Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Ward
Thanks for the review Roger  ...but I'm still wanting...
When it came to mounts I tried to get a de-facto test standard happening with a few equipment reviews I wrote for Sky & Space magazine (many, many moons ago) , via some simple and reproducible quantitative measures. |
Yes, I thought through all those quantitative measures and then decided I didn't have time to do any of that so may as well just write what I knew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Ward
First up: periodic error? With an CCD and small telescope this error is easy to measure.
|
I wanted to measure this on the Polarie and AT because in theory the AT has very low PE intrinsic in it's design, where as the Polarie is a standard worm so I would expect has standard error. Then I thought - what does it really matter? People who are using a Polarie are doing 2 min exposurs max and aligning it using relatively crude means. I wonder if any PE difference is immaterial under the circumstances
Either way, would be interesting to measure given time and dedication to the cause
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Ward
Mount weight, set-up time through to GoTo pointing accuracy (if applicable) can also be measured.
|
These kinds of mounts set up so quickly I think the only material difference is in polar alignment ease, which is covered (although accessories can enhance this as pointed out by people..) Most of the time is in choosing the composition or hiking to the desired site
It would be nice if I summarised setup time as an extra criteria.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Ward
My hope is: if all reviewers did the same, we could compare apples with apples  |
I hope others do too