28 replies to this topic

[dtidmore]

My adult daughter and I have been delving back into an old hobby of mine, astronomy with the grandkids (10 & 12 yo) and we are planning the plunge into astroimaging.  I have done a LOT of research and as a retired engineer I take a pretty hard nosed perspective.  Our planned scope is Orion's 190mm f/5.3 Mak-Newt.   Auto guiding will of course be part of the mix (PHD2).  Despite being Mac aficionados, we will be getting a windoz laptop for the setup since there is a dearth of astronomy software on the mac side although we do plan to do all our post processing using tools on the Mac (yes, we know about and actually use Parallels, but for this, a dedicated windows laptop is our choice). The only mounts that I seriously considered for this scope were the G11, AZ/EQ-G and the CGX.  The desire is to use Sky Safari 6 running on an iPad Pro for mount control in the field. I know that some may say that there is some overkill here, but this is an initial setup so at least some ability to grow with whatever mount is desired.  Funds aren't unlimited, but they are not too constrained either. 

 

While I clearly understand that the G11 is one magnificent mount, it is just a tad too old school and the Gemini 2 GoTo system UI is very awkward.  If I was planning to manually drive the mount more, the G11 might get more love for its excellent mechanics, but the competition is scoring more points presently plus the G11/Gemini 2 comes at fairly significant price disadvantage although cost was not an overwhelming factor.

 

The CGX is clearly a mount designed with the automation as a core component aimed at astroimaging.  I have had all the manual setup/driving of a mount I want at this point, so Celestron's StarSense, ASPA and SkyPortal really added points to the CGX.  However, the CGX mount itself, even after almost 2 years in production is still showing nagging niggles in its mechanical behavior.  Yes, I am aware that most all of them can be adjusted out by the end user but it seems to be a hit/miss on what you will get out of the factory.

 

Then there is the Atlas Pro AZ/ED-G mount.  As a more mature, yet fairly recent mount, there is a lot of excellent history on the mount and it seems to be one of those mounts that everyone loves.  What I was not so sold on was the SynScan system.  I really wanted the Celestron system.  Then I discovered that Celestron had created a convertor/port expander that allowed their StarSense/ASPA system to replace the SynScan system.  Now I realize that I am giving up the really nice AZ/EQ-G's encoder closed loop capability (at least from what I can determine) when using StarSense control but I gain time to light when setting up and I can alway fire up SynScan if desired.  Then there is the AZ/EQ-G's ability to function as an AltAz mount as well as handling a main and secondary scope for visual viewing.  

 

So, the AZ/EQ-G mount with Celestron's StarSense for SW has a significant lead in this horse race.  The cost delta of adding StarSense for SW is a wash to me due to the slightly lower cost of the of the AZ/EQ-G as compared to the CGX.

 

I realized going in that ALL 3 of these mounts were excellent and trying to finesse a winner out of the 3 would not be easy.  

 

We are not quite ready to throw the switch on the purchase of our imaging platform so thought I would toss it out there for the group wisdom feedback.  

 

The plan is to also toss a 60mm guide scope riding on the scope rings with the StarSense occupying the finder scope mount on the Mak-Newt.  Also a TPI spreader to solidify the tripod OR a tripod pier will be in the mix. Still researching dedicated imaging cameras so thoughts in that area will be appreciated.  

 

David

[Jeff Struve]

Well... for the reasons you mentioned, although I am a fan of Celestron scopes, I am not a fan of their mounts. I am a fan, for the $$$, of the Orion/SkyWatcher mounts. 

 

I don't use the hand controller as Orion/SkyWatcher is very power packed when using ASCOM and EQMOD... Scope alignment and control is incredible, intuitive and a pleasure to deal with.

 

 

Lots of folks like the StarSense product... I just don't see that the cost/benefit is there. With a PoleMaster and Stellarium (via StellariumScope/EQMOD/ASCOM) I can do a Polar Align in about 5 minutes and a 12 star multialign in about another 5 minutes... 

 

I have ZWOASI120's and an SBIG STi w/guide kit for guiding, but I have been happy with the exposure times I have been getting unguided.

[scadvice]

If you have not done so look into the iOptron cem60.  I don't have one but it is becoming very popular with the AP people also. That might add a third choice to your mix. 

 

I also suggest the PoleMaster as Jeff above... that I have and use and love it. 

 

Download Stellarium when you get a chance (and the computer) and play with it . It is free and fun to use even without the telescope. With the telescope interfaced it's a WOW! Very cool way of viewing the sky with the telescope.   

[Salty_snack]

Nice to see someone getting back into an old hobby.

 

Here are my thoughts on what you proposed...

 

First, a Mak Newt can be a good telescope. BUT, it can also be a bear. Collimation of a Newt is rather easy but not so on a mak Newt due to the fixed mirror. The telescope is long and heavy with a good bit of weight concentrated at both ends. As a first imaging telescope I rather strongly advise against. An apo refractor is a much much better option.

 

For imaging I use Sequence Generator Pro (SGP) software. Before going out to the field I program in the target RA and Dec. I set up the mount and attach the telescope. Polar alignment (which is very critical) is accomplished quickly and accurately using a Polemaster. After focusing I set SGP to work and it slews to the target and plate solves. It is usually off a little so it adjusts and plate solves again until its within pixels of where I've told it to go. Never once do I create a pointing model using multi-star alignment and I in fact never use the hand controller or mount firmware for anything.

 

So, with that said, any ascom compliant mount will do exactly what you need. I know a few people with the CGX and CGXL and yes there seem to be some irregularities with that mount. But it does not seem to impact performance in any meaningful way. Losmandy builds a good mount but their tech is behind the times. The fact that a spring loaded worm is not their standard design after just redesigning their mounts last year is really disappointing and their tucked motor design, while an improvement over the odd "sticking straight out" setup they used to have is an improvement, they are still not belt driven and I'm not a fan of their motor couplers. Skywatcher/orion mounts are fine. iOptron seems to make a good mount if you get a good one. My CEM25p works well (the CEM60 I had was a quality control nightmare) but many people seem to like them and get great performance from them. 

[WadeH237]

Here are my thoughts on selecting a mount:

 

You need to be able to track smoothly with your payload, and the mount needs to respond smoothly, predictably and repeatably to the guide commands with your payload.  Not much else matters.

 

You've given lots of reasons for leaning towards or against different mounts.  But personally, most of those reasons are pretty superficial.  The reason for this is that (outside of powering on and aligning the mount) when you are imaging, you won't really be interacting with the mount's hand controller.  You will have an ASCOM driver on your computer and all of your imaging software will communicate with the mount through ASCOM compliant apps.  With Gemini or SynScan, for example, it doesn't really matter how awkward they are, because you'll hardly be using them directly.

 

You will set up the mount and connect the computer.  From there, you will use planetarium software to slew to the desired target, so the mount's native interface isn't that important.  You will, in all likelihood, be using some software that finalizes the pointing with plate solving, so accuracy of goto isn't that important.  You will be guiding, so as long as the mount responds smoothly to guide commands, periodic error isn't that important.

 

With my primary imaging setup (an AP1600), I work exclusively through the ASCOM driver and ASCOM compliant software.  The hand controller never even comes out of its case.  Ever.  Even when I was imaging through a Celestron NexStar mount (the CGE), the hand controller never came out of the case.  I did the 2+4 alignment and calibration through an application called NexRemote (running on the computer) and then connected with an ASCOM compliant app.  

 

So my suggestion is to put a bit more emphasis on the mechanical capabilities of the mount, and don't worry too much about the frills.

 

With the specific mounts that you have listed, the CGX and the G11 are in a bit higher class than the Atlas, although the Atlas would easily carry the payload that you are thinking about.  Personally, if the budget supported a G11, I would get it over the other two that you have listed.  The other mount worthy of consideration is that iOptron CEM60.  While I have zero experience with it, it is getting to be a popular imaging mount, and there are plenty of user reports on these forums.

[dtidmore]

Guess I need to take a better look at the CEM60 before making a final decision.  It is certainly an interesting design

 

david

[baron555]

I think the Gemini II system is just fine, automates just fine.

[gdd]

The original Gemini-1 was known for being awkward, the Gemini-2 is very intuitive.

Gale

[rkaufmann87]

I've found the Gemini-2 system to be extremely simple to learn and more intuitive than other line based systems like I've used. Plus if you are going to do imagining then  you likely won't even use it if you are using imaging software. I chose Losmandy because they have a long history of upgrading their mounts, have great support network and parts for their mounts are easily available.

[Phil Cowell]

Guess I need to take a better look at the CEM60 before making a final decision.  It is certainly an interesting design

 

david

The CEM60 is an excellent mount and compares very favorably with any other mount in the class. It works out of the box without tinkering and has through mount cabling which if your an imager is VERY useful.

[Salty_snack]

The CEM60 is an excellent mount and compares very favorably with any other mount in the class. It works out of the box without tinkering and has through mount cabling which if your an imager is VERY useful.

I wouldn’t say all that.

I purchased one last year directly from ioptron and boy were there a lot of problems with it. I couldn’t even thread on the counterweight bar because the threads were so poorly machined and covered in metal shavings. I have purchased a cem25p for a lightweight travel mount and that has been a decent performer with only a few issues.

The through the mount cabeling is usb2 and unpowered so in 2018 with usb3 devices which are powered by usb it actually isn’t that useful. Ioptron has fixed this with the cem120. I’m hoping a new version of the cem60 comes out which is a scaled down version of the cem120 with all the improvements they made on the cem120.

[Ed Wiley]

Look at AstroPhysics. I incremented my way to an AP900 (bought used) and have never regretted it, even without the through the mount cabling at a remote observatory. The 1100 has the through the mount cabling. 

Ed

 

ps: as a former Gemini 2 user (G11 and Titan mounts), I agree that it is very intuitive. and I also agree that Losmandy is a great company. If you are "at the scope," Losmandy may do you very well. I know nothing of the CEM60, so I cannot comment on it, but I note that Phil has a AP1200 and an AP900, so I certainly respect his opinion about that mount.

[f430]

Or just bump yourself up to an AP 1100-GTO, and be done with it! 

At 120 lbs payload it'll most likely hold whatever you want to put on it, and if you decide that astrophotography isn't for you, you could sell it and get most of your investment back!

 

At this point. my mounts have included a CGEM, CGE Pro and a Losmandy G11GT. Combined, they cost a good bit more than a new 1100GTO! For the money, you get a mount that needs no excuses, no messing around, it just works, period!

 

John

[AhBok]

Yes, for astrophotography, I say choose your mount for its payload capacity and tracking accuracy, not it’s particular goto system. With platesolving, I’ve not done a star alignment in over 2 years.

[Phil Cowell]

I wouldn’t say all that.

I purchased one last year directly from ioptron and boy were there a lot of problems with it. I couldn’t even thread on the counterweight bar because the threads were so poorly machined and covered in metal shavings. I have purchased a cem25p for a lightweight travel mount and that has been a decent performer with only a few issues.

The through the mount cabeling is usb2 and unpowered so in 2018 with usb3 devices which are powered by usb it actually isn’t that useful. Ioptron has fixed this with the cem120. I’m hoping a new version of the cem60 comes out which is a scaled down version of the cem120 with all the improvements they made on the cem120.

There were some issues with early mounts, those seem to have been sorted now. All mounts seem to have a level of occasional bad ones that slip through, check on any mount discussed here. iOptron seem to be doing well with keeping up with the changes in electronics. Mechanical systems with connectivity tend to be slow look at the number using serial connectivity.

[Phil Cowell]

Look at AstroPhysics. I incremented my way to an AP900 (bought used) and have never regretted it, even without the through the mount cabling at a remote observatory. The 1100 has the through the mount cabling. 

Ed

 

ps: as a former Gemini 2 user (G11 and Titan mounts), I agree that it is very intuitive. and I also agree that Losmandy is a great company. If you are "at the scope," Losmandy may do you very well. I know nothing of the CEM60, so I cannot comment on it, but I note that Phil has a AP1200 and an AP900, so I certainly respect his opinion about that mount.

Agree with Ed, AP’s just work. The Mach1 and 1600 have through the mount cabling and it’s amazing. Not something I would have said years ago but once you get used to it. My AP 900 is my heavy stuff portable mount. Not through the mount, but upgraded to CP4, older but still magic. The CEM60EC is a light, reliable, non-tweaking mount that has good characteristics and is very reliable. If I have to keep constantly tweaking a mount, it’s gone. Everyone is different. 

[gotak]

+1 AP 1100GTO. My mount experience echo's John's here too. I think I'm on about 100+ setups for it for the past 3 years with 200+ lb scope/mount setup and the thing just works exceptionally. If budget is a concern then I'd take a good look at the Losmandy G11. Personally I'd stay clear of any mount not made in the USA/EU/Japan. cheers, DJ

I wouldn't exactly follow this bit of advice.

Consider experience with gm811g and backlash of over 1 seconds. Clutch issues with losmandy that i can't understand why still happening with new mounts.

The sentiment that mounts from China is lesser is just plain dogma. Just look at the cem120 for a moment before you accept that as a rule.

[Chris Ryan]

Depending on what you gear you get, you might be able to avoid needing a Windows laptop.  I suggest you look into INDI (an alternative to ASCOM - http://indilib.org/) for your image capturing system. 

[szg]

Playing with grandkids? I used to have Newtonian on EQ mount before, it will give you awkward observing position. If doing visual, maybe you can draw less attention from your grand kids.

 

I would rather go with the biggest APO I can effort.

 

I'm a happy CEM60 user. It can carry 130mm APO for imaging and 150mm for visual. 

[dtidmore]

After I started pouring back over the CEM60 posts I remembered that I had discarded this mount from consideration due to all the "chatter" in the early threads.  While I remembered being intrigued by its magnetic loaded worm gears, those early adopters posts were less than encouraging.  However, this second pass thru I found the more recent threads (ie 2018) are FAR more encouraging!    The one thing that the early posters brought up that still is a nagging concern was what appeared to be a potential resonance issue where the mount took 5 seconds or so to dampen if disturbed. This issue has not been mentioned of late but would like to hear if such still rears its head.  

 

As for the AP mounts....maybe someday, but the entry price of even the Mach1 is sufficiently high as to discourage it as our initial AP mount.  I hear the wisdom of what AP brings to the game, but such is a bit outside what we want to spend at this point.  If we find imaging is really our cup of tea then something along the lines of the AP1100 is likely in our future. 

 

FYI, we have a couple of view-only newts for outreach and when the grandkids just want to look thru a scope, but this new setup is for imaging so viewing ease is not a factor.  Will we occasionally use the new setup to view...probably, but again it will be primarily an imaging platform.

 

As I stated in the OP, we are not rushing to make a decision but we have made the decision to move into AP and the itch needs to be scratched so we will likely lock down our decisions within the next couple of months if not sooner.

 

Presently I have been pouring over imaging software options.  INDI on the Mac has not been discarded as a solution, but ASCOM seems to be the least frictional of the two.  I am still internalizing how INDI solutions would come together for us.  

 

david

[Jarno]

First, a Mak Newt can be a good telescope. BUT, it can also be a bear. Collimation of a Newt is rather easy but not so on a mak Newt due to the fixed mirror. The telescope is long and heavy with a good bit of weight concentrated at both ends. As a first imaging telescope I rather strongly advise against. An apo refractor is a much much better option.

I use an Avalon Linear mount which does just fine with a 130mm triplet apo. I'm not sure how well it would cope with the mak-newt though, that OTA is quite a handful.

I second the apo suggestion, I once owned the 190MN and sold it due to size and weight considerations. Like all closed-tube designs it also takes some time to cool down. Collimation however is NOT an issue, both primary and secondary are adjustable and collimation is no different from any other newt. Don't know if the focusers have been improved yet but if not you'll have to factor in the cost of a Moonlite, doing AP with the stock focuser was an exercise in frustration for me. Optically the scope was great and there's basically nothing else on the market with such a fast focal ratio AND a flat field AND a reasonable price.

Jarno

[stargzr66207]

David,

I think I know where you're at, from your opening remarks. Since you are just "putting your toe in the water" re: astro-imaging,  I think you should go back and take another look at the Losmandy G-11.

It is a relatively sturdy and stable mount with pretty good tracking. Don't let the Gemini thing put you off. If you are going to be "driving" the mount around using a Planetarium software package, then the Gemini is just a "go-through" device: you will be using the features in the software program, NOT the features of the Gemini system.  I have been using a Mountain Instruments MI-250 (unfortunately no longer made) for 13 years.  It came with (and still has) a Gemini I system. But, I control the scope using Software Bisque's THE SKY 6, and it performs flawlessly.   Using the G-11 with an astronomy software package should work well.

Regarding the scope, I agree with the earlier comment that the Orion Mak/Newt might be a bit too much

for the mount due to its weight/leverage arm.  Consider a lighter or shorter scope. Don't know what your imaging interests are, but for most of the larger deep sky objects, a focal length of around 500 to 600mm will give you good image scale.  Good luck!!

 

Ron Abbott

[sg6]

I will echo a previous post and say be a little careful of a Mak-Newt.

There are a few designs of imaging scopes and at the end a good apo and a flattener is what people use and deliver results with and I am guessing there is a reason for this.

 

Find a club - guessing you are US owing to the items indicated.

http://www.go-astron...club-search.htm

 

Go have a look at the equipment. Half fear you are going to get something big that you find a problem, then daughter cannot use and the grandkids also cannot.. Very easy to do and I suspect more people cease this hobby by purchasing "big" items then is realised. From what I can tell of most mounts if you are not around or out of action then none of the others will be able to make use of the equipment owing to size, which is not a good approach for all of you to be involved.

 

Simple example is I developed tennis elbow, it cleared eventually but took just over a year, but for that year I couldn't safely and without pain lift a 102mm refractor onto a mount. Reality was I couldn't grip or lift a cup of coffee. And if I had pain that meant the tendon was damaged again so recovery went backwards.

 

Wish you luck on identifing a good mount, I have looked  for a couple of years and failed. They all seem to have problems. I am seriously thinking of a smallish mount with RA+Dec motors only and limiting myself to 60 second exposures.

[Phil Cowell]

David,

I think I know where you're at, from your opening remarks. Since you are just "putting your toe in the water" re: astro-imaging,  I think you should go back and take another look at the Losmandy G-11.

It is a relatively sturdy and stable mount with pretty good tracking. Don't let the Gemini thing put you off. If you are going to be "driving" the mount around using a Planetarium software package, then the Gemini is just a "go-through" device: you will be using the features in the software program, NOT the features of the Gemini system.  I have been using a Mountain Instruments MI-250 (unfortunately no longer made) for 13 years.  It came with (and still has) a Gemini I system. But, I control the scope using Software Bisque's THE SKY 6, and it performs flawlessly.   Using the G-11 with an astronomy software package should work well.

Regarding the scope, I agree with the earlier comment that the Orion Mak/Newt might be a bit too much

for the mount due to its weight/leverage arm.  Consider a lighter or shorter scope. Don't know what your imaging interests are, but for most of the larger deep sky objects, a focal length of around 500 to 600mm will give you good image scale.  Good luck!!

 

Ron Abbott

I can confirm that the MN190 works fine on the CEM60 from real world experience. I own both.

Edited by Phil Cowell, 22 June 2018 - 08:00 PM.