I find this report difficult. I suspect it was a poor setup. The CGE is
at least a G11 equiv.
CI has been doing some pretty good stuff lately and while I dont expect an
AP1200 I do expect it to be "OK" for imaging.
---------
Phil Chambers [ptchamb@No-Spam] (S.F. Bay Area - Calif. USA)
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Bill Arnett wrote:
>
> On Monday, June 30, 2003, at 10:05 PM, Alan Zaza wrote:
>
> > I looked through one last Saturday night at FP and noticed the mount
> > was not very stable. We were looking at some stuff at moderate
> > powers, and the fov really had the jiggles. I noticed this when
> > focusing, and then tapped the tube lightly. It took several seconds
> > for the image to stabilize. I was not impressed.
>
> Worse than an LX200? That's the first such comment I've heard. And
> therefore pretty valuable. Thanks!
>
> > However, maybe the
> > person didn't tighten-up all the hardware? He was new to it all and
> > spent the better part of the night aligning the thing to the stars.
>
> Or maybe he had it poorly balanced? Which size was it? One might
> expect the smaller ones to be more stable than the 14. OTOH, I've seen
> C14's on G11 mounts that worked just fine. If the CGE mount isn't at
> least that good then Celestron is screwing up badly.
>
> --
> Bill Arnett
> bill@No-Spam http://nineplanets.org/
> Emerald Hills CA USA 37 27 N 122 15 W
>
>