Posts Made By: Brad Geisler

Larry,
Uploading a picture comes on the page after the body of the ad your placing.
Click on continue to get to the next page. Once you browse for your picture, open it, but then you have to click on the upload button and it will appear on the page.
Give it a try and it should work for you. This is from memory, hope I didn't miss anything.
Brad

Great image Steve !!

I now have a new background screen that is perfect for fall.
Thanks for sharing it,

Brad

I'll second that Russ.
I got lucky and stumbled on to my Mewlon 250 listed under reflectors when I was constantly checking the "cat" list.Guess that is where I thought it fit in.
Brad

Hi Larry,
Over on the left of the screen, click on " Account Menu " listed under My Account. Then look for Unused Ratings and click on that to find your transaction to rate it.
Brad

Mark,
You will find that some DSO's, especially planetary nebs and small globular clusters really need higher powers to properly view them. You are correct when you say they get brighter.
I always experiment with my magnification on new objects, sometimes it will surprise you.
Clear skies,
Brad

Scott,
The requirement for coma correction can be a personal choice. At F4.5, coma will probably be at least noticable at the outer field of view, but the decision of whether or not it needs correction will vary between users. It may not bother you as much as others. At F4.5, though I have a Parracor Coma Corrector, I seldom put it in the focuser. Others are religous about it's necessity. At F6, chances are you won't need it unless you are severely bothered by the presence of coma. We are all different, thank goodness !!!
YMMV
Brad

Seems to fire right up for me.
Brad

I will probably regret this, however

I understand the posters plight.

A new mount SHOULD NOT REQUIRE any problems to be resolved easily OR at all after one hour of first light.

Celestron is on the wrong path, once again. Why do we as the consumer have to be the testers ???? It is obviously a low priced mount for it's stated capabilities. Less than half its competitions price for the same claims. But whatever price you put it out at, it should work in an acceptable fashion. It might not be a software failure, it is a quality control issue. I understand that for a low priced mount, and I will never buy one again.

I am on my second CGEM, which I am now finally pretty happy with. But it took me two examples to get a decent one, and this "decent" one had to go for a $300 Hypertuning and a $200 tripod spreader to be able to guide with it at all. The electronics finally worked, but not the mechanical ability. Tell folks if it is only good for half the stated weight rating and not to expect much as it comes from the factory at a low price. The mechanics of the mount, in my case the CGEM, is very mediocre. There are not many changes other than a tripod for the new DX model.

The DX model, not much different from my CGEM, has a very improved tripod with the very same motors as the CGEM. But it does supply more power to those motors, that seems to be the extent of the improved electronics. They seem to be the same motors as the CG-5 and CGEM, so supplying more power probably just cuts their life expectancy. Just my guess.

I do not mean to sound as bitter as I probably do, I am just tired of the marketing hype that we are expected to accept. Tell it like is and we will accept that in our purchase decision. If you don't tell us, we will be bitter about that purchase, just like the poster is. He probably feels deceived.
Brad

Steve,
That is an excellent image for your capture technique.

Great work !
Brad

Harry,

You know you would be silly to think you are alone.
I ended up buying a top dovetail rail and a heavy duty ball head.
That fixed it until I sold the SCT, things never end.
Brad