To wedge or not to wedge!!!!! Generic equipment discussions · Jeff Clayton · ... · 2 · 108 · 0

Astratudo 0.00
...
Hello All,

I need some help deciding what to do. I have the following equipment, a CPC deluxe EDGE HD optics 1100. I also have an EDGE HD 1100 on a Celestron CGEM (not a DX) with every upgrade except the hypertune. Its a long story on why i have 2 EDGEHD 1100 telescopes. I wont bore you. I also have an ED80T CF on an atlas eq-g. I do not need two 11" telescopes. I do photography mainly through the ED80 and i would really like to do some photography through an 11". before you ask, i have the OAG, .7x reducer, and a hyperstar for the 11".

My wife really wants me to get rid of one of these big scopes. but which one? Will the CGEM allow me to do decent photography with an 11" cat on it? or is it only good for observation with that much weight on it? Should i do the PRO wedge on the CPC for photography? Which one will be more stable? Are there better wedges for the CPC 1100 deluxe than the Celestron PRO wedge? What are they? Which would be the better mount with the 1100 on it, the Celestron CGEM or the Atlas EQ-G? Ive only had the 1100 on the CGEM for a little over a week now and i dont know anything about its capabilities. A local deal came up on a ton of celestron equipment that i just could not pass on.

I know i have asked many questions and opinions, but i will be grateful for anyone with experience to chime in.

Thanks,

Jeff
Like
Toxic_Coolaid 0.90
...
The CGEM should take the weight with no problem.  Balance it well, do a good polar alignment, autoguide, and you should have no problems.

Mo
Like
AMultiverse 0.00
...
In general, the fork arm mount will be better than the GEM for visual use. The GEM will place the scope's eyepiece high and low, and that will be hard on your back. However, you will probably find the CPC is unacceptable for deep sky imaging because it has high period error, lots of backlash, and does not guide well. Many people find the CGEM can handle an EdgeHD 1100; especially with a HyperStar. It will take much more experience to learn how to use an OAG well, but most people find that the CGEM will yield acceptable results even at prime. The problem with imaging is the standards which such things are judged are quite variable. One person's excellent is another person's horrible. AstroBin helps because it is easy to look at the commentator's work. But in general, only relative ratings are reliable.

The CGEM and the Atlas EQ-G both have similar payload capabilities. Both should handle an 11" SCT. Though they are actually both made by the same manufacturer, the designs are quite different. For visual use, the American Celestron designed handset is much superior and easier to use than the Chinese designed Orion or SkyWatcher handsets. However, Orion and SkyWatcher gears and drive motors tend to be better for imaging. In particular if you don't use the handset, and drive your Orion mount directly using a Windows computer and EQMOD software the EQ-G is better for deep sky imaging.

Any of the three mounts will perform equally well with an EdgeHD 1100 for planetary imaging using lucky imaging and a high fps camera.
Like
 
Register or login to create to post a reply.