Very happy with my Mach 1. I don't really have any issues with the mount - tracks well and usually puts any target on the CCD chip. I've never measured the PE, but I know that I get an almost flat line on my autoguiding graph.
If you can ever find them - the older Vixen Atlux with Skysensor 2000 PC versions would handle your requirements with ease; mine is currently slinging a 9.25" SCT + WO 88 + WO 110 FLT and imaging gear around with ease - love their pointing and tracking ability!
An AP Mach 1 GTO against a G11?? That's like should I get a Ferrari or a VW Golf?
Any product made by AP is the absolute best in its class. G11's are good. Lots of people like them. From what I see they need to replace parts to get them up to high performance like replace worms with higher grade etc. AP needs no such upgrades. Roland would never let a defective product out the door or a medium rated design. His reputation is everything and his perfectionist style legendary.
No contest,the AP. The only thing the G11 has going for it against the AP is weight capacity and price. But you mention 130mm so double check with AP but I think that is within its capacity.
Perhaps a 2nd hand AP900 may also be a good buy. Still quite portable but getting heavier though and at the upper scale of portability.
Software Bisque PMX is a bit more expensive, but comes with $1200 worth of software for free and is also at the upper end of portability. There were some teething problems with it initially, but I think they are solved now. It performs brilliantly when well setup.
I am not a fan of the 3 ways switch, being a source of unreliability in the system in my opinion, but its not that hard to adjust should it need it. Some love that feature. Not sure its needed as the homing function of the PMX/PME means it a minutes work to reset the mount should you change something physically.
For round stars at 1000mm and 10-20 minute exposures I would have though PE of under a few ARC secs would be required. Whilst PE of 25 arc secs is probably fine for visual I can't see that being practical for imaging.
I guess 7 arc secs would be tops with an off axis guider and shorter guide exposures. After PEC that should be closer to 1 or 2 arc secs. My PMX is now running at under 1 arc sec and errors in guiding are more from seeing or not adjusting the settings to the autoguider to the optimum. My PME also is running at something around 1 arc sec after PEC.
The Mach 1 should be something like that I would imagine.
Normal upgrades for G11 is the Ovision worm. Not sure what it costs or what it brings the PE to. I have never used one so keep that in mind. But I have had several mounts and I can assure you getting a good one is the best thing you will ever spend in astrophotography. Being able to achieve round stars at 1200mm focal length is the starting point for astrophotography. If you can't get that every time you've got nothing.
A G11 from what I have read can be a good mount but will it achieve the above standard, routinely and reliably without modifications and endless chasing problems and lesser tolerances than are required for the above standard? That's what G11 owners need to tell you if its realistic or not. From what I have seen it is not. Not without mods, upgrades etc. Not worth it if you can afford to get the next quality up like your budget will allow.
An ED80 on a really nice mount would probably take better images than an AP scope on a poor mount. What's the point of sharp objects if the mounts tracking results in smeared details let alone eggy stars.
Its the biggest bugbear in imaging, round stars. Its hard enough even with top quality gear!!
Thanks Greg
I am actually getting 4.7 arc sec peak to peak now after PEC training - which is pretty good and giving me round stars with 5+ min subs .
I guess what I'm looking for is the next step up (and wide field as well). I'm told if I replace the worms with single ones in the G11, that I'll achieve the same (5 arc sec) without PEC training.
Would be good to hear from some Losmandy owners to confirm this
)
