Which to buy? CGE Pro or Paramount ME...

[AlexN]

Yeeeaahh... So I just had a dig through the ASA Yahoo group and found some pretty convincing images.... one shot was done with the ASA N16 on the DDM85, 15min subs all night long, no guiding... looks pretty sweet..

There are a few people having odd issues here and there from what I read, mostly sounding like users not completely understanding what they are doing etc, but regardless of what is causing their problem, they don't seem to get much in the way of a response... One guy went as far as to say that he got frustrated with the lack of reply to his emails, so he called the phone number on the ASA site and was connected to the Austrian Emergency Services.. ?

Whilst I'll say, a few video's I've seen, the preliminary images etc the ASA DDM mounts look ok... I still dont think I'd buy one until ASA are a little more customer orientated..

The DDM85 is about 5k more expensive than quite a few other mounts that have higher instrument capacity, and many similar features.. yes, the worm and wheel are outdated, and direct drive / harmonic drives are the way of the future... Purely electric cars are the way of the future too, and I've not heard to much praise for electric cars thus far either..

[Bassnut (Fred)]

Something worth considering. Unlike any other astro device, mounts have a very definable, absolute purpose. That is to push a given OTA (weight and FL) around the sky to produce round stars and with an ideal pointing accurarcy. Other than that, the only considerations are price, support, reliability and availability. The "level" or "newness" of the technology is irrelavent.

If a "better" technology at a higher price produces exactly the same result, then its a waste of money, unless support, reliability and availability are superior.

Granted, if a mount out of the box has no PE and points perfectly, then it is more convienient to set up, this has a measurable value.

But if set up on a PME for instance involves PEC and and building a pointing model once for a permanent installation, then spending more money on the former "newer technology", with the same end result then becomes purely a "set up time over cost" consideration, .

A PME with proper set up becomes invisible in the image capture experience. Any variation in this experience can only be justified by a lower cost or vastly improved convienience, support and reliability.

Do you think ASA could, at a higher price, vastly improve convienience, support and reliability, right now, for the same end result imaging wise??

[AlexN]

Good sum up Fred.

As far as "any variation in this can only be justified by a lower cost, vastly improved convenience, support and reliability..

ASA's DDM85 @ $5k USD (or there abouts) more expensive than the PME supports lower weight for starters. its THEORETICAL encoder resolution and pointing accuracy is in the tenths of arc-seconds. Support? I dont think there is any (from what I've heard from ASA owners and seen on forums) Reliability? Well, pure and simple, It hasn't been out long enough to judge its reliability. We all know that a PME can be set up in a remote site, and then not touched by anyone for years and still have the same performance it did on day one. That's a definite one up.

For a portable setup - the ASA mounts have some features that do seriously increase its convenience... the polar align routine looks pretty damn cool, computer aided balancing etc.. its all pretty sweet stuff.. The kicker though... the DDM60 holds similar weight as a Tak EM200, but costs 5500 Euros... The proposed "Mini-ME" that software bisque announced at AIC this year is aimed at a similar (lower) price point to the DDM60, with higher weight capacity, similar accuracy and the well known know how and execution of Software Bisque.. Lets not even go into how you'd go if you had both mounts side by side with a problem you couldnt solve, you sent ASA and SB an email at the same time and then see which mount is up and running first.

[Zaps]

Originally Posted by Bassnut

...the only considerations are price, support, reliability and availability. The "level" or "newness" of the technology is irrelavent.

Some astronomers, amateur and professional, demand and desire the best. They won't cut corners for any reason. If spending extra money will gain them an edge, if there is an advantage to be had by investing more, they will do so.

If a "better" technology at a higher price produces exactly the same result, then its a waste of money, unless support, reliability and availability are superior.

A "better" mount probably means you need less support from the manufacturer. A better mount won't provide the exact same results as a lesser mount. People with the money to spend, and a willingness to spend it, won't waste time trying to justify cutting corners by purchasing outdated technology when they can have the latest and greatest.

Granted, if a mount out of the box has no PE and points perfectly, then it is more convienient to set up, this has a measurable value.

No kidding.

But if set up on a PME for instance involves PEC and and building a pointing model once for a permanent installation, then spending more money on the former "newer technology", with the same end result then becomes purely a "set up time over cost" consideration, .

Sure. And if spending the (extra) money gets you a superior mount and results in superior images, then it's worth every dime to those willing to spend it.

A PME with proper set up becomes invisible in the image capture experience. Any variation in this experience can only be justified by a lower cost or vastly improved convienience, support and reliability.

PMEs are not perfect. They are an excellent mount to be sure, but not even close to perfect. Most people have initial setup woes, and some have ongoing issues. Not many, but enough to remind us all that nothing is perfect. On the other hand, you seem to be assuming that the PME is the only mount that is capable of doing a great job.

Do you think ASA could, at a higher price, vastly improve convienience, support and reliability, right now, for the same end result imaging wise??

Do you think maybe ASA's mounts could be made good enough that very little after sales support is required? I do. At the moment their product is brand spankin' new, and teething problems are to be expected. But even now users of the DDM range are getting spectacular results: no PE, so no PEC required; no guiding; looooong exposures, all the other benefits of doing away with fallibly clunky worms and wheels, etc.

This is the beauty of gearless direct drive. Direct drive is the way of the future and rapidly becoming the way of the now. You may not like it, but time and tech waits for no man.

[AlexN]

Its all well and good to say "those who can afford the technology will run with it.." Fact of the matter is this.. There are quite a few people on this forum who have cash to burn, and who truly want to produce the best astro images they can, with what seems to most people to be a relatively infinite budget... Guess what, They use Paramount ME, AP1200, Tak NJP/EM400 mounts.

MOST!! of the worlds best imagers are using PME/AP/Tak mounts. Some of these people have between 70,000 and 200,000 worth of gear at their disposal... Considering on the second hand market you'd probably get 10k US for a paramount in good condition, if they thought it was worth the effort going from a PME to the DDM85, why havent they...

Astronomy is not like Information Technology. Having the latest and greatest isn't really on most peoples minds. Having something that will do what you want it to is always high on the agenda.

If a PME will allow 20 minute guided exposures at 3000+mm F/L, and accurately point the scope at a target, why would you spend more money on another mount that will do exactly the same...

And look at it this way... all this pointing accuracy and tracking in the 10ths of an arc-second is great... A) IF it is that accurate. B) If you require it.. If you intend to image with a KAI-11002M or KAF16803 in an FSQ106, where you're looking at something like 170x110 arc minute field of view, who cares if the target is off centre by .9 arcsec more on mount A than on mount B. Pointing accuracy in the 10ths of arcsec is really only useful for planetary imagers who want to slew straight to jupiter then image it at 14,000mm FL without making adjustments.. For pointing at a deep sky target, I dont know about you, but I rarely leave the target dead centre anyway... I always need to move it a little to get the frame composure that I want, rotate the camera a smidge this way or that to frame it up right.. so who cares if its off centre by 5 or 6 pixels?

Yes - for my uses, either the PME or the DDM85 would be considered EXTREME overkill...

I think you would be DAMN hard pressed to find anyone who would say "The Paramount ME will not do what I need to do, so I bought the DDM85 instead" In light of that, you would be looking at a fool that said "The $13,500 USD mount will do exactly what I want with integration into every leading software suite around, but I bought the $18,500 USD mount just so I could have more technological advancement."

No matter how you go about arguing the technological benefits of the ASA DDM mounts, If there is no appreciable difference in real world imaging over a mount that is cheaper and proven in the field, the technological advancement is not worth the extra $5000USD, which would be better spent going towards a better camera or a better optics..

[Bassnut (Fred)]

Thanks Alex, saved me the bother of replying

[Zaps]

Originally Posted by AlexN

Its all well and good to say "those who can afford the technology will run with it.." Fact of the matter is this.. There are quite a few people on this forum who have cash to burn, and who truly want to produce the best astro images they can, with what seems to most people to be a relatively infinite budget... Guess what, They use Paramount ME, AP1200, Tak NJP/EM400 mounts.

Because the ASA mounts are very new on the market. Already there is a high level of interest in them and others, such as the Astelco NTM-500, from the kind of people who were early adopters of the PME when that mount was the new kid.

MOST!! of the worlds best imagers are using PME/AP/Tak mounts.

Amateur imagers. And see above: the ASA-type direct drive mounts are so new they haven't yet superceded traditional geared mounts. But they will. It's inevitable. Top imagers don't like PE.

Some of these people have between 70,000 and 200,000 worth of gear at their disposal... Considering on the second hand market you'd probably get 10k US for a paramount in good condition, if they thought it was worth the effort going from a PME to the DDM85, why havent they...

Yet again: the ASA-type direct drive mounts are only just becoming available on the open market. If you wanted the best before the ASA-type direct drive mounts were available, you bought the best that was available at the time. Those guys will seriously be looking to trade up now though.

Astronomy is not like Information Technology. Having the latest and greatest isn't really on most peoples minds. Having something that will do what you want it to is always high on the agenda.

It's not about bragging rights when it comes to the top dogs. It's about having the best tool for the job. If you can have a mount with no PE and which doesn't need guiding, you are going to buy it, and relegate the old worm and wheel gear to the basement (or Astromart).

If a PME will allow 20 minute guided exposures at 3000+mm F/L, and accurately point the scope at a target, why would you spend more money on another mount that will do exactly the same...

Because the top dogs are willing to spend a lot of money for the smallest of edges. And eliminating PE and the need for guiding is no small edge. That has got to be worth a lot of moola to the top imagers.

And look at it this way... all this pointing accuracy and tracking in the 10ths of an arc-second is great... A) IF it is that accurate. B) If you require it.. If you intend to image with a KAI-11002M or KAF16803 in an FSQ106, where you're looking at something like 170x110 arc minute field of view, who cares if the target is off centre by .9 arcsec more on mount A than on mount B. Pointing accuracy in the 10ths of arcsec is really only useful for planetary imagers who want to slew straight to jupiter then image it at 14,000mm FL without making adjustments.. For pointing at a deep sky target, I dont know about you, but I rarely leave the target dead centre anyway... I always need to move it a little to get the frame composure that I want, rotate the camera a smidge this way or that to frame it up right.. so who cares if its off centre by 5 or 6 pixels?

The people who buy the best telescopes for the job will also buy the best mounts available. Direct drive mounts have no PE and need little or no guiding. That makes them superior to any mount which does have PE and does require guiding. Top dogs aren't interested in "good enough". They want the best, and are willing to pay for it. Their investment and the resulting inevitable trickle down effect will eventually make the best affordable to the rest of us.

Yes - for my uses, either the PME or the DDM85 would be considered EXTREME overkill...

I never suggested you buy either, but my money's on the ASA now.

I think you would be DAMN hard pressed to find anyone who would say "The Paramount ME will not do what I need to do, so I bought the DDM85 instead" In light of that, you would be looking at a fool that said "The $13,500 USD mount will do exactly what I want with integration into every leading software suite around, but I bought the $18,500 USD mount just so I could have more technological advancement."

Peanuts. The top dogs in astro imaging will pay a lot more for a little extra. This is not about the rest of us who agonize over these things. The people who want the best and can afford to pay for it will buy the mount which gives them the edge, and saying goodbye forever to PE and guiding is a hell of a thing. There's no room for sentimentality. The PME and mounts like it have had their day/night. Direct drive is it now.

No matter how you go about arguing the technological benefits of the ASA DDM mounts, If there is no appreciable difference in real world imaging over a mount that is cheaper and proven in the field, the technological advancement is not worth the extra $5000USD, which would be better spent going towards a better camera or a better optics..

People said the exact same things about the PME when it first hit the pages of S&T! You just lectured me about guys who spend $200k plus on gear, then say they will quibble over a mere $5k! The PME, the Taks, the A-Ps...all are beautiful pieces of craftsmanship, but they are designed and built around obsolete principles and methods. Professional astronomers haven't gone near geared drives in a very long time and now it's the turn of amateurs to discard them too.

Direct drive. Say hello to the (near) future. You can bet SB, Tak, AP and the rest are busily working on their own versions, because they also know darn tootin' well that it's the (near) future of amateur telescope mount technology. They take great pride in calling themselves the "High End", but, unless they jump on direct drive, they'll become "Also Rans". Direct drive is here already, and it's time to eagerly embrace it, because it's better than the old way. I dunno about you Alex, but the thought pleases me very much.

[AlexN]

I am always happy to see improvements in technology for us at the bottom end of the imaging community. I just dont think these mounts present the average user with anything to be excited about. They are priced out of the amateur market. I know the PME is essentially an "amateur" mount, but lets be honest.. Its at the very least semi-pro if not pro, its far too expensive for average joe to have in his back yard.. as are the ASA/Astelco mounts. They are essentially amateur gear, but at 5000eu + for the bottom end ASA mount, I dont see many people buying one for their backyard obs..

As for the guiding/no guiding references... I've not seen anything longer than 15min unguided shots from the DDM85, I've seen plenty from the PME... Despite its old hack technology, the PME and AP mounts are both capable of unguided imaging.. the DDM is capable of it too, maybe even better at it.. but lets be real here, you're not going to sell this mount to people by saying "You wont need guiding" its nonsense. You do know that the keck telescopes use guiding right, even the most advanced observatories on the planet require guiding, why? because in the course of a night, you are going to have movement, reguardless of the quality of your mount, refraction, atmospherics etc are all going to cause movement.. (granted atmospherics are only an issue at more extreme focal lengths in which case Adaptive optics would be employed to counteract the problem)

I don't think you'll see any serious imager throwing away their guiding setup purely because their direct drive mount claims to not need it... Even if the guider only makes 3 or 4 corrections an hour, its better for it to have made those corrections than not...


Again - I'm not saying the direct drive mounts are not as good as what you say they are, I'm not saying direct drive is not the future of astrophotography, I'm not even going to say I don't think they are better than the other mounts out there... I'm simply saying I don't see them in the open market, being used by top imagers yet, yes, it will take some time for people to adopt the technology, im sure they will be the foreseeable future.. Just saying that there really isnt that big a difference.

As for the "they wont quibble over 5k.." comment...

No matter how much money I have, I wont spend 5k on something that will make 0 appreciable difference in the real world.. and I definitely wouldnt go to the trouble of pulling down my rig, selling the old mount, buying the new one, going through the setup and configurations, suffering teething problems if there was no appreciable difference.

If you can show me verified, empirical evidence that under the exact same working conditions, a direct drive mount will produce a noticeably better image than a worm and wheel drive of equal build quality, I will sure as sky is blue eat my own shoes.

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by Zaps

......
They take great pride in calling themselves the "High End", but, unless they jump on direct drive, they'll become "Also Rans". .....

My Also Rans PME PE runs at better than the seeing most nights...and holds a RCOS 14, AP155 and AP130 (at the same time) with payload to spare.

The ASA's are cool to be sure, but anyone who thinks you don't need to guide because the RA has minimal PE is deluded IMHO....I've seen stars drift several arc sec in DEC on many nights solely due seeing.

If you then accept guiding as a given, not matter how good the RA drive, then guiding *adaptively* is the next step....

[AlexN]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

My Also Rans PME PE runs at better than the seeing most nights...and holds a RCOS 14, AP155 and AP130 (at the same time) with payload to spare.

The ASA's are cool to be sure, but anyone who thinks you don't need to guide because the RA has minimal PE is deluded IMHO....I've seen stars drift several arc sec in DEC on many nights solely due seeing.

If you then accept guiding as a given, not matter how good the RA drive, then guiding *adaptively* is the next step....

Thank You Umpire!

[Zaps]

In its heyday, the PME was considered to be one of the best mounts available, alongside other masterpieces such as the AP-1200 and Tak EM-400/500. But all of those are based on the old way. Now there is a new and better way. The new and better way - direct drive, the professional's way of choice for a long time - will not be without its initial teething issues, just as the mounts preceding it had their own when they were the new way.

Think about this: the people who were amongst the very first to take a chance and buy the PME - a mount initially derided as "untested", "unproven", "too expensive", "not worth it", etc by the usual stick-in-the-muds - are now planning to move up to the next stage, direct drive, if they haven't already, ditching issues such as PE and guiding.

The people who initially denigrated the PME, later - much later - became the PME's most vocal fanboys and still are. They, the belated PME adopters, are the people who are now panning the direct drive mounts, while the people who know a great thing when they see it are trading up from the PMEs they bought a long time ago to the direct drive mounts.

It seems pretty obvious that the late adopters are unwilling to accept that direct drive mounts are going to supplant gear-based mounts. If you're willing to cling to the religious faith that "the Paramount ME is the best there'll ever be", and hate the idea that the mount you or your friends just paid a lot of money for is no longer the top of the pile, then I guess you'll continue to pretend that nothing can ever be better. But it won't change reality. The pros use direct drive technology and now the amateur's time has come too.

[Zaps]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

If you then accept guiding as a given, not matter how good the RA drive, then guiding *adaptively* is the next step....

So why leave a weak link in the chain? Get rid of the worm and wheel, replace it with direct drives, augment the system with AO, and you're that much closer to tracking Nirvana. Who would voluntarily cripple themselves by clinging to a system inherently limited by periodic error, however small it may be? The top dogs won't do it.

Serious (amateur) astronomers have no time for sentiment. They won't cling to a type or brand of mount just because it was the best at one time, and because they invested as much in it emotionally as they did financially. No, they are forever chasing perfection, and that takes a certain ruthlessness. Out with the old and inferior, in with the new and superior.

The direct drive offers obvious advantages and there are those who are willing to pay the extra to have it. That's why today's high end mounts such as the PME, AP-1200, EM-500, etc exist and sold well for so long, but it's also why they're considered to be yesterday's mount technology by the guys who won't settle for second best.

Your PME will no doubt be more than adequate for your own needs for a while to come, but it doesn't alter the fact that the people pushing the bleeding edge, the top end of amateur astronomy, will instantly ditch their own PMEs the second a better solution presents itself, and direct drive is that solution.

In a very few years time this debate is going to seem as silly as those which took place when the PME was released. By then the direct drive mounts will be the unquestioned king of the hill, and people will wonder why some took so long to recognize the obvious.

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by Zaps

....

The direct drive offers obvious superiority and there are many who are willing to pay the extra to have it. That's why today's high end mounts such as the PME, AP-1200, EM-500, etc exist and sold well for so long, but it's also why they're considered to be yesterday's mount technology ......

Maaate...Clearly you just don't get it.

There is more to round stars than just RA tracking. At 10 to 30 second RA intervals (depending on the mount) PME's (AP1200's etc.) already give tracking Nirvana.

Seeing alone buggers up the remainder, and buggers it up in both Dec and RA.

Most astrophotographers set correction intervals to a order of magnitude less, ie 1 second or less....hence despite the extra expense of a direct drive there is no measurable advantage from this system given you have to autoguide regardless.

On the ASA website they state:
"Thus in most cases guiding is not necessary and the use of ancillary support systems such as adaptive optics (Starlight, SBIG) is no longer necessary"

This is bollocks

Only if you can remove that high frequency seeing jitter, will you get tighter stars, and you can't do this with an open ended (eg ASA or any mount for that matter) system.

At this level, it's the distorting influence of the atmosphere that is the problem, not the tracking accuracy.

Even AO's don't always give you this (due a lack of a suitably bright guide star), but when they do, stellar profiles are decidedly more intense & with smaller FWHM's.

I have no doubt the ASA direct drive mounts will be a very fine product, but to suggest everything else will be instantly rendered useless and "yesterday's technology" is a line I'd expect from a snake oil salesman

BTW the PME still is one of the best mounts available. As is the AP1200 etc. The ASA is simply another option at the Mercedes Benz end of the market.

[Bassnut (Fred)]

You keep willfully missing the point, no-ones disagreeing with you that direct drive is better technology, Ive delt with industrial direct drives for years, its far better and yes, one day it will the the standard for top end mounts. No PE and perfect pointing are obvious advantages.

The point is, present technology can give exactly the end result you need, in short, round stars, so newer technology needs to be at least cheaper just to get a foothold in the market (and have all the other side factors mentioned, which only become provable over time in the market place). This is a difficult situation for ASA, because reliability, support, availability etc can only be proved with product in the market place, ...........chicken and egg. And they want to charge more!

There is not the same pressure now as when PMEs came out, the PME finally gave robotic operation to amatures, and well,........ round stars, always. The ASA DD will fundamentally give the same thing.......round stars, always (supposedly, they hope).

Pretty much the only better end result possible now (not talking about the technology at all), ie *smaller* round stars, as Peter says, is predictive guiding, and man, we are a long, long way from even getting close to how that would be done on an amature mount. AO BTW is still reactive.

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by Bassnut

... AO BTW is still reactive.

Too true....and amateur systems can only correct for tip/tilt up to about 30Hz at this time (but that's not bad!) and way better than can be achieved with any mount

Pro systems run around 1000Hz and perform wavefront corrections as well using deformable mirrors which are *very* expensive

The next big thing for amateurs? (Oh my god...a Ruddizm )

My guess would be orthogonal transfer chips...CCD's that actively shift charge collection at the focal plane.

[CometGuy]

The reason we need to take longer exposures is to get enough signal to overwhelm the readout noise in a camera. At the moment, this can require 10-15 minutes exposure. However there is some interesting developments with L3CCD technology in which readout noise has effectively been reduced to 0. At that point there is no reason to take subs any longer than a fraction of a second.

Once we get cameras like this the only real requirement will be that the mount can carry the weight. Even AO might become redundant.

Terry

[AlexN]

This can be shown just by considering things like the Malincam and Gstar cameras. I've seen results from a GSTAR camera taking 2sec subframes on a cheap, alt-az mount with no guiding getting great results. If CCD manufacturers were able to produce something that worked in much the same way, with a 35mm 11~16mp sensor, then you're exactly right terry, this would negate the need for insane precision in mounts. If you could get to down to mag 20 in a series (even a 3 hour series) of 2sec subs, you would only need the most basic guiding to keep the image roughly in the same spot on the sensor for 3 hours... This would not require a 15~20k mount, this would require a mount strong enough to hold your telescope.. thats about it. A 12.5" RCOS could be used with good results on something as small as a G11..

It sure would be nice.. However I don't see large format L3CCD cameras coming into the amateur imaging game for some time... so for the moment, we're stuck with expensive mounts... (not that that is a bad thing... If an L3CCD can get to mag 20 in a series of <2sec exposures, imaging what you could do with 10min exposures (provided you had the well depth to support it...) This topic could indeed easily require a new thread.

[mithrandir (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by AlexN

It sure would be nice.. However I don't see large format L3CCD cameras coming into the amateur imaging game for some time... so for the moment, we're stuck with expensive mounts... (not that that is a bad thing... If an L3CCD can get to mag 20 in a series of <2sec exposures, imaging what you could do with 10min exposures (provided you had the well depth to support it...) This topic could indeed easily require a new thread.

Since this had pretty much descended into a "mines bigger than yours" or "if it was good enough last year it will be good enough in 10 years" fight, it's probably gone on long enough anyway.

Change will happen. Early adopters always pay more. Prices will come down with competition.

[Octane (Humayun)]

I wonder what Jase thinks about your claim that pro-imagers only use AstroPhysics or Paramount mounts.

Jase's images are world class and he uses a Titan.

Yes, I know, he uses robotic scopes overseas, but, he's done well enough with a Titan.

It's quite funny, actually, when it comes down to it. One could spend a squillion dollars on mounts, telescopes and cameras, and still produce crap images which makes one wonder why they spent that money in the first place.

[rally]

Terry,

In the case of faint nebulosity and even faint galaxies the CCD will still have to wait for the photons to arrive !

That will still take time (well more than just a few seconds) as there are simply not that many photons arriving at all for some of them, so dont thow out the baby with the bathwater just yet !
A mount will be required to track and guiding to correct for along time yet.

Check out Black Silicon too - pretty amazing stuff Qe of 10,000% !

Regarding the argument on the direct drive mounts, the mechanics and electronics of these things still have errors that are at the levels that will affect astrophotography.
Bearings do have some periodic error and the two axiis are unlikely to be perfectly orthogonal to one another - nothing mechanical is perfect.

Nothing that a PinPoint model and a guiding cant fix.

The electronic drive positioning systems are also only so accurate - imagine how many db the drive amplifiers would need to be to keep up with 1/10th arc second resolution
I think that conceptually a direct drive system could be superior - should be cheaper in the long term with volumes, less parts, less cumulative errors in gears, bearings, mountings etc etc, but that isnt going to happen overnight.

In the mean time the P-ME will likely stay alive for many years - remember its not just the mount as a purely mechanical device that counts - its the software compatibility and all the tools that go with it that makes the mount perform to the levels that it does that counts and this is where the P-ME will shine for a long time to come. It really is a team effort and tthat takes time to develop.