experience. I have never claimed that all CEM60's are junk, rather they're new and have issues that need to be worked out. I went from a CEM60 to a G11 because I wanted something that would work right out of the box. iOptron felt the CEM60 was ready for the general public but mine definitely wasn't. I shouldn't have to spend months beta testing the mount at full price when members of the beta team got a substantial discount on their mounts.

 

 

Me, personally, whenever I buy something, I never read the positive reviews, only the negative ones.

 

Agreed. I knew my purchase of the CEM60 was a gamble as there was no history on the mount what-so-ever. I was prepared to return it if it didn't do exactly what it was advertised to do. I had researched the G11 and noticed that most of the negative reviews were about the Gemini II hand controller and were all a couple of years old. The mount design itself is well known (it hasn't changed much in 2 decades) and its few issues (e.g., backlash, 76s error, etc) were well discussed.

 

If I put weight in positive reviews I'd be picking up a CG5, a C11 and getting ready for 30-minute subs all night long with a 90% keeper rate...

 

 

I think it is fine as long as people are reporting facts--things actually happened.  I even believe that sharing facts (no matter positive or negative) should be strongly encouraged in our community.  No one should be blamed as long as what he/she shares are facts.  Then it is up to the readers to decide whether these are isolated cases or a general trend for that particular product.

 

There's a time and place to vent about vendors. If this thread is to retain value then venting shouldn't be done here (not that I think it has.) The issues WebFoot and I experienced are legitimate. They don't affect all CEM60's and, unfortunately, iOptron doesn't know the cause of the problem. My mount had stalling issues on top of the RA play. I would describe the RA play as being able to push against the RA axis and seeing the saddle move 5+ mm. It wasn't slack or backlash, as the worm was fully engaged. It felt more like a belt or something was flexing internally. Unfortunately my attempts at guiding yielded very poor results. Actually, my results seemed to indicated that guiding was essentially useless as I was getting close to 8" peak-to-peak of error which match the encoder printout that came with the mount. iOptron had me changing my guiding settings instead of addressing the RA play issue which I felt was the real culprit. Sadly, I never took any long duration (i.e., greater than 2-3 minutes) exposures without my stars being elongated even while guiding.

 

I wouldn't blame you if you wanted to point the finger at the user. Heck, even though I had been guiding my CG5 for a couple of years even I doubted myself. That doubt was quickly dispelled the first night out with my G11 though. After getting guiding going and having a PHD2 graph which looked like I expected it to (better in fact) I took a 5-minute exposure with great stars, then I took a 10-minute exposure again with great stars, and finally I took a 20-minute exposure yet again with great stars. And that's the experience I was looking for. A mount that just worked.

 

I'm sure iOptron will work through all the issues and have a reliable product at some point. In fact, I don't recall seeing many other reports of the RA play/vibration issue recently so perhaps they've already taken care of that problem. I do sincerely hope the CEM60 matures quickly which will provide another alternative for folks out there.

 

Mark



#34 WebFoot

WebFoot

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,687
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2005

Posted 19 December 2014 - 08:47 AM

 

........

Even the HDX 110 has had some reports of problems and it's perilously close to $5K.

 

.......

 

Some years ago a friend of mine bought a new Astro Physics 1200 GoTo. We watched it stop dead on the first slew and it took about 6 weeks to get it fixed. Two years ago at the Black Forest Star Party I watched another brand new AP 1200 fail to even slew. Gary Hand of "Hands on Optics" stopped by and confirmed that the mount was not functional. That’s two bad ones. So I guess AP mounts are crap? ;)

 

Everyone makes some bad ones; the issue is after-purchase support.  I'm quite certain that AstroPhysics made it right in both cases.  IOptron told me they would don nothing to help me.  T

 

The reason many of us have written off iOptron is the combination of (i) they put out too many substandard mounts, and (ii) they don't fix them.  They're very nice and responsive, but if you have a mount that won't perform, you're in a heap of trouble.



#35 WebFoot

WebFoot

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,687
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2005

Posted 19 December 2014 - 08:50 AM

I think it is fine as long as people are reporting facts--things actually happened.  I even believe that sharing facts (no matter positive or negative) should be strongly encouraged in our community.  No one should be blamed as long as what he/she shares are facts.  Then it is up to the readers to decide whether these are isolated cases or a general trend for that particular product.

Exactly!

 

Everything I've said is true.  The real highest and best use of the internet is sharing information.  Anyone reading this, and the many other threads on the CEM60, can make up their own minds as to whether to buy one.  I bought one even though I knew I likely would have some problems that needed fixing, but I had read so much about iOptron's great support that I was confident that it would be made right.  That was my mistake, and I think it's entirely proper to let the world know of my experience.



#36 neptun2

neptun2

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,153
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2007

Posted 19 December 2014 - 09:32 AM

Of course sharing experience (good or bad) is a good thing. This can only be encouraged and that's why these equipment discussion parts of the forum are for. Mentioning the RA play - i wonder how much of it may have been caused by the magnetic clutch. Here is what i mean. On my CEM-60 if RA is engaged and you start turning the knob to disengage there is point where you feel resistance for a moment, after that RA axis is unlocked and knob is again smooth till you reach the end of it's turn. Here the axis is fully disengaged. On the opposite transition though (disengaged to engaged) you may feel the resistance on the point where the axis starts to lock and stop there. I did that several times in the beginning and in this condition the axis is just partially locked and RA play is present. The engagement system is a little bit tricky in the beginning till you see how exactly it works. I don't say that this was your problem but this is something that i have seen with mine CEM-60. 



#37 rbumm

rbumm

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 78
  • Joined: 29 Oct 2014

Posted 19 December 2014 - 10:21 AM

I have a CEM60 and do not agree. 

See the other first impression thread for my initial results. 

Woobling depends on the tripod, I use a Berlebach, wobbling is a minor or no issue because I use the CEM60 mainly for astrophotography. 

G11 users do also report (sometimes major) issues and with the CEM60 we have very good tracking precision and a more lightweight mount carrying big loads. 

Visual polar alignment is fast and awesome. 

Current firmware is not optimal for me but we will get an update soon. With full ASCOM compatibility you can operate the mount from all standard software and easily connect it to sky safari on android. 

Well - you returned yours and understand that you are now not happy with iOptron. 

For me no reason to bash the company. 

Or the mount. 

 

Best regards and clear skies

 

rudolf



#38 austin.grant

austin.grant

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,457
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2010

Posted 19 December 2014 - 11:02 AM

 

"Woobling depends on the tripod, I use a Berlebach...."

 

 

So wobbling depends on the tripod, and you admit you don't use the stock tripod. Would you agree that the mount should perform up to spec with the included tripod? I believe those specs are based on just such a setup, so I don't begrudge anyone that can't get proper results out of the box. Twice. 

 

I'm not picking a side here, and I don't think the OP was expecting anyone to do so based on this one account. It's simply a report of his experience. Nobody likes fewer options, so ultimately we are all hoping for excellent products. I know the iOptron guys personally, and I think they are working out the kinks as quickly as possible with these mounts. Still, potential buyers should have as much data as possible before making a decision. 


Edited by austin.grant, 19 December 2014 - 11:07 AM.


#39 tazer

tazer

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,887
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2011

Posted 19 December 2014 - 11:05 AM

Well, my CEM60 had two big issues. One was the motors continually locking up, which happened very frequently, and the other was the play in RA that I've mentioned. The RA play did seem to get better if I tightened up the engagement knob, but it ended up being so tight that the gears wouldn't turn and the motors would lock as soon as you attempted to move them. So, iOptron had me loosen the RA belt some. That fixed the motor lock/freeze when at a normal engagement position but did nothing for the gear binding when the gears were engaged tight enough to remove RA play.

 

While guiding, RA was always very unresponsive (IMO this was due to the RA play but I can't prove it.) It would go on huge excursions like the following (1.47" ppx resolution on my guide cam, seeing was typically mediocre, no wind, balanced east-heavy, etc):

 

guide-example-1.jpg

 

While sometimes it would flatten out and behave for a short while (note that the graph is relatively well behaved but it's not responding to RA pulses very well) like this:

 

Guide-Example.JPG

 

After letting it guide through a number of worm iterations and reviewing it in PHDLab, I noticed that the guide graph mirrored the encoder output sheet that came with the mount. Though, instead of it being 8" peak to peak it was 3.5" peak to peak (while guiding). For a $2,800 mount (including tripod) I expect better than that guided especially since (at that time at least) guiding with PEC wasn't supported:

 

pe-guiding.jpg

 

Is the CEM60 capable of producing better results than this? Sure. Was anyone able to figure out how to get mine to do so? Aboslutely not. Not me, not iOptron, and not anyone in the big CEM60 threads. After 30 days of back and forth with iOptron about the various issues I was having, I sent it back to OPT for an exchange on a G11. Literally the first time I tried to image/guide on the G11 I was taking 20-minute subs, so something was wrong with the CEM60 I had.

 

Mark



#40 tazer

tazer

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,887
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2011

Posted 19 December 2014 - 11:21 AM

Woobling depends on the tripod, I use a Berlebach, wobbling is a minor or no issue because I use the CEM60 mainly for astrophotography. 

 

Wobbling due to an overloaded tripod would, I'd think, affect the entire mount and not just the RA axis.

 

 

 

So wobbling depends on the tripod, and you admit you don't use the stock tripod. Would you agree that the mount should perform up to spec with the included tripod? I believe those specs are based on just such a setup, so I don't begrudge anyone that can't get proper results out of the box. Twice. 

 

To be fair to iOptron the CEM60 doesn't come with a tripod. You can buy a portable pier or the ieq45 tripod (which has standard stainless 2" legs like the CG5/AVX tripod) if you'd like. I went cheap about bought the $249 ieq45 tripod as I expected it to be able to support the mount itself and a 20lbs payload reasonably well. A Berlebach Planet will run you about $800 which puts the CEM60 at $2,500 + $800 = $3,300 which is more than a G11+G2+FHD.

 

So, I think the ieq45 tripod should be fine for lighter payloads and almost certainly didn't play a part in the issues I had.

 

Mark



#41 orlyandico

orlyandico

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 9,595
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2009

Posted 19 December 2014 - 12:18 PM

If i had spent $700 to ship a mount back and forth and get no joy, I'd be as peeved as WebFoot.

 

I think that's something the iOptron defenders aren't factoring in.

 

You should not have to throw $700 into a hole when you got a $2800 mount, and get nothing in return.  That's an Ovision worm (which by all reports vastly improves G11 performance).



#42 WebFoot

WebFoot

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,687
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2005

Posted 19 December 2014 - 02:34 PM

It amazes me the arrogance with which some people greet my experience.

 

No, my wobbling had nothing to do with the tripod.  I bought an aftermarket spreader/battery holder, and the tripod is solid enough with that.  You can watch the RA assembly move every time you touch the scope.  That movement is relative to the mount head and tripod, not relative just to the ground; the RA assembly is acting like a pendulum, with lots of play in the worm.

 

And also "no," it's not that I'm too stupid to figure out the magnetic clutch.  The magnetic clutch is, admittedly, absolutely stupid, where you have to guess how much to lock it down, and it moves on its own anyway.  If you lock it down, the motors won't work.  If you loosen it even 1/4 turn, the wobbling is absolutely unacceptable.  If you loosen it less than 1/4 turn from full lock, (i) the motors likely won't work, and (ii) it loosens itself up after a few slews anyway.  IOptron needs to put notches in the clutch knobs, so that we don't have to guess how much to loosen it, and so that it doesn't loosen more on its own.

 

This was not user error.  This was not an isolated problem; lots of folks have irremediable problems with their CEM60s. The mere fact that some folks don't have a problem has absolutely no bearing on whether many of us do.  We do.

 

I spent US$700 "working with iOptron" to fix this problem.  And untold hours taking the mount apart at their direction.  And, in the end, they were useless.  As orlyandico says, my ****-away US$700 entitles me to ****; and I wasn't just "****" here; I'm noting down FACTS, so that others contemplating what I did will have the benefit of my experience.

 

If you choose to ignore my experience, that's fine.  But the fact that others had a different experience does not in any way say that I didn't have that experience.  With two copies of this mount.



#43 Whichwayisnorth

Whichwayisnorth

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,980
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2011

Posted 19 December 2014 - 03:09 PM

  IOptron needs to put notches in the clutch knobs, so that we don't have to guess how much to loosen it, and so that it doesn't loosen more on its own.

 

 

 

I begged and pleaded with them to do exactly this.  I even drew up a sketch on how i'd do it an emailed it to them.  Their response was that the adjustment lock knob has to "float" by design.  I commented several times not just via email but in person that this knob situation is a much bigger deal than they want to consider.  I got nowhere.   They need to give up on this whole magnet thing and go back to a lock on/lock off spring design.

 

At some point in 2015 they are going to start releasing the CEM120.  If the design is at all similar I am afraid it will be quite a disaster.  Hopefully they will take some time now and work out a new design and perhaps modify the CEM60 at some point.  



#44 iOptron

iOptron

    Vendor (iOptron Corp.)

  • -----
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 12
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2011

Posted 19 December 2014 - 04:42 PM

We're sorry Mark had a bad experience. 

 

A few comments for clarification however:

 

1. We tested the second mount with 54 lbs payload and had less than 3 sec damping time.
2. We suggested three times to the customer using an alternative pier or vibration damping pads to test the vibration damping time. (he did not)

3. We only charged the customer $68.95 for shipping.
4. We accepted the return from dealer after more than 3 months of purchase without a restocking fee.

 

Here is a recent image using the CEM60 from Jaspal Chadha (from JK Observatory in the UK), using an Altair Astro RC 250TT Scope, QSI 690 CCD and iOptron CEM 60.
You can see more of his astrophotography work on flickr.

 

Bubble3_lg.jpg

 

 

 



#45 andysea

andysea

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,777
  • Joined: 03 Sep 2010

Posted 19 December 2014 - 04:52 PM

Does the CEM60 has a clutch less system similar to the ZEQ25? Having to remesh the gears every time the mount needs to be balanced seems very counterintuitive to me but maybe it's a non issue. 

My two equatorial mounts are very traditional designs that's why the system looked odd to me.

I own the iOptron skytracker and so far I had excellent customer service but I haven't had any major issues to deal with. I also owned the Smarteq pro and loved it.



#46 Nikolas234

Nikolas234

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 101
  • Joined: 15 Dec 2009

Posted 19 December 2014 - 05:00 PM

Well it seems that there is some dilemma concerning the magnetic engagement, it is very innovative in design.  I did have the same concerns when I received the mount, after playing with it I found that the RA and DEC adjustment , on my mount, needed to be set at different level of pressure, once I found the sweet point of both axis all was fine. There was some strange noise but after I personally went to Ioptron my fears of something breaking up or broken were gone, it is just different of what I was used to work with. There is no tripod included as mentioned earlier, you buy what suits your need. The tripod has nothing to do with the meshing and gear engagement, it only has to do with the head stability and dampening property. It is obvious that some mounts were not properly meshed or there was some meshing / gears problems, it happens. Some like and swears by US made cars, others by Japanese models, they all have their pros and cons, some are lemons. Same here with mounts, I wish I had money to buy a Paramount or an Avalon and approval of the finance dept of the household to do so. All I can say is that my CEM 60 non EC works fine for me and my needs, it's lightweight, precise, I carry it in my car trunk with no problem, easy setup, GPS, heated hand control, case, latest iteration of the ASCOM software and drivers works great for my needs, the software is updated on a regular basis, so is Android, IOS, Windows and many others. For the price I could of get a GM11, yes, but heavier to carry around, at least for me. All in all it is a very nice mount and it will get better with time, nothing in astronomy is an investment to start with anyway. Astronomy is a fun and relaxing way to admire the wonders of the universe, relax and enjoy. One thing I would suggest IOptron is to make a video of How to use the mount and show how it is different, that would avoid a lot of the frustration I see and help discern the bad apples from the batch. Luc



#47 WebFoot

WebFoot

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,687
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2005

Posted 19 December 2014 - 05:34 PM

We're sorry Mark had a bad experience. 

 

A few comments for clarification however:

 

1. We tested the second mount with 54 lbs payload and had less than 3 sec damping time.
2. We suggested three times to the customer using an alternative pier or vibration damping pads to test the vibration damping time. (he did not)

3. We only charged the customer $68.95 for shipping.
4. We accepted the return from dealer after more than 3 months of purchase without a restocking fee.

 

Here is a recent image using the CEM60 from Jaspal Chadha (from JK Observatory in the UK), using an Altair Astro RC 250TT Scope, QSI 690 CCD and iOptron CEM 60.
You can see more of his astrophotography work on flickr.

 

 

Hi,

 

1.  I don't know how you "tested" my two mounts, but you never replicated my problem, which appeared every time I put either a 10" Meade SCT on it, or an 11" Celestron SCT on it.  Every time, regardless of how tight the feckless clutch knobs were made.  I offered to drive the mount/scope up to Anacortes to demonstrate my issue, but you weren't interested in a third party looking at the problem.  Since you were convinced I didn't have a problem, I had no interest in spending $300 to send the second mount to you, and have you again not find any problem.

 

2.  The wobbling had nothing at all to do with the tripod.  I'm not an idiot, and I know what's mount vibration and what's low-frequency wobbling of the RA assembly.  The wobble was so bad, I could watch (and hear) the RA assembly act like a pendulum.  I have video, showing no motion by the head, and lots of motion on the RA assembly.  This had nothing to do with the feeble tripod (which you specify for that mount, by the way, and on which I had spent a bunch of money making it reasonably stiff).  Maybe you don't see the irony of you selling me a tripod to go with a mount, and then blaming the problem on the tripod.  Nonsense.  And to claim "he did not" do anything to eliminate tripod issues is simply not true;' I used vibration pads (as I told you), and I significantly stiffened the tripod, with a great aftermarket spreader (as I also told you).  This was not a tripod problem (although I agree that the tripod, stock, was not nearly competent to the task to which you assigned it; it would be nice if you didn't pretend it was when you sell it, but then claim that it's not when a customer has a problem with it).  You can pretend it was a tripod problem, but that's nonsense.

 

3.  You may have charged me $70 (I don't remember), but I do remember that your charge, plus what I paid UPS to ship it to you, totaled about $300.  To return a mount to you, under warranty, that was not performing according to specifations.

 

4.  I paid Anacortes a restocking fee (15% of the original purchase price), after you told both Anacortes and me that I would have to pay a restocking fee if I returned the mount.  If you didn't charge Anacortes a restocking fee, I need to talk to Anacortes about why I paid a restocking fee.  But I certainly paid a restocking fee.

 

I am thrilled for those fortunate folks who have received CEM60 mounts that work, or that have been made to work.  I was not so fortunate, and am now much poorer for the experience.

 

Mark


Edited by WebFoot, 19 December 2014 - 05:42 PM.


#48 akulapanam

akulapanam

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,657
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2012

Posted 20 December 2014 - 01:52 AM

We're sorry Mark had a bad experience. 

 

A few comments for clarification however:

 

1. We tested the second mount with 54 lbs payload and had less than 3 sec damping time.
2. We suggested three times to the customer using an alternative pier or vibration damping pads to test the vibration damping time. (he did not)

3. We only charged the customer $68.95 for shipping.
4. We accepted the return from dealer after more than 3 months of purchase without a restocking fee.

 

Here is a recent image using the CEM60 from Jaspal Chadha (from JK Observatory in the UK), using an Altair Astro RC 250TT Scope, QSI 690 CCD and iOptron CEM 60.
You can see more of his astrophotography work on flickr.

 

Bubble3_lg.jpg

 

Kind of the most and least impressive photo at the same time. 

 

Most impressive because the guy is using a ICX814 (QSI690) on a GSO 10" RC Truss.  I'm assuming he is binning here but either way he is close to or exceeding the Rayleigh limit of that size mirror.

Least impressive because the CGEM DX (for only $1999 w/ nice tripod) can and does do the same thing (see Flickr or Astrobin).  Now if that was a GSO 12" RC Truss or a GSO 12" Newt then that would be impressive.

 

Look I'm a member of the iOptron user group as well as a couple other forums and I'm generally been impressed by stories of their tech support especially compared with Celestron, Meade, or Orion.  It does sound like they really tried to help out the original poster.  That said this also is like the 10th different report of this issue that I have seen and I'm a little disappointed that iOptron charged him shipping.  Several users did report that it was resolved through the tripod even though they had originally felt it was related to the mount itself. 

 

Also don't think the G-11 doesn't have its issues either. Having played with the Gemini II a couple times now I would much rather have the Celestron and to a lesser extent iOptron controller. 



#49 cloudywest

cloudywest

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 235
  • Joined: 15 Jun 2013

Posted 20 December 2014 - 07:50 AM

Aha, it is good to hear the story from both sides; people can draw their own conclusion.

The photo is impressive, not only the quality but also with the payload. It should be about 25 kg.



#50 Footbag

Footbag

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,115
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2009

Posted 20 December 2014 - 08:13 AM

I think iOptron has the two Mark's mixed up.  




CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics