My mount dilemma

[HarryD]

Hi to you all.

I am looking at purchasing a new mount to replace my EQ6. I need to be able to put it up and take it down after each session.
The EQ6, purchased in 2008, has had a belt mod, cleaned, regreased and most bearings replaced etc. Tuned, tuned and tuned again. Sometimes the tracking/ guiding using PHD2 is amazing, especially the RA. Twenty minute subs work well. But....it will often wander off or leap up and down in DEC. I have had enough because it can't be trusted and I am tired of adjusting it. One image would be wonderful with my QSI683, but the next one will be fit for the bin.
I was thinking maybe the AZ-EQ6 has solved these issues. But on further research there still seems to be DEC issues.
How about a Losmandy G11. But again I find people taking about adjusting it to ensure good results.
OK how about a Paramount MYT.
Now I know that the cheapest mount I have mentioned here is about $2700 and the dearest about $13000, but I am over adjusting my EQ6 and not knowing if it will behave itself from one image to the other. I don't want to go through the whole "lets tune this and see if it will perform" routine again. I just want to set it up and use it. Also I don't want to buy another mount, SWMBO will be OK with one more but that will be it.
Is there any MYT owners out there who can share their thoughts with me.

Greg

[graham.hobart]

isn't there a PMX for sale in classifieds?
I love my PMX, have had no issues with it at all.
If the MYT is as good then it will last you for years.
Graham

[Camelopardalis]

Are you sure it's the mount and not PHD?

[vlazg]

I would think a PMX at 23kg and needing 48v is not really suitable for daily setups especially in the field, if it was i would consider it myself.

[Bart]

I agree. PHD stands for "pretty hairy declination" as I have seen it cause more than one issue in DEC while guiding. In fact, I will not use PHD any more, or PHD2.

[rustigsmed]

what do people use instead of PHD2? I hadn't heard of these problems.

[raymo]

R.A. problems, all sorts of possibilities; Dec problems, hardly any that an
experienced operator like yourself would either cause, or not recognise and fix. You having tuned it and tuned it, pretty much removes what possibilities there were.
Assuming that you are using PHD or similar software, then I think Dunk [and
Bart] probably hit the nail on the head.
raymo

[el_draco]

G11 is field portable but needs some tuning. Brilliant mount though and its results are around everywhere. Paramount PMX is superb but an heavier and several orders more expensive. The MyT is smaller than PMX and about same as a G11. Bisque have an excellent field tripod option for either. Would not fiddle with anything less than a G11 but you can mod it with all the whistles and still have a substantial cash balance over a Paramount.

[vlazg]

Has anyone heard or used this, it may help

http://www.mda-telescoop.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82&Itemid=114

[garymck]

+1 for the Losmandy G11.

I bought mine secondhand - it's a G11 Gemin1 with an Ovision worm. It has 4.5 arc secs of pe, gives amazing rms figures for guiding and carries any scope I'm likely to own. I upgraded it with an RA extender and the latest high torque motors. Might take a bit of a fiddle to get tuned, but certainly performs once you have done it....

FWIW
Gary

[Bart]

Astro Physics and Software Bisque would be at the top of my list. I must admit that I don't see a G11 as an upgrade (this is my own opinion which will differ from others).

[gregbradley]

For what its worth. I have PME and AP1600. PME is giving me round stars but has more PE than the AP1600. I have had periods where the AP1600 was guiding with .6 arc sec error for 5 minutes. Its often under 1 arc sec. That is outrageously good.

The PME is around 2-3 arc secs with PE applied and it gives round stars.

So anything above about 5-6 arc secs should be fine. Obviously the less the better.

SB mounts have the home feature which is cool and handy. If you rebalance your mount during the night you simply hit home and its all aligned and off you go.

Some AP mounts can have a home feature added (it needs a home sensor).
But if you have plate solving working then its a simple matter of taking an image, saving it, plate solving it using all sky data and syncing off of it and you have done the same thing.

With the higher AP mounts you can add encoders to the mount at home later on. Roland says these eliminate PE altogether. Its something I plan on some time in the future. The encoders also give a home function like SB.

Both are high end mount makers. I have never heard of a dud AP mount but there were several with issues with their PMX on this site which once fixed make it a great mount but annoying to spend that sort of money only to have to do something to it. SB are good for backup though.

SB mounts integrate with their software (Sky X) very well. So does AP with a little bit of extra work. I found the slew limit function on Sky X and PMX was bugged and had to be constantly reentered. Not sure if that has been fixed since. Kind of minor though. You need Pempro with a PMX as the SB PEC software gave unreliable results at one time. Pempro comes free with an AP mount and Ray Gralak software is very bullet proof and reliable. It just works without bugs. He is very good at his work.

AP mounts may hold their value a little better than SB because of these past hiccups. AP is held in high esteem and for good reason.

Not sure about AP Mach 1 GTO but one little oddity (since handled with a new AP gearbox) is AP1600 is a bit hard to balance the scope as the axes are designed to be stiff. So you get an approximate balance. Roland says it does not bother the mount if the load is a bit unbalanced as the motors are very powerful. At a guess it seems to me the AP motors are larger and more powerful than the SB ones in my PME but the PME motors have a lovely smooth sound to them. The AP ones are also nice but I prefer the sound of the SB.

SB PMX has little lights on the back that glow. They are a bit bright and I would sometimes tape them over as I did not want light glowing in my observatory. It probably does not affect images though. The PMX and PME make machine chatter noise which is kind of interesting. The AP is silent.

I prefer the clutch mechanism of the PME over the AP which requires an allen key to lightly tighten but I prefer that to the PMX 3 way switch system which I found very bugged. PMX+ may've corrected the 3 way switch system but I would confirm that with owners. The 3 way switch system is a deal breaker for me as it puts your gear at risk of being smashed against the pier. If you forget to lock it and take off your heavy imaging train then it can suddenly slip and whiz around. The cam shaft tightening pin is also poorly designed and almost impossible to get tight enough to not become loose again.

Low quality black drive belts were used on some early PMXes that required replacement because they shed PE wrecking particles onto one of the drive gears with higher quality non shedding grey ones. Some early PMXs had poor performing worms but SB replaced those when asked to their credit.
Again a point to check out on new mounts if these issues are now handled or still ongoing. I am not aware of any issues with the AP1600 or lower models. The AP mounts are also continually developed and AP always seems to offer a retro upgrade option. SB seems to offer a new model to fix the old one (PMX+). AP just recently upgraded the control system to latest generation which offers extra features and upgrades the electronics. To be fair they are probably catching up to SB Mk5000 system but the AP may offer more features - not sure.

Encoders on PME 11 are only available at time of order or by sending the mount back later to the factory to have them installed. AP is upgradeable at home.

To send a PME to the US return insured would probably cost AUD$1500 or more as its heavy and largish.

I know you are looking at PMX+ and I suppose AP1100 is its competitor.

In short I would go the AP1100 for the above reasons not the least of which is the encoders upgrade option later on if you decide to go that way.

Greg.

[OICURMT]

For future reference.

http://www.mda-telescoop.com/images/stories/downloads/tdm_control_investigation.pdf

A very interesting read.
OIC!

[Bart]

Price? Availability? Feedback?

Not available on their website that I can find and I won't join another online shop just to get a price. If your going to pay another $2000.00 to get the setup, wouldn't it be better to put that money toward a high end mount or by and ASA Direct Drive perhaps?

Any further info from your end? Are you using or have you used one, have you a mount with one fitted now? :question:

[Peter Ward]

Just so my cards are on the table, yes I am a Losmandy dealer, and yes Scott Losmandy and I have been good friends for over two decades.

That said: Scott has been refining his "G-11 baby" for many, many years.

The 2016 version is simply amazing due the latest changes at Hollywood General Machining (which has recently relocated to Burbank).

Losmandy has also invested in two (very expensive) brand new CNC's which deliver absolutely stunning part accuracy and consistency.

The 2016 G-11 is more rigid, lighter and significantly more accurate...RMS tracking errors are now typically less than an arc second....as per the attached image.

Dealer hype? Very much no! I'm putting my money where my mouth is...I'm getting my G-11 up-spec'd to the current version. It's brilliant.

[brian nordstrom]

:eyepop: Looking very , very good .

Mount for us non-millioneers , this is the way I would go , thanks Peter .

Brian.

[Atmos]

From my countless hours of mount research from a few months back (me wanting to upgrade from my EQ6 as well) and continual reading since then, the conclusion that I have come to is that the lowly EQ6 can easily perform just as well as a premium mount 5x its price. I bought a second hand one off of IIS that has been belt modded, is about 6 years old but can routinely get 0.5" RMS in RA to which I can get perfectly round stars in 20m subs for an entire night. The difference between the EQ6 and a premium mount however comes down to is consistency.

I know I can do 30m subs without any worries with my EQ6... When it wants to work! There are some nights where it just doesn't want to perform well over 300-600s. Sit there playing with the balance which sometimes helps a bit, other times it doesn't.

I have a new mount on the way not because the EQ6 cannot perform brilliantly but because it doesn't do so consistently enough for me. That is the main sticking point for me, for codemonkey (Lee) as well, although arguably his EQ6 was suffering from moisture damage :P

The new G11's sound like they're improved over what they used to be. In years gone by they were not what I would have considered a big upgrade from an EQ6 as many many reports had them as tinkers mounts. Could perform outstandingly but did require tinkering... Much like the EQ6 :P

When buying a Mach 1 or a MyT, I personally see that extra price tag not coming from a major increase in performance over the EQ6 or its more expensive brother the G11, but paying for reliability (and the name :P).

When you hit the higher end of the market it begins to matter less with what you get as they all seem to perform to the same high standard. If you're purely doing astrophotography I would suggest the MyT. If you want to do visual as well with the mount and don't want to lug around a laptop, got the Mach 1 :) (I think Peter Deals with both Bisque and Astro-Physics BTW ;)) In the in-between price range you can do what Lee did and go with the Avalon Linear.

[Camelopardalis]

Personally, I'm unimpressed seeing a guide graph that is scaled at +/- 8 arc seconds. I scale my graph at +/- 1 arc second and it's easy to be horrified by it, but I feel that just pampers to the PHD insecurity syndrome.

What's important is getting nice round stars. Wouldn't we all like beautifully engineered mounts that look as pretty as they track (sometimes prettier!), but it's seemingly such well trodden ground that a "lowly" EQ6 can do a good job with a little time and effort. Sure, there might be lemons out there, but from what I read here in IIS alone indicates that SW are not alone...

[brian nordstrom]

:lol: Well said .
A machine is only as good as its weakest link .

That's why I like my CI-700 ( human machined ) , all the weakest links have been sorted over the years by many amateurs and only a great mount remains , ( like the new G11's ) .

As Peter said , anyone with plenty of money can buy an awesome CNC machine , but it takes the human imput to make these machines work at their best and even tho these machines are essentially perfect , the old adage remains ,,, RIRO .

And here is a 'Q' ,,, who and how was the first lathe made ?

So , grab one of these new G11;s , my 5c.


Brian.

[strongmanmike]

Ok, all sounds very attractive and clearly looks almost too good to be true really... so for the benefit of all, can you clarify things a bit here?

1) Is that graph measuring errors in genuine arc sec.. or pixels? (the info on the left suggests arc sec?) If pixels, what image scale was it?

2) Is that typical stock, out of the box raw Sidereal tracking (ie. unguided) and without PEC applied? Any modifications?

3) What scope/load was on the mount?

4) What major/minor changes are in the current G11 design compared to the previous model/s that improve raw tracking?

Just interested

Mike

[codemonkey]

0.92" RMS guiding is pretty poor imo. If it was peak to peak that would be what I'd consider good guiding. If I had 0.92" RMS on my EQ6 I would consider it to be behaving poorly and would have been seeking the cause so as to fix it.

With my Avalon Linear I'm usually around 0.5 - 0.6" RMS when pointing further towards dec 0, typically where RA guiding gets worse on any mount. Often the peak to peak is below my imaging scale (1.12"/px).

Now whether that "poor" guiding is truly poor all comes down to your imaging scale. For me, I know that would be doing bad things to my images. On a wide field system with lower resolution? Maybe not.

[stefang]

Ioptron CEM60EC. Works a treat

[Slawomir]

I usually get around 0.6" RMS on my AZ-EQ6 (4" doublet, 570 mm fl, 1.33 arcsec per pixel, 3 nm filters) and such performance results in slightly elongated stars. Occasionally tracking error gets as low as 0.4" RMS and then I get perfectly round nice stars. Unfortunately, sometimes tracking gets worse, and subs with more than 0.8" RMS need to be thrown out.

I have been looking at future upgrades, including SX active optics, MDA encoder and also a more expensive mount, including MYT and Mach1. If new G11 consistently performs better than my current mount, then that would be truly great news and I would be seriously interested, after collecting sufficient funds...

[strongmanmike]

We must not confuse RMS guide errors with RMS tracking errors, there is a huuuge difference.

If a mount "tracks" with RMS errors under an arc sec that's absolutely amazing...if a mount "guides" with RMS errors under an arc sec that may in fact not be good enough for many applications.

Eg. My NJP "guides" with errors of around +/- 0.3" but the total unguided "tracking" error is closer to 3 arc sec or 10X worse.

Mike

[codemonkey]

Absolutely right, Mike. I see I might have misunderstood Peter's post, although it does make it a little harder to be sure since corrections are not being displayed on the graph. I just assumed it was a guide graph.

[Shiraz]

Likewise. It is either a pretty average guide graph or an unbelievable track graph (better than a PMX?).

Losmandy makes no claims for PE or tracking on their website - I would have thought that they might put a few shekels into publicising the issue if they had managed to reduce the tracking error by a factor of 10x over what it used to be - and thereby directly challenge or surpass mounts that cost >3x as much. On that basis, the odds are that it is a guide graph, but we await Peter's clarification.

[Slawomir]

Thank you for pointing that out Mike :thumbsup:

I meant RMS guiding errors.

[Peter Ward]

I'll be catching up with Losmandy this weekend, and will clarify all specs when I return from the USA.

[gregbradley]

Its a nice looking graph and is showing good performance but yes it has been scaled incorrectly. Mine is scaled in 1 arc second increments and is similar but a tad worse. And that is a PME that has routinely delivered round stars fairly easily.
The wider scaling compresses the PE lines on the graph. In fact that graph looks much like my AP1600 at its best in good seeing. The best I have seen it do is .6 arc secs RMS for about 5 minutes before averaging out to .8 arc secs RMS like this graph. It can do that for quite a long time in good seeing. Usually 1 arc sec with the AP and about 2.25 with the PME is what I see as a reference point. This is using PHD2 which to me seems to be the best autoguiding software (although I haven't used Maxim).

Greg.

[gregbradley]

That's been my experience over the years with some exceptions. At 3 metres using a MMOAG through the scope OAG then .6 would still give you round stars.

Greg.

[HarryD]

Wow, mount issues seem to cause as much angst as political ones.

Anyway I decided on a new Losmandy G11G. Out of the box there is no comparison with the EQ6.

I couldn't justify the $7500 price difference to buy a Paramount MYT.

Now to set it up and see what happens.

Thanks for all your thoughts.
Greg

[Slawomir]

Congratulations Greg,

I am looking forward to reading your impressions with your new mount :thumbsup:

[phomer]

Greg,

My opinion is the G11 is well worth the money. Also, it very easy to work on and has had many updates over the years, always compatible. There is a possibility that the worm may need adjusting before it performs at its best.

Regards

Paul

[RobF]

Yes, we'd all be interested to hear your initial and follow up opinions down the track Greg.