Celestron CGEM mount UPDATE

[FLO]

Last year Celestron announced a new mount designed to fill the gap between its CG-5 and CGE models. Unfortunately it was not available here in the UK unless bought with an OTA. That is now set to change.

The Celestron CGEM mount will be available as mount-only from around late-September and is expected to retail at approx £1299 (RRP £1399).

The new mount is clearly an evolution of Synta's hugely popular Skywatcher EQ6 PRO but adds a new All-Star (patent pending) polar alignment procedure which allows users to choose any bright star while the software calculates and assists with polar alignment. The CGEM also tracks objects well past the Meridian (imaginary line passing from North to South) for uninterrupted imaging.

Permanent period error correction is included - the mount retains the PEC recordings - and 'beefed up' Altitude and Azimuth adjustment knobs for quick and easy polar alignment adjustment.

For up-to-date details, price and specifications of this and other Celestron mounts please visit our website HERE

[Beyond_Vision]

Whats the weight capacity of the mount?

Regards

Kevin

[FLO]

The quoted max payload is 40lb. We'll test one ourselves when it arrives so will know more then

[beamish]

Is it just me ( probably !) but it doesn't look "beefy" enough if you know what I mean. Is this meant to be a rival to the HEQ5 ??

[FLO]

No, it is more of an upgrade to the EQ6 PRO.

For scale, here it is with Celestron's 11" SCT:

[beamish]

Umm the scale certainly helps but the weight capabilities are quoted at 40lbs (less than 20Kg) ?? (EQ6= 24Kg)

[Beyond_Vision]

Got to agree with you there Karlo it's a shame it isn't higher than or the same as the EQ6 pro.

Regards

Kevin

[FLO]

EQ6= 24Kg

There is another thread here on SGL where we concluded that quoted payload capacities are often ambiguous and open to debate.

We will assess the CGEM ourselves when it arrives and offer our opinion then.

We will also make one available for a SGL review...

HTH

[beamish]

Looks nice though Steve;)

Mind you so does the C11

[FLO]

Perhaps the larger CGE PRO is more to your liking (will post details when they come in):

[Basilicus]

I guess the CGE Pro will be far more expensive...?

When would you start selling it? Any idea?

[FLO]

Yes, the CGE PRO will be considerably more expensive. We are not sure yet how much it will be or when it will arrive here in the UK but we are hoping later this year.

[buddyarrows]

The Infamous Telescope Planet are listing in stock to-day for £1399

see: Celestron CGEM Computerised Mount

Cheers

David

[NickH]

The "quoted" payload on the CGEM is under what it will take...by quite some margin. Celestron engineers have told me that it will take a load at least the same as the EQ6, and they say more. It also has some other tweaks which make the load carrying capability at slow slew speeds better. I have permission from them to state this fact.

[FLO]

Celestron engineers have told me that it will take a load at least the same as the EQ6, and they say more. It also has some other tweaks which make the load carrying capability at slow slew speeds better.

That is interesting

As you know Nick, both the Skywatcher EQ6 PRO and the new Celestron CGEM mount are designed and manufactured by Synta. Synta's competitors would like us to believe the CGEM is little more than an EQ6 PRO with new castings. I doubt that is true. Synta have designed and marketed it as a step up from the EQ6 PRO so that is what it will be. Synta don't normally fail.

[NickH]

;-)

[NickH]

Got to agree with you there Karlo it's a shame it isn't higher than or the same as the EQ6 pro.

Regards

Kevin

Oh but it is... ;-)

[FLO]

I do hope you have one to review Nick

I find I am becoming increasingly irritated at some magazine reviews, particularly when they try to justify products that are seriously over-priced, over technical or just plain inadequate for the purpose.

If magazines don't allow their reviewers more freedom and objectivity then they will find forums and dedicated online review sites that will and that is where people will go for credible information.

... steps off soapbox and exits the room ...

[NickH]

Well, knowing me as you do Steve...that isn't the case..

It was obvious from the first minute that this quoted load spec was too low on this one..and it's great to know that Celestron et al have confirmed this

[FLO]

Well, knowing me as you do Steve...that isn't the case..

That is why I said I hope you have one to review

[Beyond_Vision]

Well, knowing me as you do Steve...that isn't the case..

It was obvious from the first minute that this quoted load spec was too low on this one..and it's great to know that Celestron et al have confirmed this

Thats good to hear Nick otherwise it would have been a daft situation of a mount with some great features but less weight capacity than an EQ6 and costing considreably more.

The market does really need something that is a higher load carrying capacity than an EQ6 and has the sort of features like the CGEM but around £2000. There seems to be a gap in the market between the circa £1000 mounts and the £3,000+ mounts like the CGE etc.

[MartinB]

The Tak EM200 is rated at 16kg. As most of you know the EQ6 is an EM200 clone. When Tak give a weight rating they are thinking about long focal length imaging and are very conservative, whereas Synta aren't.

Maximum recommended payloads are a bit of a nonesense lets face it. Do they apply to visual or imaging use, bulky newts or compact cats, long focal length or short, use in a dome or an open field? Best ignored. Go and pick one up to get the best idea!

[Beyond_Vision]

The Tak EM200 is rated at 16kg. As most of you know the EQ6 is an EM200 clone. When Tak give a weight rating they are thinking about long focal length imaging and are very conservative, whereas Synta aren't.

Maximum recommended payloads are a bit of a nonesense lets face it. Do they apply to visual or imaging use, bulky newts or compact cats, long focal length or short, use in a dome or an open field? Best ignored. Go and pick one up to get the best idea!

Yes but you need to know the mechanical limit and then it's upto you how close you go to this limit with your particular setup.

[MartinB]

Yes but you need to know the mechanical limit and then it's upto you how close you go to this limit with your particular setup.

So is the weight rating a mechanical limit above which you are likely to damage the mount and stop it tracking or is it a reasonable weight for good performance (whatever that means)? Synta and Tak obviously have different views!

If it is a mechanical limit are they thinking about use with a long focal length newt on a windy night, an SCT inside a dome or something in between? It would help if they were a bit clearer

[Beyond_Vision]

I suppose a mechanical load limit that is derated to give a safety margin would be sensible. There needs to be some method of comparing eggs with eggs. This then needs to be further derated by the end user depending on there use. The manufacturer should reminded users that a large telescope such as a newt could exert more stress on the mount in windy conditions and therefore the weight lessened to accomodate.