I have both and you can see some of my earlier comments above.
My rough test of tracking performance with 200mm lens on both got similar results. You're limited more by stability with weight and balance of a long lens than you are by tracking accuracy of the gears. I would comfortably use either of these with 50mm lens for ~2 mins and then stack to get whatever total exposure I wanted with *perfect* stars. Longer/bigger than that I would put on a bigger mount (but they can be pushed harder than that if you're careful or not seeking perfection).
With wide lens and short sub-exposures, you don't even need polar scope.. rough alignment is fine. Not having Octans in SkyTracker polar scope seems silly but can get used to roughly where to position Sigma (even without iPhone which I don't have) just based on trapezium orientation. Seeking perfection through the polar scope is a bit silly anyway because flex shifts things considerably, particularly with the Polarie where you have to take all the weight off the mount to use the polar scope. By the time you put all the weight back on, the axis of the mount has shifted considerably, plus whatever extra flex you have in your attachment to tripod.
It's hard to argue with the price of the SkyTracker and the fact that it has a flex-free altitude adjustable base that goes straight onto tripod is a big bonus. With azimuth adjustable element in new bases that's even better, plus you get polar scope included in the price. $300 for Polarie polar scope is hard to bear.
Thumb screws on the SkyTracker camera attachment plate are much bigger/easier to grip than on the Polarie. On the iOptron you never need to remove it anyway but on the Polarie you need to remove it every time you do or even check polar alignment which with cold hands is a real pain.
Battery compartment on the SkyTracker is poor.. Polarie much more refined design in details like that. But you can plug 12V into SkyTracker easily which is standard for my gear. Polarie you have to plug power in via USB.
My 2 cents..
Phil
|