Mounts: Vixen vs SW

[LewisM]

I always initially wanted a Vixen Sphinx or better right from the get go for my setup, but due to monetary constraints, had to go with Skywatcher.

I have been fairly pleased with the NEQ6 (though curse at it sometimes :) ), but have always wondered if the Vixen mounts are THAT much better. Imitation being the sincerest form of flattery (or just pure Chinese knock-off ;) ) and all that.

I have entirely Vixen scopes (and am beyond wrapt with them!!!), and now deciding if it is worth to go up to the Spinx or on up. I know the extra expense, but I am thinking in the long run it will be worth it. I can already notice some slip issues with the NEQ6 (I keep tightening as it happens...and I always keep my setups PRECISELY balanced in both axes)

Opinions from those who use Vixen mounts appreciated, especially on their computer systems (I have heard second hand that their southern hemisphere star database for alignment is an issue)

[brian nordstrom]

:) Hi Lewis , Vixen .
I have an Ioptron IEQ45 , now thats a mount .
Between the 2 you mention'd and my IEQ45 , well ?? , thats 3 now .
I have found over the last year that Ioptron's software is a lot better than both SW's and Vixens , and my mount has not missed a beat , ever .Great set ups , accurate as ....
On the SW and Vixen , well ? the mechanicals of the Vixen are a lot better , but the software , as I have seen needs a lot to be desired , where SW's software is well sorted now .
Great Question Lewis .
Look at the Ioptron's mate .;) .
Brian.

[Larryp]

Hi Lewis-I once had a Vixen GP mount with Skysensor 2000. The mount was ok, but no better than my Skywatcher EQ3 Pro. The Vixen tripod was absolute crap, though.

[Wavytone]

Hi Lewis, I bought an SXD a few years ago to go with my 180 mm Mak and 4" f/7 refractor and rapidly learned to hated it for many reasons - it drove me nuts, and sold it after a few months:

- The mount IMHO is fine for visual use but mechanically not adequate for astrophotography - the periodic geartrain errors, backlash in declination, flexure are all far worse than I expected. One point in particular is that the worm gears are inadequate (too small, not stiff enough and with too much movement) for anything bigger than a short 4" refractor;
- In windy conditions with a scope on top it vibrated quite a fair bit. It isn't nearly as solid as it looks.
- The clutches on mine worked OK, but there is a slight tendency for each axis to rotate a little as the clamp is applied. really annoying as you then have to use the handcontroller to move it back on target;
- Once calibrated on stars you have to leave it clamped and then slew electrically around the sky; it sounds noisy as bloody coffee grinder and its not fast; to the point of rapidly becoming irritating;
- Yes in the southern sky the catalog has more than a few problems;
- My eyesight couldn't cope well with the Skybook hand controller, much of the time it was either blinding in the dark or too dim/unreadable;
- The user interface is very clunky, like an old arcade game from the 1970's with too much small text that is unreadable;
- It can't interface to software on an iPhone/iPad.

I've always thought the Skywatcher EQ5/EQ6 mounts were a tad small and flimsy despite seeing people putting 8" SCT's on them. The next step up was a Losmandy G11 but I wasn't prepared to spend that much on something I may only use 4-6 times a year.

But... having seen the new Skywatcher AZ-EQ6, that is something else and it does all the things I really wanted in a mount. Looks like they have kept the useful bits from the EQ6 and then asked a bunch of real observers "now what would I really like"... and gone and done all those things. And it looks a lot better thought out and engineered than the competition from Meade.

I am getting ready to buy one of these mounts early 2013...

[brian nordstrom]

:shrug: we are going to argue Vixen , Ioptron again , aye Larry ?
Merry Christmas Brother .
Brian.

[brian nordstrom]

:shrug: Ioptron ?
Brian.

[marki]

The SXD is mechanically fine for AP as the worms and worm wheels are very accurate but the star book kills the package. The southern hemisphere issue was sorted in the last update so this is no longer a problem with the star book but the way it sends messages to the mount is. I replaced the motor board on mine with a NexSXD board, ditched the star book and ran it with a Celestron controller (it thinks it is a CGE pro). Magically all the glitches that used to drive me mad disappeared without touching anything else, it's quieter and tracks beautifully and auto guides without fuss. As the mount is only capable of carrying a 15kg load, for AP it would not be wise to exceed 10kg. Is it better then a skywatcher? In fit and finish yes and the worms are better but load capacity is limited and the star book is PITA. It is best compared with the EQ5pro not the EQ6 pro. It is very compact and light so makes a great grab and go. I have posted the last image I took with the mount to show that round stars are possible (now use a Tak EM200). You will have to forgive me for the colours as I was experimenting with Ha and losing :P:). It had a 10kg load and subs were 10 mins from memory.

[Kunama]

Lewis For your FL102S you should be able to use the GP-D2 mount with iOptron GoToNova Kit or Synscan EQ5 controls.

I have the GP-D2 and will be fitting the GotoNova to it in the new year.

[2stroke]

Over 50% of Vixen's gear is made by synta as far as i read so i doubt you will find any difference. gp-d2 (vixen) - eq5 (skywatcher/saxon) - cg5 (celestron) there the same dam thing with different motor covers and colors from what i've seen. Would be good if you got the vixen and checked out how close it was to the eq6 :) 180 tooth main worm wheel the same as the eq6, will have to google it up more. Dam i want a AXD :) http://www.vixenoptics.com/mounts/AXD%20Mount.html

[Kunama]

Vixen mounts are made in Japan, its only their finderscope that is made in China, (and possibly their cheaper refractors).

Their designs have been cloned by Synta for years. I think the SXD is discontinued, so now you have the SXW and SXP (which would be my pick if I wasn't so darn poor)

[LewisM]

Vixen's el-cheapo refractors are Synta made, as are their finder scopes, but their mounts and higher end telescopes are most assuredly still Japanese made.

Skywatcher copied the mounts (plus some Takahashi features). Celestron stuff is all Chinese made (well, I believe MOST of it) anyway, seeing that Synta owns Celestron.

[2stroke]

Yer i knew celestron was bought by synta some time back. Intresting then there stealing there partened design but then having them produce low end stuff for them :) Are well you can them compare the difference recording pe data and post if you get a vixen, this would be great to see.

[marki]

Maybe not so mysterious. Vixen used to produce many bits and pieces for celestron which were sold under that brand name. Probably have a contract in place that has run over into the synta ownership. The EQ 6 is a direct rip off of the Tak EM200 mount, even the tripods are interchangeable with both mount heads fitting into either brand. The only real difference between the two besides colour and badges is that synta put all the electronics inside the case whilst Takahashi leaves the encoders and electronic box on the out side, oh and the Tak worms and gears are about a zillion times better quality as are all the mechanical bits :D. But compared to the EQ6 the Tak control system is archaic unless you buy the $1000.00 custom hand controller or run it directly from the Sky.

Mark

[2stroke]

Cheers for that info mark, hmm i wonder if you can get a tak worm and wheel to fit straight into a eq6 ;) That could really spice things up along with some A grade bearings. Sorry about the thread hijack btw

[marki]

I have ripped both apart and imagine you very well could do an exchange as they are remarkably similar although the cost of doing so would be prohibitive. Internally the materials used differ greatly with the EQ6 having a steel RA shaft whilst the EM200 appears to have a bronze RA shaft. The worm wheels on an EQ6 are brass whilst the EM200 has bronze wheels. Strangely the EM200 has a brass worm on the DEC and a steel worm on the RA whilst the EQ6 has steel worms on both axes. I have not checked parts side by side but from memory they seem very close.

Mark

[2stroke]

Would say the use of steel and brass on the DEC is purely cost and because the RA is where most of the error only is if near perfectly aligned hence the use of bronze. Also bronze is a much better material for wear but must be costly to machine unlike brass which is softer, dam tak did there home work and went all the way out :) http://www.diffen.com/difference/Brass_vs_Bronze