Quote:
Originally Posted by cventer
Paul you might be misleading people believing these are the same class of mount.
the MX is more like an AP900 than a Mach 1 GTO
MX has 40 kg payload vs 20.5 stated for Mach 1.
No doubt its a fine instrument but probbaly more like a VERY upmarket G-11 than alternative to MX.
Bearing in mind this opinion is comming from someone who has seen neither mount though and just going of internet specs.
|
I disagree. My view on suitability is from the angle that many who are following this thread are entertaining the thought of a high end mount for sub-130 mm class refractors. I own and use both a both a Paramount ME and and AP Mach1, and can attest with some confidence the suitability of the Mach1 for the vast majority of current an popular refractors and a fairly large sample of small astrographs. I would clearly not mount a CDK 17 on a Mach1, but I equally would probably not mount one on a Paramount MX either. (Truth is that if you can afford a CDK 17, you buy a Paramount ME or equivalent to go with it)
Just to clarify my original post - those contemplating the PMX as a portable mount for their 120mm refractor should know that there are very suitable alternatives, particularly if delivery schedule and price is an important consideration.
PS - I actually think it's more misleading to suggest that a MX could "run a 14 inch scope easily" or be a viable mount for a Planewave CDK 17 without actually having seen or used one yet. Yet, to be fair to Greg, he does caveat this statement with "yet to be seen in practice"
All in good faith.
Paul