G-11 vs CI-700
Don Lewis
Celestron.
Is the CI-700 and the Losmandy G-11 the same mount or are there cutbacks
in the Celestron?
thank you,
--Don Lewis
Email: djl...@alltel.net
Web: http://www.alltel.net/~djlewis
Tom Davis
Different mounts entirely. I wouldn't say that there are cutbacks in the
CI700,
just design differences that some may prefer, others not. The drive is 180
teeth
instead of 360 on the Losmandy, but the gears are stainless steel for the
worm,
bronze for the worm gear on the CI700. The Losmandy uses 360 teeth, but
uses stainless steel worms and aluminum worm gears. The polar finder is
included on the CI700, but the Losmandy has a better design on their
optional
finder. The CI700 tripod folds up for transit, but is not adjustable as on
the
G11, where it has to be taken apart for transport. The optional encoder kit
has better connectors on the G11, but the CI700 encoders are twice as
accurate (4000 versus 2160 count). Personally, I like the G11 tripod
better,
since the fixed height CI700 tripod sits too high for me on my homemade
rolling cart. Others prefer the CI700 for transportabiltity to the field.
I own a CI700, find the drive very accurate (+/-5 arc seconds accuracy), and
quite stable with my C11. The G11 has smoother clutches, but no
slo-motions,
as the CI700 does (I don't bother with them, though). Load capacity is
fairly
close, with a slight edge to the G11. I have had no problems with this
mount
for extensive CCD use, with exposures of 1 hour or more on occassion. There
are others who can say the same about the G11. The worm gear adjustment
can be a bit tricky on the CI700, but I like the drive motors better than
the
G11. The CI700 electronics are similar to the G11. I like the additional
jack
for the Autoguider built into the hand controller, in place of an either-or
jack
on the G11.
As I stated, I don't find the CI700 to be a second class mount, just of a
different design that has pluses and minuses. Forced to make a decision,
I would say the G11 gives an appearance of better fit and finish, the CI700
works where it counts. Both are good mounts.
Thanks, Tom Davis
Don Lewis <djl...@alltel.net> wrote in message
news:39CFEFCA...@alltel.net...
royst...@my-deja.com
Don Lewis <djl...@alltel.net> wrote:
> I understand that the Celestron CI-700 mount is made by Losmandy for
> Celestron.
> Is the CI-700 and the Losmandy G-11 the same mount or are there
cutbacks
> in the Celestron?
>
> thank you,
>
> --Don Lewis
> Email: djl...@alltel.net
> Web: http://www.alltel.net/~djlewis
>
>
alternative to the G-11. Now is it the equivalent or at least in the
same ball park? Well it is comparable in load capability and from what
I have heard it is pretty functional. However the niceties of the
adjsutments on the G-11 especailly the latitude and Azimuth (No tools
Required) and the better wire jacks on the G-11 make it a better over
all model. The CI-700 tripod is fixed height and is basically a beefed
up tripod they use for the fork SCs. The G-11 tripod is in another
league in comparison.
The big sellin point for the CI-700 is avaialability. I don't know the
price but list price is the same as a G-11. I don't know what the
street price is. The G-11 and CI-700 use the same adpater plates and
such.
Celestron and Losmandy were involved in an agreement where Scott
Losmandy supplied mounts to Celestron and they labeled them with
Celestron Logo. These however are the original G-11 mounts. THe G-11 is
a derivative of the older Losmandy G-100 mount.
--
Roy
AKA ROYSTARMAN
http://ddi.digital.net/~starman
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Al
The system has been available for a while and I believe it's called "Sky
Walker".
Al
"Greg Crawford" <G.Cra...@hunterlink.net.au> wrote in message
news:96997965...@bell.nelsonbay.com...
> Don,
>
> One advantage of the Losmandy mount is the availability of a GOTO option.
> See here http://www.losmandy.com/newprod.html
>
> Greg Crawford
>
>
> "Don Lewis" <djl...@alltel.net> wrote in message
> news:39CFEFCA...@alltel.net...
Greg Crawford
Eddie Trimarchi
I have been using one of these for several months and it is a very nice
system.
--
Regards
Eddie Trimarchi
~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.fan.net.au/~eddiet
Al <aoccB...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:dd3A5.4985$s76.3...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> There is also an off the shelf GOTO system available for the CI-700 mount.
> The system has been available for a while and I believe it's called "Sky
> Walker".
>
> Al
> "Greg Crawford" <G.Cra...@hunterlink.net.au> wrote in message
> news:96997965...@bell.nelsonbay.com...
M. Lance Michel
think the CI700 might handle. Before I got my Skywalker, I couldn't track with
the C14, ST80, GEG, OM1, Telrad. Now it tracks no problem and I've swapped the
GEG for a Van Slyke flip mirror which weighs even more.
The GOTO is very accurate after performing a three star alignment. I can GOTO
M57 from accross the sky, and it will be in the field of view with my 20mm
Plossl. Even as the accuracy starts to fade from GOTO to GOTO, there is a
feature that refines the alignment from the last GOTO.
You just goto the object, use the hand paddle to re-center and hit the 'align
from last goto' button on the hand paddle. Damn cool feature!
Thanks,
Lance
Eddie Trimarchi wrote:
> Take a look at www.astrometric.com
>
> I have been using one of these for several months and it is a very nice
> system.
> --
>
> Regards
>
> Eddie Trimarchi
> ~~~~~~~~~~
> http://www.fan.net.au/~eddiet
>
> Al <aoccB...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:dd3A5.4985$s76.3...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > There is also an off the shelf GOTO system available for the CI-700 mount.
> > The system has been available for a while and I believe it's called "Sky
> > Walker".
> >
> > Al
> > "Greg Crawford" <G.Cra...@hunterlink.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:96997965...@bell.nelsonbay.com...
Greg Nowell
CI700. Mostly I was concerned about the drives: I've had very bad
experiences with made-in-China products, and Celestron would not let me know
where the drives are made. That usually means made-in-China (I've nothing
against Asians, mind you, I've got terrific made-in-Japan and made-in-Taiwan
stuff), and that was a risk I was no longer prepared to take. A number of
people on this list have argued that tracking is more accurate on the CI700
notwithstanding my concerns about the drives.
Mr. Davis, in a post in response to your query, said that the encoder
resolution on the G11 is not as good as on the CI700; everything about this
statement is wrong, I think, though his other points merit consideration.
First, the encoders are not made by either party. If you order encoders
from JMI, you will get 8000 resolution, superior to both resolutions
mentioned by Mr. Davis. And I believe 8000 resolution is the current
industry standard. I get 4000 resolution on my Super Polaris....
Mr. Losmandy, in an email to me, denied any connection with the CI700; it is
a rumor that the CI700 is made by Losmandy, a holdover from the days when
Celestron used the Losmandy mounts. It is a somewhat unique circumstance to
be able to take your questions and concerns directly to the guy that owns
the company. I such access into the dollar value of the mount, it is worth
paying for. However, I try not to bother Mr. Losmandy without talking to
other staff first.
My general concern is with the lack of quality control at Celestron for
non-optical parts. This is very evident for the CG5 and also, to a lesser
extent, in the repeated mentions on this site that the CI700 worm gear is
not factory set to perform as it should. That is like having to take your
car in and get the clutch adjusted when it is new out of the dealer. Some
things should be done right.
Celestron contends that the side-mounted polar finder on the CI700 is better
because it allows the steel shaft to be solid on the RA axis, which makes
for better load bearing capability. I am skeptical that, in the range of
likely weights (up to a C14), the hollow Losmandy shaft is in fact
appreciably weaker. I do think it likely that the side-mounted CI700 polar
finder has more possibility of getting out of optical alignment, and because
the worm gear is not factory set correctly, I am skeptical of how much
effort goes into aligning the polar scope. (Polar scope alignment is
automatic on the G11 because it is machined into the RA axis). The polar
scope is not illuminated on the CI700, and Celestron support cheerfully
suggested that I dangle a red light in front of it to see the cross hairs.
That's what I had to do with the CG5 and I have a low opinion of being
invited to use such kluges on astronomical equipment. I don't like going to
extra effort to make things do what they are supposed to do when I buy
them. A polar scope should find polaris in a way that makes the optical
axis of the tube line up to true north. If I have to align that polar
scope, and if I have to dangle a red light, I am not finding polaris, I am
playing with a polar scope, and that is not what I want to do when I am out
in the field, with my knees getting wet or getting rocks in them, or grass
stains.
But of course seeing the cross hairs is not the only issue. A properly
illuminated polar scope not only shows cross hairs, but dampens out all
stars except polaris, and makes the job of aligning *MUCH* easier. (This is
a key functional difference between the CG5 and Super Polaris; also the CG5
polar scope is not machined in place, making for frustrating alignment
requirements, much more difficult than aligning a bad finder).
All things considered, I concluded that between the lack of adjustable legs
and the lack of an illuminated polar finder, Celestron was being rather
cavalier about the user's needs in actual field use, and what makes for an
easy set up and what does not. Repeated mentions of superior "fit and
finish" on the G11 (on this site) reminded me very much of the difference
between the CG5 and the SP/GP series (I consider the Vixens much better).
Ultimately scope accuracy depends on precise machining; nothing can undo
poor machining (or "fit"). Mr. Wodaski, a frequent contributor on this list
who consults with Anacortes, says that the opinion there is that the "guts"
of the CI700 when disassembled do not look as high quality as the G11.
Anacortes sells both mounts, however, so you might take it up with them, and
you may ask Mr. Wodaski if I have paraphrased him reasonably accurately.
I believe also that the manual setting circles are better on the Losmandy
than the CI700. This is another issue of field use. While it is true that
electronic setting circles are putting manual circles out of business, there
is also the question of what happens when the battery dies or you drop the
computer. Bad setting circles are like having a doughnut spare tire instead
of a real one. Good setting circles are a real plus in my book.
So I opted to spend the extra money and wait for the Losmandy delivery
rather than go with the CI700. I believe that the illuminated polar scope
alone will save me $300 worth of aggravation in the years ahead. I also
have a short wife who likes astronomy! This as you know is rare among
spouses (and she is priceless as well as pretty and smart). I decided that
it would be foolish indeed to discourage her enthusiasm even slightly by
getting a mount that I could not make accessible, in most positions, to her
height. This also ties into the eventual problems of initiating my 4 mo
old son into astronomy; he too, will need lower adjustments. And finally,
our astronomy group sometimes has star parties for kids, and here too, I
think being able to lower the scope is a fine idea.
Finally, I should say that I have spent a half-dozen viewing sessions with a
friend who owns a G11 and it simply is the case that he sees about 3-4 times
what I see in an evening because his mount requires far less fiddling.
Whether that is true of the CI700 I don't know, but it's hard to argue with
experience.
Check out the prices at www.pocono.com as well as www.anacortes.com. I
think you will find pocono has the better deal on the G11 and anacortes the
better deal on teh CI700. You should call them to ask, I think not all
their deals are on the web site. --greg nowell
Don Lewis wrote:
> I understand that the Celestron CI-700 mount is made by Losmandy for
> Celestron.
> Is the CI-700 and the Losmandy G-11 the same mount or are there cutbacks
> in the Celestron?
>
> thank you,
>
> --Don Lewis
> Email: djl...@alltel.net
> Web: http://www.alltel.net/~djlewis
--
Gregory P. Nowell
Associate Professor
Department of Political Science, Milne 100
State University of New York
135 Western Ave.
Albany, New York 12222
Fax 518-442-5298
Ron Wodaski
I purchased a CI700 for my own personal use last year. I was sufficiently
unhappy with the ergonomics of the mount that I returned it. I wouldn't
characterize it as defective or anything nearly that harsh. It costs less
than a G-11, and my experience shows that relationship to be a reasonable
one. <g> How much less it _should_ be is a good question for a rainy
evening's debate.
There is always a line for each of us, where one will find mounts that don't
perform to the level we are willing to pay for.
--
Ron Wodaski
http://www.newastro.com
"Greg Nowell" <gno...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:39D264B4...@nospam.com...
Herb York
is www.buytelescopes.com
<g>
Herb
www.buytelescopes.com
Anacortes Telescope and Wild Bird
(360)588-9000
"Greg Nowell" <gno...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:39D264B4...@nospam.com...
Don Lewis
question of these two mounts. Greg Nowell writes a very informative
letter based on experience which is exactly the type of info I was
hoping for. I went back in search of a very good technical article
from a respondent and could not find it but I want to thank him
as well. I did back then in a direct reply.
As a result of all the info you kind people have supplied, I feel
very confident in ordering the Losmandy G-11 with Gemini GOTO.
I want a C-14 Fastar for it but will have to settle on the less
expensive C-8 Fastar as astronomy funds money will be in the negative for awhile
after this
new mount with goto. I am hoping the polar finder will be available too.
I have heard they are in a large backorder bucket. Mayby i will strike
gold soon and get the C-14 too. . . Right. . .