Steve, thanks for that info. I am strongly leaning toward the CGEM at this point. I do plan on using for imaging with small apertures and medium focal lengths, though visual use will likely predominate for a while, until I become proficient at using it. I'm hoping this mount will see me through the next 8 to 10 years, and then I'll drop 3 or 4 times the money on a top-of-the-line mount, so see me through retirement and to the grave. On 4/30/10, Steve FISHER <sfisher01@msn.com> wrote:
Chuck:
Sorry I was unable to reply but I was pretty tied up yesterday. Both myself and Bill Cowles have used the Atlas. Mine was actually a Canadian version called EQ6-Pro. Just a white Atlas. Everything that was said yesterday was true. For a lighter load than "maxed out" the Atlas is a great mount. I used a William Optic 132 FLT on mine. It performed perfectly for visual.
I moved up to the CGE for my next OTA and I can only tell you that the software and handset are way above the SynScan in ease of use. It is not compatable with the EQ-Mod as far as I know but as handsets go and ease of use the Celestron is my hands on favorite. Both the CGE, CGE Pro and the CGEM use the same handset. You will love it and YES it will goto for sure.
I would be unable to tell you how well any of them do for astrophotography from a first hand stand poing but the Atlas and the CGE have long track records now and what I have read about the CGEM is that if it works out of the box it will work well. (yes there have been some who have had problems out of the box) It could happen to anyone.