|
One advantage of Side by Side is that it can (in some cases) reduce the amount of counterweight required to otherwise balance your rig.
The alternatve is being forced to add extra counterweights with consequent problems.
Without wanting to enter into argument - a Mount was designed to carry a total maximum payload which includes the standard counterweights.
The further from the centre of rotation of the axiis you place the mass, the more leverage is applied (Mass x length) and so more counterweight is required at the bottom to compensate.
If you can keep the weight low and as close to the axiis as possible, you can eliminate the need to over weigh your mount by adding extra counterweights (which usually but not always) exceeds your mount's rated capacity.
This is especially the case where the primary OTA is a large diameter and you put a secondary scope piggyback style above it, or where the secondary scope is quite heavy, or where you are already close to the maximum counterbalance position of all your counterweights before adding the extra scope
Some say that a side by side is likely to introduce the opportunity for more flexure, but if you are using appropriate hardware and ensuring things are done up tight this should not be a problem.
Lightweight brackets, too few bolts and poor mounting design can cause this.
Good solid OTA rings are best for piggyback style, whereas adjustable saddle plates are best for side by side..
Being able to look through the seconday OTA may be hard if its up high !
Likewise you may have t lift the secondary much higher for cameras ect to clear the primary OTA
Its all "Horses for courses".
As Leon has pointed out - the balance issue becomes slightly more complex to achieve. It can become a non trivial exercise with lots of gear in triple arrangements
There are more pros and cons but these are the ones that have been at issue for me.
Cheers
|