Quote:
Originally Posted by Logieberra
Interesting comparison. Have you owned or used both mounts? It's more like Hyundai vs. Toyota. Yes. Both are cars, have engines and roll! Differences? You'd hope so for the price. Owners of older-style AP, SB and HGM mounts are still rolling years later. Can the same be predicted for the 8? Time will tell. They sure got something right with the EQ6  |
I've owned BMW's and Mercedes. I always prefered my VWs. They are cheaper to buy, cheaper to run and do exactly the same job (and no one ever keyed my Golf, but that's a different analogy...)
Both the EQ8 and PMX have set out to properly accommodate the largest consumer SCT's ie the 14" Celestron or Meade. That requires a payload capacity of 40+ kg. Other mounts that weigh in are the AP1100, Losmandy Titan and the latest GGE Pro mount from Celestron. My post was mainly to stop the silly notion that a G11 was even comparable - I have used one of those and it has litrerally half the capacity.
And there is no doubt that those top end mounts are beautiful in a way that the EQ8 can never be with machined and anodised parts. But Skywatcher have done exactly whay they set out to do - use mass production techniques to create a mount just as capable at a fraction of the price.
As I have said before, I cannot compare directly, but I have yet to see a test it hasn't passed. It has low PE, it can point too and with EQMOD, integrates perfectly into my remote observatory and is already sucessfully gathering scientific data more acurately than my previous fork mount. The best bit for me is simply to be able to open up the clutches and swing the scope to the best position to be able to change cameras, collimate etc, then slew back to target without loosing alignment. It comes in very handy.