Which to buy? CGE Pro or Paramount ME...

[terrynz]

Folks,

I have a conundrum. Wanting to get the best mount possible and having the required premission units from my better half, I've put the deposit on a Paramount ME mount.

I'm now trhinking.... hey the CGE Pro is getting good reviews and for the money I'm about to spend, maybe the CGE PRO EdgeHD-14 combo is the way to go.

I currently use a CGE1100XLT and the only fault has been the cables. My gut feeling is spend the money, get the Paramount ME - al my worries sorted. But I keeping thinking there'll be change from the CGEProEdgeHD-1400 combo for other equipement.

So any thoughts or recommendations would be greatly welcome. Yes I can get most of my deposit back.

cheers
Terry

[gbeal]

No contest, even from a severe tightwad like me, and bearing in mind I have had neither mounts.
Don't waver from your present course, stick with the PME.
Gary

[lhansen]

I agree with Gary

The PME is in a class of its own IMHO

I've heard it said (somewhere) that at least 60% of your budget should be spent on the mount.

Regards

Lars

[Doomsayer]

No doubt there'll be more people pipe in re the PME - Lars is correct.
I know there is a another NZ forum member near Auckland - Jason - he might even be able to show you one in action. They can take a big scope - a number have 20" Ritcheys on them - that's around a 4m focal length and are capable of tracking unguided for a significant time with such a focal length. Its ability to 'home' is another significant feature. The mount ceases to be an issue in the imaging equation with the PME and is in my opinion worth every penny.

The main disadantages of the PME (ignoring cost) are the meridian flip and complete reliance on a PC for all operation, unlike its man established competitor, the AP1200.

guy

[terrynz]

Yeah, i guess this is just buyers remorse setting in, thinking I could do more with less. Or an I'm just kidding myself?

With careful use, how long would the PME last carrying a a 16" CDK with rich field refractor, camera's, cables and filterwheels?

Terry

[multiweb]

:eyepop: Sounds like santa's sleigh is not going to make it off the ground. :lol:

[TrevorW]

If you've got the money buy the best

the other possibilities are

Chronos Mount
AP

would only consider buying the Celestron pro mount if it was about the cost of a G11

[Paul Haese]

No contest PME. The Celestron mount is fine but no comparison between the two mount.

If you are going to spend 13,000 on a mount but don't want to spend the sort of money needed on the PME, then Tak make good mounts too.

If I was going to do it all again I would buy a PME first and foremost.

[terrynz]

Yes, I think I'll stick this out and stop worrying about this purchase. I know to issues had with the CGE, G11 and EQ6 and everytime they do something odd I think... I should have just brought a AP1200 or PME.

PME it is then.

[netwolf]

PME, as others have said if you can afford it thats the best. I also like the AP1200 very much as it provides for standalone field use when required.

And plus I would never advise anyone to pay the local absurd pricing for Celestron due to there distributor.

[Ken]

Terry might as well consider the Losmandy Titan for $8999 from Bintel as well.
Clear skies Ken

[Zaps]

There's the ASA direct drive mounts too, although they aren't exactly "budget priced". Extremely nice equipment.

[AlexN]

PME out of those two.. If spending that kind of money I'd go for the AP1200GTO... Plain and simple, Unless you're looking for something robotic that you can leave in an observatory and log into via the internet, the PME is probably overkill.. The AP1200 is cheaper, more portable, will handle damn near the same load and the quality/precision is reportedly very similar...

I wouldn't buy the CGE Pro over something like the Losmandy Titan, or the Mountain Instruments MI-250... Again, similar price to the CGE Pro, but both HIGH quality mounts, not flashy toys with over the top price tags..

[Bassnut]

Also, thing is about the PME, there is huge software support for it, many apps have dedicated drivers (thru The Sky). You dont see them come up S/H much, because theres no upgrade to anything else (non pro)!. It also has thru-the-mount wiring, I dont know if the AP1200 has that, big bonus. Both the PME and AP1200 are probably too heavy for regular portable use, and anyway as far as standalone use goes, a lappie in the field is no extra burdon after lugging a mount like that. The PME has a Joystick contoller too, so at a pinch that could be used to slew around without a PC.

[AlexN]

The AP1200 has through the mount cabling Fred.. The only reason I say that the AP1200 is more portable is that it spilts into two halves, the RA and Dec assembly. Each of these halves are less than 25kgs (from memory) so easily handled by most able bodied people...

You dont see many pro/semi pro imagers using anything other than the PME or AP mounts...

As for the ASA DDM mounts, I think I'd wait until I see real world performance before comparing it to an AP or PME... On paper, they look the goods, but until there are some real world results (read : Unguided 10min exposures with a decent load on them) I think the PME and AP mounts are the top mounts to consider.

[Bassnut]

Well, Rob Greaves sold his PME and bought an AP1200 because it was more portable, so there you go.

Going by the drama with ASA tubes, and the way they handled problems, I wouldnt go within a bulls roar of an ASA mount untill it had some serious positive user feedback.

[netwolf]

The Paramount total weight is listed as 29.5kg.

The AP details are

[AlexN]

Indeed Fred.. Real world results from end users are required on any big ticket item I think... If we hadn't seen a million beautiful shots from the PME or the AP mounts we wouldn't sing their praises.. There are plenty of fine examples of 10min unguided images from the PME at moderate (sub 1500mm) focal lengths.. That right there is reason enough to consider them a serious serious bit of equipment.. As yet I've seen nothing but a short video of an ASA mount slewing about at a ridiculous rate and the product spec sheet... Neither of which would encourage me to touch the mount with a 10ft pole... And as you say, their customer support regarding some of the issues with the newtonian astrograph scopes was very poor, even somewhat non-existent... Whilst some people are getting tremendous results from the scopes, as it is with so many products... One negative report weighs in heavier than 10 good ones...

[Bassnut]

I lugged mine up a hill to the OBS, .......... once, wouldnt want to do that more than.......once :P. I might have risked lifting it on to the pier by myself, but didnt, and glad I didnt. Lugging is bad enough, lifting onto a tripod regularly?, nah, youd need Mike Sidonio as a best mate :D

[AlexN]

The AP1200 is 56kgs in total (including the CW shaft) The RA assembly is 14kgs, the DEC assembly is 36kgs and the CW shaft is 6kgs.. It is a big boy alright, but with a 140lb (63kg) load capacity, its a heavy hitter too..

The best part - There is no longer an AP1200GTO wait list... Direct order! Order - And you shall receive.

I got an E-mail a few months back as I was on the list, however my name came up about 2 years before I had expected, and clearly, 2 years before you're expecting the e-mail, you dont have the cash lying about...

Still wondering what the best course of action is... AP900/AP1200.. similar price, vast difference in load capacity, but am I ever going to NEED the AP1200's capacity.. Ummm... Ahh... What to do what to do...

[Zaps]

Re the ASA mounts, most of the criticisms being leveled at those are much the same as the ones we heard when the PME first appeared on the scene, and are very similar to criticisms of any new ground-breaking technology.

People who have invested heavily in the old tech (in this case the PME) are reluctant to see their prized possession outmoded by the new.

No doubt the ASA mounts will suffer teething issues, just as the PMEs did (and those aren't perfect even now), but it's my belief that direct drive is going to be the way all mount manufacturers will have to go if they wish to last the distance.

Let's face it guys, everything is obsoleted by new stuff sooner or later, and usually sooner, which is usually something to be happy about. I really like the idea of owning a truly professional class direct drive mount tomorrow for the same price or less than a semi-pro geared mount like the PME costs today.

As for the original question? IMHO, the AP-1200, EM-500, and PME are all better buys than the CGE Pro, but they'll all be relegated to old style tech soon. :-)

[AlexN]

So because the ASA mount has newer technology its better than something tried and tested? Ok.. Sure, I'll keep that in mind...

Direct Drive technology is indeed a very clever way to go about an equatorial mount. Is it going to be be better than the PME or AP1200 within the next few years, and even then, will the difference in precision (namely, zero backlash) going to make an appreciable difference to amateur imagers? Probably not.. Is the ASA mount available? What? Its not yet? Ok so then the best, currently available mounts are??

Astro-Physics/Sotfware Bisque..


Anything you buy, ever, in the entire span of human life will eventually be outdated... If you wait 10 more years im sure direct drive mounts will be outdated.. Who cares if its out dated if it will do everything you ever want it to and then some?

Oh no!! Im no longer a trend setter, my mount is less technologically advanced than someone elses, all of a sudden I feel inadequate!!

Hehe...

[Moon]

I sent ASA an email back on 26 of November asking for some basic information and I still don't have a reply, despite my reminders. I gave them a chance to sell me an expensive mount and they blew it.

New technology is good and well, but customer service is more important IMHO.

[Zaps]

That's not what I said. Not even close. I said that the direct drive technology of professional mounts is the future of amateur astronomical mount technology, and ASA happen to be producing such mounts for the amateur market.

Remember (if you're able) that when SB began offering the PME, many people who'd invested a lot of money in other mounts questioned the quality and even the concept of the then new PME "fully robotic observatory mounts".



Indeed. It's why professional astronomers use it.



Yes, for those who can afford them. That means the kind of people who adopted the PME when it was a new design.



Wrong. The ASA mounts are available. They are in use by semi-pros and pros alike. You should do a little reading before shooting your mouth off like that. ;)



I said that, and yes, the PME will be outdated soon, if not already, by direct drive technology from the likes of ASA. Sure, it hurts to hear that when you've proudly just laid out a lot of money on something like the PME, but that's the way things go.



Not likely in 10 years. There is no technology yet on the horizon to replace direct drive in professional grade mounts.



Why pay a lot of money for something which is outdated? The direct drive mounts for non-professionals are now on the market. Price point wise they are in the same ballpark as the PME when that was new: a lot of folk complained that those were too expensive, were untested, and would never catch on.



I'm sorry to hear that, but I'm sure you'll get over it eventually. ;)

[Zaps]

Yet when I recently sent them an email enquiry they replied immediately (within a couple of hours). And later they mailed out print brochures of their products. A few days later I called ASA and had a long and very informative chat with two of the guys who work there. I gave them a chance to sell me an expensive mount and they didn't blow it, which is why I'm about to order my ASA mount very soon. :)

Ya know, experiences vary: In my dealings with them in the past, the Bisque brothers haven't always been the greatest people on planet Earth to deal with. They can be downright cranky and even kind of inefficient when it comes to customer service. :lol:

[Doomsayer]

As a point of interest, harmonic drive technology is not completely new (as used in the Chronos mount). The harmonic drive system was invented in the 1950s and harmonic drives began being manufactured in the 1960s commercially. More recent variants have encoders and other tech built in. You can buy small used harmonic drives on ebay. A friend of mine has actually used them in a large home built mount.

There is no doubt that the application of these drives to imaging system hardware has many advantages over conventional worm and wheel geared drives. A well established application of the drives is seen in the robotic arms used in automotive production lines,

[Zaps]

I agree with you that the harmonic drive mounts such as the Chronos are fascinating (and have history), but the gearless direct drive technology mounts from companies such as ASA are of even more interest. :thumbsup:

[AlexN]

Zaps - Excuse the sarcastic tone of my previous post.. its christmas eve.. I've had a few...

I have a few more things to say though..

1 - I'm not jumping to the defence of my expensive toy.. I don't have a PME, and wouldnt buy one even if I had the money. I simply don't require a mount of that size or calibre, Im a kid, playing with telescopes, not a professional imager.. An AP900 is on the cards in 2 years or so...

2 - From what I've read (as of maybe 2 weeks ago) ASA mounts have been shipped to certain customers for testing purposes in a remote observatory environment. As I said on another forum, I eagerly await results from the mounts.. As yet I've seen nothing.. If you have links to images of the setup, links to verified unguided exposures and PE graphs etc, I'd be stoked to have a look at what the mount can do.

3 - Yea yea, Professionals might be benefiting from direct drive mounts as we speak. We are not, and we are not likely to for some time. At last glance the DDM60 was going to be nearly as expensive as the PME. Seems you're getting a lot less mount for your money - and as I said before, it would be utter stupidity to buy one of these mounts on their spec sheet alone. I guess thats the second call for the links to real world results I mentioned earlier...

I have no agenda or need to defend my choice of mount.. my entire imaging setup (including mount) weighs less than the PME.. Clearly my needs fall well below the mounts being talked about here. I have however looked into the results from a lot of the pro/semi-pro setups available. And from what I have seen, in REAL WORLD results, the AP and SB mounts are the current leaders in the amateur/semi-pro/pro imaging field.

Again, the Chronos - I've not seen results from the mount. I'm not saying the results dont exist, just saying I havent seen them. I would be VERY interested in results form the chronos, As if every sci-fi fan doesnt want one of those purely because it looks like a robotic arm swinging their scope around the observatory! :)

[Zaps]

No problemo!

ASA have links to a few private astrophotography websites which showcase the results achieved by those using their equipment, including the mounts. Also there are several German language videos on YouTube posted by private users.

One thing to bear in mind is that if nobody took a chance with new technology then we'd never have new technology to play with. When the PME was introduced, many claimed that they were unproven and untested, therefore not worth the cost.

What's that old saying? "The King is dead! Long live the King!" :)

Edit to add that I am not in any way connected with ASA other than being a prospective customer. The Astelco NTM-500 direct drive mount would be top of my list if I could afford it, but, alas, I can't. The ASA mounts are within my grasp, so that's what I'm planning to buy. But it's the direct drive technology which interests me, not the brand name. The results coming in from NTM-500 users totally prove the value of direct drive and how it is 'the writing on the wall' for gear-based systems. ;)

[netwolf]

Direct Drive is a promising technology and there are Inventors out there trying to make the affordable. Have a read of this
http://www.siderealtechnology.com/DirectDriveWorkInProgress.pdf

But this technolgy is not out yet and as such if we concern ourselves with currently avaialble then the PME, AP and Tak mounts are amongs the best there is. Parallax also make some awesome mounts, which use the AP GTO controller. There is also the bigger Mathias mounts.

But for the Remote or Permanent observatory setup the PME and AP currently seem to be the most used. In the remote arena the PME seems to be much more prefered.

The one thing I really like abou the Tak's is how they are as precise as the others but with so much smaller worm gears for the same loads. PME,AP, Losmandy and others seem to have quet large RA/DEC Worm Gears. But the Tak seems to make do with smaller ones. A TAK with the AP GTO system would be a nice combo.

Spec. EM-500
R.A. gear diameter (material) 149 mm/144 teeth (bronze)
DEC. gear diameter (material) 149 mm/144 teeth (bronze)

Capacity is 90lbs but said to be able to cary 120lbs on some sites.
That places it in the same league as a AP900.

AP 900 spec
R.A. worm wheel
7.2" (18.3cm), 225 tooth aluminum
Declination worm wheel
6" (15.2cm), 225 tooth aluminum

Smaller less teath similar if not higher capacity. The only downside is the ~13-14000USD price tag.

[AlexN]

Its funny how someone can come in and elegantly say what I've been trying to ramble out...

Well done Fahim... Its good to see someone who is capable of coherent thought is on a similar wavelength to myself :)

I agree - the Tak mounts do seem to offer similar performance to mounts that are quite a bit bigger, the price is a downside as you say... for the cost of the EM-500 you could have the AP1200 + counterweights, pier, dovetail adapter plate of choice... and similar performance. The big difference would be size, and the AP1200's higher capacity.

Yes I forgot to mention the Mathis Instruments mounts earlier, they too make some awesome mounts in the upper end of the scale, and their offshoot company Mountain Instruments with the MI-250. The Mathis mounts I believe use the AP GTO handset, where as the MI-250 can be used with either the AP GTO system or the Losmandy Gemini system...

[netwolf]

Alex, i still think we should not count out the ASA mounts, but as you say they are yet to be seen or head from. Just as in the Imaging arena world the introduction of Webcams has changed the arena i think so will the direct drive technology. Also i would like to see some development in the are of new mount designs like the Alt, Alt, Az mount which can negate field rotation, the equations have been up on Mel Bartels pages for some time. There was one chap making a prototype but its all gone quiet. Not having to polar align would be a nice innovation.

http://www.bbastrodesigns.com/ThreeAxisMounts.html

Sorry if i have ventured of topic.

A telescope mount to me to be the most simple part of theh whole system. When you consider the Optics seem more involved. The mount seems so much so less yet people say invest more in the mount. Sureley mounts could be made more cheaply and if Quality is controlled (think made in Japan before and after TQM). Some few new mounts i have seen crop up seem to also want to charge as much as the top guys. Is this simply because they can? Or are they trying to make all thee money back in a few sales? Would it not be easier to outsource the manufacturing of the parts and just do the assembly with Quality control.

Regards
Fahim

[Ken]

For get direct drive where are the fork mounts out there the pro's gave away using German equatorials mounts 100 years ago. I would rather drink hot beer than do a meridian flip in the middle of a imaging run.
clear skies Ken:lol:

[AlexN]

To venture a little further off topic, You know what needs to be done? Amateur aimed equatorial fork mounts with relatively high quality gearing and tracking...

Equatorial forks are the way to go for an advanced imaging system, meridian flips are such a pain in the backside... wouldn't it be fantastic to have a small fork mount (say, the size and capacity rating of a G11) to strap your imaging system to... Lock it onto a target at dusk, and go out and collect your data at dawn... no interuptions, no flips with messy re-centering and rotation to be aware of, no balance differences from east to west imaging... just tracking straight through... That would be golden...

Mathis make big EQ forks, as do one or two other companies, but nothing you would consider to be within the grasp of an amateur.. For an amateur, your best bet is modifying an LX200 mount to carry something smaller, and as we are all aware, they are definitely not the highest accuracy mounts available! :)

[AlexN]

Hahah Ken beat me to the punch there!

[netwolf]

I saw this on CN yesterday and it is just awesom what this guy has built himself.

http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=atm&Number=2195854&Forum=,,All_Forums,,&Words=&Searchpage=1&Limit=25&Main=2195854&Search=true&where=&Name=19634&daterange=&newerval=&newertype=&olderval=&oldertype=&bodyprev=#Post2195854

This is just on thread of his on the EQ Single arm Fork mount he has made using Losmady worm gears, and Ioptron Gotostar (the older model) servo system.

Also look at his Crescent shaped Alt/Az mount that is methinks a neat solution to viewing at Zenith with large Binos.

http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=binoculars&Number=2131270&Forum=,,All_Forums,,&Words=&Searchpage=1&Limit=25&Main=2131270&Search=true&where=&Name=19634&daterange=&newerval=&newertype=&olderval=&oldertype=&bodyprev=#Post2131270

He really likes them Binos.

This is what i like about the Losmandy mount you can buy almost every part as a spare and fix the mount, or build your own mount.

Regards
Fahim

[AlexN]

Fahim - Thats awesome... I wish I had the skills to make something like that.. I was looking at the HEQ5 earlier in the evening wondering if I could modify it to have a single fork arm... I can't imagine it would be too difficult to do.. however I'd want to test it out on an old EQ5 first I think.. :D

[Moon]

This is very true and we all benefit from the risks taken by early adopters. I do hope the ASA mounts + scopes take off, and that ASA remains financially viable in the long term. The results posted on the ASA Yahoo group are really amazing.

[Zaps]

Your opinion would surely surprise all those people currently using direct drive mounts such as made by ASA, Astelco, and others. :lol:

[netwolf]

Zaps, I was not aware those mounts were now available. And dont get me wrong i think they would make excellent mounts, can you point to any peer reviews that have been done of this mount. In theory there are many benfits to this technology.

Edit:
I also think were this technology will excel is in permanent large telescope and large Dob installations. Where the removal for the nead of gear reduction will be a big help.

I just saw the DDM85 is listed on OPT Corp for ~18000USD.
I think though I like the braking system that is included in the NMT-500, at the hihg speeds you really want some brakes to go with.

[AlexN]

Yeeeaahh... So I just had a dig through the ASA Yahoo group and found some pretty convincing images.... one shot was done with the ASA N16 on the DDM85, 15min subs all night long, no guiding... looks pretty sweet..

There are a few people having odd issues here and there from what I read, mostly sounding like users not completely understanding what they are doing etc, but regardless of what is causing their problem, they don't seem to get much in the way of a response... One guy went as far as to say that he got frustrated with the lack of reply to his emails, so he called the phone number on the ASA site and was connected to the Austrian Emergency Services.. ?

Whilst I'll say, a few video's I've seen, the preliminary images etc the ASA DDM mounts look ok... I still dont think I'd buy one until ASA are a little more customer orientated..

The DDM85 is about 5k more expensive than quite a few other mounts that have higher instrument capacity, and many similar features.. yes, the worm and wheel are outdated, and direct drive / harmonic drives are the way of the future... Purely electric cars are the way of the future too, and I've not heard to much praise for electric cars thus far either..

[Bassnut]

Something worth considering. Unlike any other astro device, mounts have a very definable, absolute purpose. That is to push a given OTA (weight and FL) around the sky to produce round stars and with an ideal pointing accurarcy. Other than that, the only considerations are price, support, reliability and availability. The "level" or "newness" of the technology is irrelavent.

If a "better" technology at a higher price produces exactly the same result, then its a waste of money, unless support, reliability and availability are superior.

Granted, if a mount out of the box has no PE and points perfectly, then it is more convienient to set up, this has a measurable value.

But if set up on a PME for instance involves PEC and and building a pointing model once for a permanent installation, then spending more money on the former "newer technology", with the same end result then becomes purely a "set up time over cost" consideration, .

A PME with proper set up becomes invisible in the image capture experience. Any variation in this experience can only be justified by a lower cost or vastly improved convienience, support and reliability.

Do you think ASA could, at a higher price, vastly improve convienience, support and reliability, right now, for the same end result imaging wise?? :lol:

[AlexN]

Good sum up Fred.

As far as "any variation in this can only be justified by a lower cost, vastly improved convenience, support and reliability..

ASA's DDM85 @ $5k USD (or there abouts) more expensive than the PME supports lower weight for starters. its THEORETICAL encoder resolution and pointing accuracy is in the tenths of arc-seconds. Support? I dont think there is any (from what I've heard from ASA owners and seen on forums) Reliability? Well, pure and simple, It hasn't been out long enough to judge its reliability. We all know that a PME can be set up in a remote site, and then not touched by anyone for years and still have the same performance it did on day one. That's a definite one up.

For a portable setup - the ASA mounts have some features that do seriously increase its convenience... the polar align routine looks pretty damn cool, computer aided balancing etc.. its all pretty sweet stuff.. The kicker though... the DDM60 holds similar weight as a Tak EM200, but costs 5500 Euros... :eek: The proposed "Mini-ME" that software bisque announced at AIC this year is aimed at a similar (lower) price point to the DDM60, with higher weight capacity, similar accuracy and the well known know how and execution of Software Bisque.. Lets not even go into how you'd go if you had both mounts side by side with a problem you couldnt solve, you sent ASA and SB an email at the same time and then see which mount is up and running first.

[Zaps]

Some astronomers, amateur and professional, demand and desire the best. They won't cut corners for any reason. If spending extra money will gain them an edge, if there is an advantage to be had by investing more, they will do so.



A "better" mount probably means you need less support from the manufacturer. A better mount won't provide the exact same results as a lesser mount. People with the money to spend, and a willingness to spend it, won't waste time trying to justify cutting corners by purchasing outdated technology when they can have the latest and greatest.



No kidding.



Sure. And if spending the (extra) money gets you a superior mount and results in superior images, then it's worth every dime to those willing to spend it.



PMEs are not perfect. They are an excellent mount to be sure, but not even close to perfect. Most people have initial setup woes, and some have ongoing issues. Not many, but enough to remind us all that nothing is perfect. On the other hand, you seem to be assuming that the PME is the only mount that is capable of doing a great job.



Do you think maybe ASA's mounts could be made good enough that very little after sales support is required? I do. At the moment their product is brand spankin' new, and teething problems are to be expected. But even now users of the DDM range are getting spectacular results: no PE, so no PEC required; no guiding; looooong exposures, all the other benefits of doing away with fallibly clunky worms and wheels, etc.

This is the beauty of gearless direct drive. Direct drive is the way of the future and rapidly becoming the way of the now. You may not like it, but time and tech waits for no man.

[AlexN]

Its all well and good to say "those who can afford the technology will run with it.." Fact of the matter is this.. There are quite a few people on this forum who have cash to burn, and who truly want to produce the best astro images they can, with what seems to most people to be a relatively infinite budget... Guess what, They use Paramount ME, AP1200, Tak NJP/EM400 mounts.

MOST!! of the worlds best imagers are using PME/AP/Tak mounts. Some of these people have between 70,000 and 200,000 worth of gear at their disposal... Considering on the second hand market you'd probably get 10k US for a paramount in good condition, if they thought it was worth the effort going from a PME to the DDM85, why havent they...

Astronomy is not like Information Technology. Having the latest and greatest isn't really on most peoples minds. Having something that will do what you want it to is always high on the agenda.

If a PME will allow 20 minute guided exposures at 3000+mm F/L, and accurately point the scope at a target, why would you spend more money on another mount that will do exactly the same...

And look at it this way... all this pointing accuracy and tracking in the 10ths of an arc-second is great... A) IF it is that accurate. B) If you require it.. If you intend to image with a KAI-11002M or KAF16803 in an FSQ106, where you're looking at something like 170x110 arc minute field of view, who cares if the target is off centre by .9 arcsec more on mount A than on mount B. Pointing accuracy in the 10ths of arcsec is really only useful for planetary imagers who want to slew straight to jupiter then image it at 14,000mm FL without making adjustments.. For pointing at a deep sky target, I dont know about you, but I rarely leave the target dead centre anyway... I always need to move it a little to get the frame composure that I want, rotate the camera a smidge this way or that to frame it up right.. so who cares if its off centre by 5 or 6 pixels?

Yes - for my uses, either the PME or the DDM85 would be considered EXTREME overkill...

I think you would be DAMN hard pressed to find anyone who would say "The Paramount ME will not do what I need to do, so I bought the DDM85 instead" In light of that, you would be looking at a fool that said "The $13,500 USD mount will do exactly what I want with integration into every leading software suite around, but I bought the $18,500 USD mount just so I could have more technological advancement."

No matter how you go about arguing the technological benefits of the ASA DDM mounts, If there is no appreciable difference in real world imaging over a mount that is cheaper and proven in the field, the technological advancement is not worth the extra $5000USD, which would be better spent going towards a better camera or a better optics..

[Bassnut]

Thanks Alex, saved me the bother of replying :D

[Zaps]

Because the ASA mounts are very new on the market. Already there is a high level of interest in them and others, such as the Astelco NTM-500, from the kind of people who were early adopters of the PME when that mount was the new kid.



Amateur imagers. And see above: the ASA-type direct drive mounts are so new they haven't yet superceded traditional geared mounts. But they will. It's inevitable. Top imagers don't like PE.




Yet again: the ASA-type direct drive mounts are only just becoming available on the open market. If you wanted the best before the ASA-type direct drive mounts were available, you bought the best that was available at the time. Those guys will seriously be looking to trade up now though.



It's not about bragging rights when it comes to the top dogs. It's about having the best tool for the job. If you can have a mount with no PE and which doesn't need guiding, you are going to buy it, and relegate the old worm and wheel gear to the basement (or Astromart).



Because the top dogs are willing to spend a lot of money for the smallest of edges. And eliminating PE and the need for guiding is no small edge. That has got to be worth a lot of moola to the top imagers.



The people who buy the best telescopes for the job will also buy the best mounts available. Direct drive mounts have no PE and need little or no guiding. That makes them superior to any mount which does have PE and does require guiding. Top dogs aren't interested in "good enough". They want the best, and are willing to pay for it. Their investment and the resulting inevitable trickle down effect will eventually make the best affordable to the rest of us.



I never suggested you buy either, but my money's on the ASA now.



Peanuts. The top dogs in astro imaging will pay a lot more for a little extra. This is not about the rest of us who agonize over these things. The people who want the best and can afford to pay for it will buy the mount which gives them the edge, and saying goodbye forever to PE and guiding is a hell of a thing. There's no room for sentimentality. The PME and mounts like it have had their day/night. Direct drive is it now.



People said the exact same things about the PME when it first hit the pages of S&T! You just lectured me about guys who spend $200k plus on gear, then say they will quibble over a mere $5k! The PME, the Taks, the A-Ps...all are beautiful pieces of craftsmanship, but they are designed and built around obsolete principles and methods. Professional astronomers haven't gone near geared drives in a very long time and now it's the turn of amateurs to discard them too.

Direct drive. Say hello to the (near) future. You can bet SB, Tak, AP and the rest are busily working on their own versions, because they also know darn tootin' well that it's the (near) future of amateur telescope mount technology. They take great pride in calling themselves the "High End", but, unless they jump on direct drive, they'll become "Also Rans". Direct drive is here already, and it's time to eagerly embrace it, because it's better than the old way. I dunno about you Alex, but the thought pleases me very much. :)

[AlexN]

I am always happy to see improvements in technology for us at the bottom end of the imaging community. I just dont think these mounts present the average user with anything to be excited about. They are priced out of the amateur market. I know the PME is essentially an "amateur" mount, but lets be honest.. Its at the very least semi-pro if not pro, its far too expensive for average joe to have in his back yard.. as are the ASA/Astelco mounts. They are essentially amateur gear, but at 5000eu + for the bottom end ASA mount, I dont see many people buying one for their backyard obs..

As for the guiding/no guiding references... I've not seen anything longer than 15min unguided shots from the DDM85, I've seen plenty from the PME... Despite its old hack technology, the PME and AP mounts are both capable of unguided imaging.. the DDM is capable of it too, maybe even better at it.. but lets be real here, you're not going to sell this mount to people by saying "You wont need guiding" its nonsense. You do know that the keck telescopes use guiding right, even the most advanced observatories on the planet require guiding, why? because in the course of a night, you are going to have movement, reguardless of the quality of your mount, refraction, atmospherics etc are all going to cause movement.. (granted atmospherics are only an issue at more extreme focal lengths in which case Adaptive optics would be employed to counteract the problem)

I don't think you'll see any serious imager throwing away their guiding setup purely because their direct drive mount claims to not need it... Even if the guider only makes 3 or 4 corrections an hour, its better for it to have made those corrections than not...


Again - I'm not saying the direct drive mounts are not as good as what you say they are, I'm not saying direct drive is not the future of astrophotography, I'm not even going to say I don't think they are better than the other mounts out there... I'm simply saying I don't see them in the open market, being used by top imagers yet, yes, it will take some time for people to adopt the technology, im sure they will be the foreseeable future.. Just saying that there really isnt that big a difference.

As for the "they wont quibble over 5k.." comment...

No matter how much money I have, I wont spend 5k on something that will make 0 appreciable difference in the real world.. and I definitely wouldnt go to the trouble of pulling down my rig, selling the old mount, buying the new one, going through the setup and configurations, suffering teething problems if there was no appreciable difference.

If you can show me verified, empirical evidence that under the exact same working conditions, a direct drive mount will produce a noticeably better image than a worm and wheel drive of equal build quality, I will sure as sky is blue eat my own shoes.

[Peter Ward]

My Also Rans PME PE runs at better than the seeing most nights...and holds a RCOS 14, AP155 and AP130 (at the same time) with payload to spare.

The ASA's are cool to be sure, but anyone who thinks you don't need to guide because the RA has minimal PE is deluded IMHO....I've seen stars drift several arc sec in DEC on many nights solely due seeing.

If you then accept guiding as a given, not matter how good the RA drive, then guiding *adaptively* is the next step....

[AlexN]

Thank You Umpire!

[Zaps]

In its heyday, the PME was considered to be one of the best mounts available, alongside other masterpieces such as the AP-1200 and Tak EM-400/500. But all of those are based on the old way. Now there is a new and better way. The new and better way - direct drive, the professional's way of choice for a long time - will not be without its initial teething issues, just as the mounts preceding it had their own when they were the new way.

Think about this: the people who were amongst the very first to take a chance and buy the PME - a mount initially derided as "untested", "unproven", "too expensive", "not worth it", etc by the usual stick-in-the-muds - are now planning to move up to the next stage, direct drive, if they haven't already, ditching issues such as PE and guiding.

The people who initially denigrated the PME, later - much later - became the PME's most vocal fanboys and still are. They, the belated PME adopters, are the people who are now panning the direct drive mounts, while the people who know a great thing when they see it are trading up from the PMEs they bought a long time ago to the direct drive mounts.

It seems pretty obvious that the late adopters are unwilling to accept that direct drive mounts are going to supplant gear-based mounts. If you're willing to cling to the religious faith that "the Paramount ME is the best there'll ever be", and hate the idea that the mount you or your friends just paid a lot of money for is no longer the top of the pile, then I guess you'll continue to pretend that nothing can ever be better. But it won't change reality. The pros use direct drive technology and now the amateur's time has come too. :thumbsup:

[Zaps]

So why leave a weak link in the chain? Get rid of the worm and wheel, replace it with direct drives, augment the system with AO, and you're that much closer to tracking Nirvana. Who would voluntarily cripple themselves by clinging to a system inherently limited by periodic error, however small it may be? The top dogs won't do it.

Serious (amateur) astronomers have no time for sentiment. They won't cling to a type or brand of mount just because it was the best at one time, and because they invested as much in it emotionally as they did financially. No, they are forever chasing perfection, and that takes a certain ruthlessness. Out with the old and inferior, in with the new and superior.

The direct drive offers obvious advantages and there are those who are willing to pay the extra to have it. That's why today's high end mounts such as the PME, AP-1200, EM-500, etc exist and sold well for so long, but it's also why they're considered to be yesterday's mount technology by the guys who won't settle for second best.

Your PME will no doubt be more than adequate for your own needs for a while to come, but it doesn't alter the fact that the people pushing the bleeding edge, the top end of amateur astronomy, will instantly ditch their own PMEs the second a better solution presents itself, and direct drive is that solution.

In a very few years time this debate is going to seem as silly as those which took place when the PME was released. By then the direct drive mounts will be the unquestioned king of the hill, and people will wonder why some took so long to recognize the obvious. ;)

[Peter Ward]

Maaate...Clearly you just don't get it.

There is more to round stars than just RA tracking. At 10 to 30 second RA intervals (depending on the mount) PME's (AP1200's etc.) already give tracking Nirvana.

Seeing alone buggers up the remainder, and buggers it up in both Dec and RA.

Most astrophotographers set correction intervals to a order of magnitude less, ie 1 second or less....hence despite the extra expense of a direct drive there is no measurable advantage from this system given you have to autoguide regardless.

On the ASA website they state:
"Thus in most cases guiding is not necessary and the use of ancillary support systems such as adaptive optics (Starlight, SBIG) is no longer necessary"

This is bollocks

Only if you can remove that high frequency seeing jitter, will you get tighter stars, and you can't do this with an open ended (eg ASA or any mount for that matter) system.

At this level, it's the distorting influence of the atmosphere that is the problem, not the tracking accuracy.

Even AO's don't always give you this (due a lack of a suitably bright guide star), but when they do, stellar profiles are decidedly more intense & with smaller FWHM's.

I have no doubt the ASA direct drive mounts will be a very fine product, but to suggest everything else will be instantly rendered useless and "yesterday's technology" is a line I'd expect from a snake oil salesman :)

BTW the PME still is one of the best mounts available. As is the AP1200 etc. The ASA is simply another option at the Mercedes Benz end of the market.

[Bassnut]

You keep willfully missing the point, no-ones disagreeing with you that direct drive is better technology, Ive delt with industrial direct drives for years, its far better and yes, one day it will the the standard for top end mounts. No PE and perfect pointing are obvious advantages.

The point is, present technology can give exactly the end result you need, in short, round stars, so newer technology needs to be at least cheaper just to get a foothold in the market (and have all the other side factors mentioned, which only become provable over time in the market place). This is a difficult situation for ASA, because reliability, support, availability etc can only be proved with product in the market place, ...........chicken and egg. And they want to charge more!

There is not the same pressure now as when PMEs came out, the PME finally gave robotic operation to amatures, and well,........ round stars, always. The ASA DD will fundamentally give the same thing.......round stars, always (supposedly, they hope).

Pretty much the only better end result possible now (not talking about the technology at all), ie *smaller* round stars, as Peter says, is predictive guiding, and man, we are a long, long way from even getting close to how that would be done on an amature mount. AO BTW is still reactive.

[Peter Ward]

Too true....and amateur systems can only correct for tip/tilt up to about 30Hz at this time (but that's not bad!) and way better than can be achieved with any mount :)

Pro systems run around 1000Hz and perform wavefront corrections as well using deformable mirrors which are *very* expensive

The next big thing for amateurs? (Oh my god...a Ruddizm :) )

My guess would be orthogonal transfer chips...CCD's that actively shift charge collection at the focal plane.

[CometGuy]

The reason we need to take longer exposures is to get enough signal to overwhelm the readout noise in a camera. At the moment, this can require 10-15 minutes exposure. However there is some interesting developments with L3CCD technology in which readout noise has effectively been reduced to 0. At that point there is no reason to take subs any longer than a fraction of a second.

Once we get cameras like this the only real requirement will be that the mount can carry the weight. Even AO might become redundant.

Terry

[AlexN]

This can be shown just by considering things like the Malincam and Gstar cameras. I've seen results from a GSTAR camera taking 2sec subframes on a cheap, alt-az mount with no guiding getting great results. If CCD manufacturers were able to produce something that worked in much the same way, with a 35mm 11~16mp sensor, then you're exactly right terry, this would negate the need for insane precision in mounts. If you could get to down to mag 20 in a series (even a 3 hour series) of 2sec subs, you would only need the most basic guiding to keep the image roughly in the same spot on the sensor for 3 hours... This would not require a 15~20k mount, this would require a mount strong enough to hold your telescope.. thats about it. A 12.5" RCOS could be used with good results on something as small as a G11..

It sure would be nice.. However I don't see large format L3CCD cameras coming into the amateur imaging game for some time... so for the moment, we're stuck with expensive mounts... (not that that is a bad thing... If an L3CCD can get to mag 20 in a series of <2sec exposures, imaging what you could do with 10min exposures (provided you had the well depth to support it...) This topic could indeed easily require a new thread. :D

[mithrandir]

Since this had pretty much descended into a "mines bigger than yours" or "if it was good enough last year it will be good enough in 10 years" fight, it's probably gone on long enough anyway.

Change will happen. Early adopters always pay more. Prices will come down with competition.

[Octane]

I wonder what Jase thinks about your claim that pro-imagers only use AstroPhysics or Paramount mounts.

Jase's images are world class and he uses a Titan.

Yes, I know, he uses robotic scopes overseas, but, he's done well enough with a Titan.

It's quite funny, actually, when it comes down to it. One could spend a squillion dollars on mounts, telescopes and cameras, and still produce crap images which makes one wonder why they spent that money in the first place.

[rally]

Terry,

In the case of faint nebulosity and even faint galaxies the CCD will still have to wait for the photons to arrive !

That will still take time (well more than just a few seconds) as there are simply not that many photons arriving at all for some of them, so dont thow out the baby with the bathwater just yet !
A mount will be required to track and guiding to correct for along time yet.

Check out Black Silicon too - pretty amazing stuff Qe of 10,000% !

Regarding the argument on the direct drive mounts, the mechanics and electronics of these things still have errors that are at the levels that will affect astrophotography.
Bearings do have some periodic error and the two axiis are unlikely to be perfectly orthogonal to one another - nothing mechanical is perfect.

Nothing that a PinPoint model and a guiding cant fix.

The electronic drive positioning systems are also only so accurate - imagine how many db the drive amplifiers would need to be to keep up with 1/10th arc second resolution
I think that conceptually a direct drive system could be superior - should be cheaper in the long term with volumes, less parts, less cumulative errors in gears, bearings, mountings etc etc, but that isnt going to happen overnight.

In the mean time the P-ME will likely stay alive for many years - remember its not just the mount as a purely mechanical device that counts - its the software compatibility and all the tools that go with it that makes the mount perform to the levels that it does that counts and this is where the P-ME will shine for a long time to come. It really is a team effort and tthat takes time to develop.

[AlexN]

Maybe reading is difficult for some... I'm pretty sure I said, in capitol letters "MOST!!! Pro/Semi-pro imagers use Bisque/AP mounts" Yes, its true, you can achieve pro performance on other mounts. And I'm not saying that the AP and SB mounts are the only good ones in the game.. For example, I use a Skywatcher mount and take 30 minute guided exposures day in day out without problems, its a good little mount, and it does what I require it to do.. its no astrophysics... its not as good as a Losmandy mount either.. but it doesnt have to be given what I do with it.

Sorry that you misread what I said H, and the preface of the whole discussion or so it would seem... I've been pointing out all along that one does not need to spend more and more and more money for the Nth degree of technologically advanced gear to take great images.. I'm glad you agree..

[Peter Ward]

Sorry, this is incorrect for many reasons, but to name a few:


dark current is still present
shot noise is still present
amplifier noise is still present

Read noise, while certainly a noise source, with its removal you'll still need to expose for considerable periods, rather than seconds.

[CometGuy]

Another thread started for L3CCD sensors...here (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=54602)

[netwolf]

Why should PME or AP invest in Direct drives? Unless the competition comes in at a lower priced option with Direct drive motors then the PME and AP1200 still perform far above the Seering limitations. Sure they are proabably researching the technology but why add cost to there system whcih presently works.

The real area where Direct Drive is more usefull is in driving very large scopes and DOB's. Where removing the need for large worm gears can offset the expense of direct drive system. Ofcourse in the future even the cost of this will come down and I am sure at that time AP and PME might put something into production.

And then ofcourse we must consider the impact of improvements in other areas of imaging that could reduce the effect of the mount in the over all picture. As others have said if imaging systems are improved and required imaging time is reduced then even a EQ6 can become more dominant.

Consider the Atrack of Betamax technology or even the minidisc or Firewire. While all are great and arguabably better than the competition of the time when they were released they still did not dominate.

The best is not always the dominant. Especially if it is more expensive than the proven alternatives.

[Octane]

Alex,

I haven't misread what you've been saying.

There's people out there using very simple mounts (G-11's and less; imaging with DSLRs) putting out world-class results with the low-level gear that they have.

This thread has turned into a bit of a comedy goldmine. I'll leave that for people to mull.

To the original poster: my apologies this has gone the way it has. Buy what you can afford, and, what you feel will be the best tool for the job you have in mind.

Regards,
Humayun

[terrynz]

Wow folks, this took on a life of its own. So you all know, I'm sticking to the PME. The AP1200 looks a lot more appealing, but since this will end up in a remote observatory, the PME is the way to go.

Thanks all for putting my mind at ease.
Terry

[AlexN]

H,

Agreed, and again, thats pretty much a re-worded version of my previous post, you don't need to have a worlds worth of gear to take good images. The skill of the user far outweighs the price tag and technological advancements of the gear in his toolbox...

Terry,
A very wise decision, the PME is a remote observatory operators dream..

[gregbradley]

There is another alternative. Planewave have released a series of mounts and from memory they were also direct drive. I see they have high precision encoders that correct the drive but also have gears - is this direct drive?

http://www.planewave.com/

I would trust them more than ASA. I have been following Planewave's progress for several years and they are friendly, professional and their CDK telescopes have a lot of happy customers. Any problem seems to be handled immediately and as far as I know there are no outstanding issues. ASA on the other hand seem to have a lot of dud products put out in their telescope range. Even on this site not so long ago - a super expensive 16 inch Newt with a super loose focuser. Also I was following their yahoo group after the release of their mount and there seemed to be a lot of problem type postings with the mount. Perhaps they have been sorted by now as that was about 9 months ago. So if you go with them realise you would be taking a huge risk and if you are happy with that then so be it I am sure we would all love to hear that it goes well. On the other hand you would be moving with new technology. My experience so far in this hobby is that true and tried is the way to go as these items are so expensive you don't want to end up being a beta tester.

Planewave on the other hand seem to be going from strength to strength and the images from their scopes speak for themselves, plus they are easy to collimate and also serve as a visual instrument which RCs generally are not.

Also their mount has a higher weight capability than a PME and I think the ASA mounts.

I have a PME, just haven't used it yet but I am about to. I am sure it is a great mount but there are others coming up on the market.

Also there is talk of a mini Paramount ME mount coming out soon.
Could fill the market gap there for those who have a lighter setup that does not require the strength of the PME.

Greg.

[MuntiNZ]

LOL blardy hell mate look at the price diff!!!!
185 grand US for a Planewave CDk700 direct drive http://www.planewave.com/index.php?page=1&id0=6&id=0!!! :eyepop::lol::lol:
Compared with how much for those others?
I am quiet interested in those Asa mounts but there is no info about them around.
When I hit the mine again soon I will be bying a new mount either a Tak EM400 or EM-500 or a AP1200 or PME but those Asa ones look really hot.
Any one here got one who can give a review?
Or any links may be?

[Moon]

The best place I know is the ASA Yahoo group. Quite a few interesting stories lately. Message 2386 (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ASA_AstroSystemeAustria/message/2386)leads me to believe the mount might not yet have been fully tested in the southern hemisphere.
James

[gregbradley]

[QUOTE=MuntiNZ;578856]LOL blardy hell mate look at the price diff!!!!
185 grand US for a Planewave CDk700 direct drive http://www.planewave.com/index.php?page=1&id0=6&id=0!!! :eyepop::lol::lol:


No, the Ascension models. I think they are $13,000 or $15,000 and a new PME is $14,500 so they are comparable.
But I am not 100% sure they are the same technology you mentioned - direct drive. One of the Ascension models
has high accuracy encoders coupled direct to the axes drive so perhaps this is the same thing as ASA?

Also here is another link to a thread of someone asking the same question about ASA mounts:

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ASA_AstroSystemeAustria/message/2325

You get the impression the smaller mount was more troublesome. Also that the mounts
are being refined and sorted out as time goes along.

All those mounts you mentioned are great. I think if you have the money for it the
PME or AP1200 would be the go. The Ascension mounts from Planewave and the DDM mounts Not sure
of the weight capacity of the ASA's) from ASA are a competitor to these. Also Micron make mounts
that you often see Europeans use over a PME.

Greg.

[davewaldo]

Plane waves Acension mounts look great! http://www.planewave.com/index.php?page=1&id0=1&id=2

Carries 113KG! Thats a lot more than the PME for a comparable price.