Jump to content

NLCbanner2024.jpg.2478be509670e60c2d6efd04834b8b47.jpg

How bad would it be? C11 and CG5 combo

ChrisEdu

By ChrisEdu
in Discussions - Mounts

Recommended Posts

ChrisEdu

ChrisEdu

Posted
Posted

OK - been thinking about getting a C11 with the CG5 mount. Reading around, nearly everyone says that this is a bad combination and not worthwhile. So, just how bad would it be?

Initially, I'd only really be using it for visual observing and would be purchasing with the aim of later upgrading to either a CGEM or NE6 mount to allow me to try some imaging / photography.

SO, would the combination of C11 and CG5 really be close to unusable for visual, or would it suffice?

Thanks for your opinions / help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dweller25

dweller25

Posted
Posted

It all depends ....

It will be BAD at high powers - you will get severe shakes when focusing, I had a C9.25 on a CG5 and it was a problem on the planets. A good motorised focuser will overcome this though.

On low powers for deep sky it should be OK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ollypenrice

ollypenrice

Posted
Posted

...but be aware that a C11 is, in my view at least, a telescope best used with a premium mount, not an EQ6, for DS imaging. It is not the weight but the accuracy required by the very long focal length. I don't say it would be impossible on an EQ6 but it would not be on my 'to do' list in all honesty.

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChrisEdu

ChrisEdu

Posted
  • Author
Posted

OK - so I'm getting the feeling that focussing could be a problem and that imaging with the CG5 next to undoable.

So, would the CGEM or NEQ6 Pro be considered suitable for it? If not, what would?

In terms of focussing at lower powers, e.g. for larger objects (DSOs), would the focussing issue still be a problem?

I'd have to say, it feels like Celestron like to undermount their scopes. Focussing my 4SE creates vibrations galore, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChrisEdu

ChrisEdu

Posted
  • Author
Posted

As I have said, to start with, my main focus will be with visual observations. I would like to be able to use it to view planets, galaxies, clusters and nubulae. Initially, any photography would likely be limited to planets / lunar and either with a camera simply held to the EP, or a cheap webcam, type set-up; I realise that the CG5 plus C11 wouldn't cope with attaching something like my Nikon D300 too.

I was steered towards the C11 for several reasons: a) already owning a NextStar 4SE I'm used to the CAT design, albeit a Mak; :) wanting something with a GOTO mount; c) wanting something that will be easy (er) to maintain, i.e. requiring less collimating, dust protection, etc...; d) concerns about the size of 12" Newtonians, especially as I'd like my children to be able to view without too much trouble; e) budget and the current good deals on the C11, even if I did replace the CG5 maybe next year, it seemed a way to get started with a C11 for not much less than the OTA normally sells alone; f) wanting to get as much light gathered into something reasonably portable; g) dealer recommendation.

I think that covers about all the thought processes! :rolleyes: I realise that some of these may be misguided or that better / preferable options might be available, hence seeking advice / opinions.

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChrisEdu

ChrisEdu

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Well in that case go for it... I can't wait to see the results :rolleyes:

Following my thought process through, are there any other suggestions that you'd make?

I guess part of it comes down to being frustrated by the limitations of the 4SE. Yes, it is a nice scope, but the range of objects that one can look at is a bit limited due to the size.

Anyone know how the CGEM mount compares to the NEQ6Pro? I know it costs more, but is it woth the extra?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChrisEdu

ChrisEdu

Posted
  • Author
Posted
It really depends on what "up there" is likely to interest you the most...

I guess, as Queen once sang, 'I want it all!' :rolleyes:

Have just spoken to RVO who feel the CG5 should be alright for visual use and recommend ideally going for the CGEM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JohnnyD333

JohnnyD333

Posted
Posted

Hi Chris,

The CG5 has a weight limit of around 35 lbs. The C11 itself weighs 27 lbs. You will need counterweights as well, which will push it beyond its limit. I have a CG5 and I dont see it holding all that weight with confidence. The CGEM sounds like a much better plan, although at a higher cost as mentioned. Good luck, the C11 is a great scope no matter what.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ollypenrice

ollypenrice

Posted
Posted

Everyone talks about weight because that is what the manufacturers talk about. Ask anybody regularly involved in imaging and they will talk about accuracy in relation to focal length. Honestly, it would be a good idea to understand this sooner rather than later because later is when you discover that you get lousy results from your expensive setup! I'm talking about DS imaging here, because DS observing is relatively easy on a mount. For observing, weight is a good indicator of mount performance.

If you want to image through a long focal length scope you need a mount which, under autoguiding, really is very accurate indeed. They are expensive. Four, five, eight, ten thousand pounds. People are not stupid. If you could count on an EQ6 to deliver this kind of performance they would keep their money and their EQ sixes. Even when you dish out a bomb... top tracking is not guranteed. (Tell me about it!)

If, when, you want to get into DS imaging think again about big telescopes. In the meantime learn the basics with a tracking-tolerant short FL refractor and surprize yourself. Here's a bit of nonsense from an 85mm apo (though a good one.)

http://ollypenrice.smugmug.com/Other/Galaxies/M31best-v1/1056334673_daDu7-X3.jpg

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JohnnyD333

JohnnyD333

Posted
Posted

I think the question of weight is unavoidable when talking about putting a C11 on a CG5, whether it is for imaging or observing. The point is the CG5 is going to struggle, it is made at an entry level for smaller scopes. I would love to have a C11 and a $3000 mount, but is it really necessary?

I almost fell for the focal length problem until I started imaging. You look at enough detailed high focal length images and become obsessed with doing the same. I began to believe that if I had a bigger scope that I could get higher quality images.

Eventually I realized that no matter the size of the scope, mount, camera etc. if you can't develop an image with a small scope, how are you going to do it with a bigger scope, which brings a new set of challenges at such a high focal length. This hobby has become quite humbling to me in that regard.

Sorry to rant about personal experiences, but in the end the C11 would be great for observing on at least a CGEM. For imaging, I think Olly explained it best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AztecastroMcJ

AztecastroMcJ

Posted
Posted

madness :) lol just aquired above recently

heres what ill add, i upgraded from 5" mak aswell

the ideal tripod and mount for C11 is new CGEM DX

http://www.celestron.com/c3/product.php?CatID=16&ProdID=761

has extra large 2.75" tripod legs as apposed to 2" ones on CG5,EQ6 and CGEM

altho ideally C11 should be mounted on pier in obs on mountain i reckon :rolleyes:

i think C9.25 would be much better suited to this mount CG5

but decided i would take risk, mainly for reasons u have mentioned

and others on here are pushing there mounts aswell,

and on nights of best seeing the C11 will outperfom the C9 for imaging resolution and viewing

larger mirror means image shift more apparent esp with stock focuser,

also larger scopes more prone to mirror flop when slewing from E to W,

the collimation and imaging experts even suggest recollimating may be needed when doing such a manovere

also collimation shud be checked before any serious high resolution images can be aquired on planets and moon

i would suggest CPC 9.25 aswell as another alternative to consider

mainly for ease of use and prob safer dual fork mount and easier az system as apposed to eq, altho it will rule out long exposure dso alltogether unless u add wedge

the CG5 however would be ideal i think for imaging dso's with 80ED apo as Ollie as suggested, keeping C11 for viewing and planets and moon imaging

actually so far i'm impressed with how little scope shakes when focusing etc compared to mak

switching from az to eq mount is more annoying than i thought it would be esp as i'm not imaging dso at moment

hope this helps a bit

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChrisEdu

ChrisEdu

Posted
  • Author
Posted

OK, I accept that imaging with the C11 might be an issue, but how about using the 4SE on the CG5? Could I get something worthwhile without too much extra expense follwoing that avenue and then keep the C11 for visual?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChrisEdu

ChrisEdu

Posted
  • Author
Posted

the ideal tripod and mount for C11 is new CGEM DX

http://www.celestron.com/c3/product.php?CatID=16&ProdID=761

has extra large 2.75" tripod legs as apposed to 2" ones on CG5,EQ6 and CGEM

Hmm... I could imagine that discussion with my wife, 'Hey honey, love of my life, most gracious one. (buttering her up!) You know that scope I just spent ££££ on, well, now it's the funniest thing but, I need to spend £££££ to buy a new mount!' 'Honey? Hey honey?' :rolleyes:

I might just be allowed to live if I went for the CGEM. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.