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

Is the CGX enough mount for a C11" EdgeHD?

  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 Borodog

Borodog

    Mercury-Atlas

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,729
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2020

Posted 02 September 2021 - 02:42 PM

I know they sell the combo, but I have heard that Celestron likes to under-size their mounts. The specs online claim that the CGX mount has a 55 lb payload capacity, and that the OTA is 28 pounds (does this include the finder and mounting rail?), leaving 27 pounds for camera and accessories, which seems like it should be plenty. Accessories would probably be limited to:

  • A GSO dual speed Crayford focuser
  • A 2" Barlow lens element (not the whole Barlow; and by the way, you can use a standard Barlow with an EdgeHD scope, yes?)
  • a 2" UV/IR cut filter
  • a few 2" spacers
  • A ZWO ASI183MC camera

This doesn't seem like it would come anywhere close to 27 pounds, so I feel like I should be fine, yes?

 

 



#2 Borodog

Borodog

    Mercury-Atlas

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,729
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2020

Posted 02 September 2021 - 03:35 PM

Oof. Just found out it is not a CGX. It's a CGEM II. 40 pound capacity. Seems like I should still be ok though, yes?



#3 Jeffmar

Jeffmar

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,535
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2012
  • Loc: salt lake city, utah

Posted 02 September 2021 - 03:36 PM

My C11 weighs around 35 pounds with my astrophotography setup. My CGX worked some of the time but my CGX-L did better. The heavier tripod and larger worm wheels of the CGX-L made my C11 more stable and I was able to get more usable subframes. I definitely got more consistent results the heavier mount. 


  • Borodog likes this

#4 bobzeq25

bobzeq25

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 25,909
  • Joined: 27 Oct 2014

Posted 02 September 2021 - 03:40 PM

Answering the title question.

 

For some people, sure.  For others - not so much.

 

Beware of leaning too much on weight ratings.  Focal length also counts - a lot.  The ratings are simply whatever a manufacturer wants to claim.  There are no standards. 

 

Skimping on the mount is a classic thing.  Especially for beginners.  It's so hard to put so much of your budget there, instead of on the less important scope.


Edited by bobzeq25, 02 September 2021 - 03:41 PM.

  • Borodog likes this

#5 Jeffmar

Jeffmar

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,535
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2012
  • Loc: salt lake city, utah

Posted 02 September 2021 - 03:40 PM

Oof. Just found out it is not a CGX. It's a CGEM II. 40 pound capacity. Seems like I should still be ok though, yes?

My CGEM okay for visual but not so great with imaging. Everything had to be perfect. There could be no wind, no vehicles driving by, and I had to be very careful not to touch anything, even lightly, when doing exposures. I sold my CGEM to a friend with a C8 and he says it works really well for imaging with that scope.


  • Borodog likes this

#6 Borodog

Borodog

    Mercury-Atlas

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,729
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2020

Posted 02 September 2021 - 03:42 PM

My C11 weighs around 35 pounds with my astrophotography setup. My CGX worked some of the time but my CGX-L did better. The heavier tripod and larger worm wheels of the CGX-L made my C11 more stable and I was able to get more usable subframes. I definitely got more consistent results the heavier mount. 

Hmm. Now I'm worried that a CGEM II would definitely be too little mount. This deal is still too good to pass up, though. I should be able to sell the CGEM and upgrade and still be ahead.



#7 Borodog

Borodog

    Mercury-Atlas

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,729
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2020

Posted 02 September 2021 - 03:47 PM

My CGEM okay for visual but not so great with imaging. Everything had to be perfect. There could be no wind, no vehicles driving by, and I had to be very careful not to touch anything, even lightly, when doing exposures. I sold my CGEM to a friend with a C8 and he says it works really well for imaging with that scope.

That's what I figured. Still, I am getting scope and mount essentially brand new for less than the cost of the OTA (knock on wood).



#8 Jeffmar

Jeffmar

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,535
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2012
  • Loc: salt lake city, utah

Posted 02 September 2021 - 03:50 PM

For years my mounts have been too small. A bunch of people on Cloudy Nights told me that I needed to save my money and get a really good mount. If I had listened to the mount experts I could have skipped the in between steps, saved a bunch of money and frustration, and got a much better mount in the first place. I now have a Losmandy G11T, which is a step up from my CGX-L, which is two steps up from the CGEM I had. If there hadn’t been a long waiting list for the AP1100 I would have gone for that instead.


  • RAKing, bobzeq25 and Borodog like this

#9 Borodog

Borodog

    Mercury-Atlas

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,729
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2020

Posted 02 September 2021 - 04:07 PM

I am convinced. I will sell the CGEM II and upgrade. Or maybe defork my C8 and put it on there and just buy another mount for the 11". First I have to get my hands on the scope and mount, though. Cat before the horse, or something like that.



#10 Jeffmar

Jeffmar

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,535
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2012
  • Loc: salt lake city, utah

Posted 02 September 2021 - 05:01 PM

That sounds like a pretty good plan. My C11 edge is a really good scope. I think you will like yours a lot. Good luck with your mount shopping.


  • Borodog likes this

#11 Borodog

Borodog

    Mercury-Atlas

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,729
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2020

Posted 03 September 2021 - 12:28 PM

Well, I did it. I am now the owner of a pristine 1100 EdgeHD. The scope and the optics appear to be immaculate. I'll know more when I can star test it.

 

Now for the bad news. "Almost unused" does not mean "recently built." I have not checked the serial number yet, but according to the previous owner the scope was originally purchased around 10 years ago. That makes me somewhat nervous about potential issues in earlier examples that may have since been ironed out by Celestron. Can anyone comment on this and give me an idea of what to look for? Has the scope changed in some significant way in the past 10 years that I should know about? Has the manufacturing process or QC been improved since the scope was built?

 

The news on the mount just keeps going downhill. Although the mount, like the scope, appears immaculate, it is not in fact even a CGEM II, it is the older CGEM. What do I need to look out for there? As I said, I will be upgrading the mount, but probably not for a while.

 

I believe you all, but I will say it is difficult to imagine that the mount is not heavy enough for the scope. I feel like it weighs a ton, even without the counterweights on it. The scope feels like a feather compared to it. 


Edited by Borodog, 03 September 2021 - 03:18 PM.


#12 Old Speckled Hen

Old Speckled Hen

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 614
  • Joined: 18 May 2020
  • Loc: 56.4451° N, 3.1670° W

Posted 03 September 2021 - 12:38 PM

Stop obsessing and get out with it. Look at Albireo in your C11 and ENJOY. 

 

Every setup, every setup, is a compromise in one way or another.


Edited by Old Speckled Hen, 03 September 2021 - 12:44 PM.

  • RAKing and Borodog like this

#13 Jeffmar

Jeffmar

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,535
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2012
  • Loc: salt lake city, utah

Posted 03 September 2021 - 01:05 PM

The difference between the CGEM and CGEM II is purely cosmetic. They didn't change a thing other than a color here and there. It’s all marketing. I think the CGEM can be a very good mount.

 

I haven’t seen an SCT made in the last 10 years that wasn’t a good scope. The Edge scopes only differ from regular C11’s with the corrector lenses in the inner tube, the mirror locks on the back, and the paint job. 

 

The CGEM will do a good job visually, and you can still get some shorter exposure astrophotos. It isn’t true that you can’t do astrophotography with a lighter mount, it can be just be more difficult. I actually saw a guy with a C14 mounted on a CGEM at a star party who was doing electronically assisted viewing. He was taking 10 to 20 second exposures and getting some pretty good results. His counter weight shaft had weights from end to end, but he made it work. 

 

Have fun with your new scope and mount!


  • Borodog likes this

#14 bobzeq25

bobzeq25

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 25,909
  • Joined: 27 Oct 2014

Posted 03 September 2021 - 01:55 PM

EAA is much less demanding on mounts than traditional astrophotography.  I doubt you'll find many EAA devotees measuring full width at half maximum and eccentricity.

 

It's one reason for going EAA.



#15 Borodog

Borodog

    Mercury-Atlas

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,729
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2020

Posted 03 September 2021 - 03:23 PM

Stop obsessing and get out with it. Look at Albireo in your C11 and ENJOY. 

 

Every setup, every setup, is a compromise in one way or another.

Haha! You are right!

 

The difference between the CGEM and CGEM II is purely cosmetic. They didn't change a thing other than a color here and there. It’s all marketing. I think the CGEM can be a very good mount.

 

I haven’t seen an SCT made in the last 10 years that wasn’t a good scope. The Edge scopes only differ from regular C11’s with the corrector lenses in the inner tube, the mirror locks on the back, and the paint job. 

 

The CGEM will do a good job visually, and you can still get some shorter exposure astrophotos. It isn’t true that you can’t do astrophotography with a lighter mount, it can be just be more difficult. I actually saw a guy with a C14 mounted on a CGEM at a star party who was doing electronically assisted viewing. He was taking 10 to 20 second exposures and getting some pretty good results. His counter weight shaft had weights from end to end, but he made it work. 

 

Have fun with your new scope and mount!

 

Wonderful; thank you.

 

Given that I typically image either in the 1-10ms range or at very short focal lengths (for wide field AP), and that the scope will be in a location screened from the wind, perhaps I'll be able to get away with it.
 



#16 bobzeq25

bobzeq25

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 25,909
  • Joined: 27 Oct 2014

Posted 03 September 2021 - 05:35 PM

Haha! You are right!

 

 

Wonderful; thank you.

 

Given that I typically image either in the 1-10ms range or at very short focal lengths (for wide field AP), and that the scope will be in a location screened from the wind, perhaps I'll be able to get away with it.
 

I didn't realize from the title the C11 was strictly for planetary/lunar work, and you'd be using a small scope for DSO work.  In that case, you're fine.


  • Borodog likes this

#17 Borodog

Borodog

    Mercury-Atlas

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,729
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2020

Posted 04 September 2021 - 09:10 AM

Sorry, Bob; I should have made myself clear.

#18 RAKing

RAKing

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,207
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Northern VA - West of the D.C. Nebula

Posted 04 September 2021 - 09:56 AM

Well, I did it. I am now the owner of a pristine 1100 EdgeHD. The scope and the optics appear to be immaculate. I'll know more when I can star test it.

 

Now for the bad news. "Almost unused" does not mean "recently built." I have not checked the serial number yet, but according to the previous owner the scope was originally purchased around 10 years ago. That makes me somewhat nervous about potential issues in earlier examples that may have since been ironed out by Celestron. Can anyone comment on this and give me an idea of what to look for? Has the scope changed in some significant way in the past 10 years that I should know about? Has the manufacturing process or QC been improved since the scope was built?

 

The news on the mount just keeps going downhill. Although the mount, like the scope, appears immaculate, it is not in fact even a CGEM II, it is the older CGEM. What do I need to look out for there? As I said, I will be upgrading the mount, but probably not for a while.

 

I believe you all, but I will say it is difficult to imagine that the mount is not heavy enough for the scope. I feel like it weighs a ton, even without the counterweights on it. The scope feels like a feather compared to it. 

 

On the contrary, Celestron did a very good job of inspecting their early Edge scopes to make sure they had a "smooth" roll out when they introduced the model.  My first Edge arrived in early 2010 and it worked great!

 

My father was the person who got me to concentrate on the mount, so I put my name on the waiting list for an A-P Mach 1 about 14 years ago and got it within 18 months.  It was very expensive for me back then - like $6K expensive - but the results have been totally worth it.  My mount has now given me 12+ years of service with no glitches and it's as stable as a rock.

 

My advice -- Just get outside and use your CGEM.  See how it works.  Your opinion is the only one that counts after that.  The results you get with your personal setup should be the main factor in any decision you make.

 

Cheers,

 

Ron


  • payner, Jeffmar and Borodog like this


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