Jump to content


Photo

Paramount MX vs Astro-Physics AP900

  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#26 Mike Clemens

Mike Clemens

    Frozen to Eyepiece

  • *****
  • Posts: 7577
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2005
  • Loc: Alaska, USA

Posted 20 March 2011 - 01:46 PM

"Old style" RS232
versus
USB

Means "Works Every Time, Always"
versus
WHY WONT my COMPUTER LOAD THESE DRIVERS

#27 Peter in Reno

Peter in Reno

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5945
  • Joined: 15 Jul 2008
  • Loc: Reno, NV

Posted 20 March 2011 - 02:23 PM

Lodestar is for autoguiding, not for imaging. Why would an autoguider be used for plate solving?

I'll ask Starlight if they are working on X2 camera interface. That would be nice if it would work with SkyX.

Thanks for the valuable information.

Peter

#28 JAT Observatory

JAT Observatory

    NOT a Wimp

  • *****
  • Posts: 9459
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2005
  • Loc: In the Primordial Soup

Posted 20 March 2011 - 03:27 PM

"Old style" RS232
versus
USB

Means "Works Every Time, Always"
versus
WHY WONT my COMPUTER LOAD THESE DRIVERS


I agree. I'll take RS-232 over USB any day.

#29 morten

morten

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 157
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2008
  • Loc: Denmark

Posted 20 March 2011 - 05:03 PM

Can the MX be taken apart in RA and DEC parts that are managable weight wise - the head weighs 23kgs. The Ap900 splits in two nicely managable parts

#30 skybsd

skybsd

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4281
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2008

Posted 20 March 2011 - 05:10 PM

Hello,
No - the SB Paramount MX product page describes the mount assembly as "Unibody mount design weighs 50 lbs (23 kgs)"

Regards,

skybsd

#31 JAT Observatory

JAT Observatory

    NOT a Wimp

  • *****
  • Posts: 9459
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2005
  • Loc: In the Primordial Soup

Posted 20 March 2011 - 05:10 PM

No it can't be taken apart.

#32 Alph

Alph

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1759
  • Joined: 23 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Melmac

Posted 20 March 2011 - 05:26 PM

Can the MX be taken apart in RA and DEC parts that are managable weight wise - the head weighs 23kgs.



If you can’t lift 50 lbs then you probably need a walking stick :lol:. That’s the whole beauty of this mount. It was designed for portability – no need take it apart. It weighs 50 lbs and it can carry up to 90 lbs of payload!!!

#33 Peter in Reno

Peter in Reno

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5945
  • Joined: 15 Jul 2008
  • Loc: Reno, NV

Posted 20 March 2011 - 05:59 PM

I am wondering whether the advertised 90lbs payload applies to visual use or imaging?

Astro-Physics advertised payload is for imaging and it's higher for visual use but it not advertised for visual use.

I also really like AP900 mount. It's a difficult decision.

Peter

#34 Alph

Alph

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1759
  • Joined: 23 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Melmac

Posted 20 March 2011 - 06:49 PM

It's a difficult decision.


It is easy for me. The tripod is pricey but it can rotate the mount head 360 degrees around the azimuth. There is a cheaper version ($500 or so ) of this tripod made by another vendor. You can find his ads on Astromart. The cables are routed internally. The Paramount MX has high precision laser based homing switches. It also has the superior control software, probably the best there is. It can be remotely operated. The only problem I have is if it is worth spending $10,000 on a mount. This is just a hobby after all and the stars don’t have to be perfectly round.

#35 jog

jog

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 332
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2006
  • Loc: nj

Posted 20 March 2011 - 06:56 PM

This is just a hobby after all and the stars don’t have to be perfectly round.


I agree.

#36 frolinmod

frolinmod

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1834
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2010
  • Loc: Southern California

Posted 20 March 2011 - 07:07 PM

This is just a hobby after all and the stars don’t have to be perfectly round.

Oh my gosh, all this time I thought stars were points. Now that I know they're actually little arcs, I can go back to using an alt-azimuth mount with spindly little fork arms. :grin:

#37 morten

morten

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 157
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2008
  • Loc: Denmark

Posted 21 March 2011 - 04:42 AM

If you can’t lift 50 lbs then you probably need a walking stick


I don't need a stick, 50lbs is IMHO not portable.
On of the things with my AP900 that really impressed me was
the true portability of that mount.
If you want to lug 50lbs around why not get the AP1200 where the RA part weighs exactly that, and which has a vastly larger carrying capacity.

#38 frolinmod

frolinmod

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1834
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2010
  • Loc: Southern California

Posted 21 March 2011 - 10:05 AM

The advertised Paramount MX payload is for imaging. Software Bisque does not over estimate the carrying capacity of their mounts.

Last fall I had an opportunity to lift the Paramount MX mount and carry it around a bit. As your proverbial 90lb weakling, I had no trouble carrying the mount. It was delightfully compact, light and easy to carry. :jump:

#39 Scott99

Scott99

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2892
  • Joined: 10 May 2007
  • Loc: New England

Posted 21 March 2011 - 10:07 AM

If you can’t lift 50 lbs then you probably need a walking stick


I don't need a stick, 50lbs is IMHO not portable.
On of the things with my AP900 that really impressed me was
the true portability of that mount.
If you want to lug 50lbs around why not get the AP1200 where the RA part weighs exactly that, and which has a vastly larger carrying capacity.


have not been able to lift over 25 pounds since I was 14 years old, congenital spine defect

this new mount looks awesome to me, it looks like the 900 might be a little more versatile but the Paramount looks extremely refined & I'm sure it's going to be perfect for a lot of imagers

#40 Scott99

Scott99

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2892
  • Joined: 10 May 2007
  • Loc: New England

Posted 21 March 2011 - 10:11 AM

If you can’t lift 50 lbs then you probably need a walking stick :lol:.


actually I'm not laughing out loud. I've had a congential spine defect since age 14 that means I can't lift over 25 pounds.

Fortunately AP looks out for people like me and all their mounts split to give you the lightest possible weight.

To me the Paramount looks extremely refined but the AP 900 is more versatile.

#41 gillmj24

gillmj24

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4913
  • Joined: 06 Dec 2005
  • Loc: PA

Posted 21 March 2011 - 11:20 AM

I think the AP900 breaks down into 30lb and 15 pound components (give or take). If 25lb is a hard NEVER EXCEED limit, you might be pushing it.

The Mach1 is not as easy to disassemble and reassemble as the bigger mounts but it is possible. Those halves would probably be under 25lb.

#42 skybsd

skybsd

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4281
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2008

Posted 21 March 2011 - 11:24 AM

Hi,

The advertised Paramount MX payload is for imaging. Software Bisque does not over estimate the carrying capacity of their mounts.


Has this been confirmed anywhere on their forums as yet? I asked for the photography capacity of the PMX before and was given the "it depends" answer.

The context of my question was the fact that my intended mount payload included a C14-XLT-Fastar + piggy-backed APO refractor package.

I don't disagree - it'd be great to actually see it written somewhere.,

Thanks.

Regards,

skybsd

#43 Paul G

Paul G

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5063
  • Joined: 08 May 2003
  • Loc: Freedonia

Posted 21 March 2011 - 11:50 AM

I think the AP900 breaks down into 30lb and 15 pound components (give or take). If 25lb is a hard NEVER EXCEED limit, you might be pushing it.

The Mach1 is not as easy to disassemble and reassemble as the bigger mounts but it is possible. Those halves would probably be under 25lb.


For the 900, the RA is 26.5 lbs and the Dec 17 lbs. The entire Mach 1 is 28.5 lbs. None fit under a hard 25 lb limit unless you separate the Dec and RA on the Mach 1 which give you 11.5 and 16 lbs respectively.

#44 DeanS

DeanS

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3292
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2005
  • Loc: Central Kentucky

Posted 21 March 2011 - 11:52 AM

The way the Mach1 is designed makes it feel light since it is easier to hold.

My 1200 RA is a bear because it really does not have any built in 'handles' to grasp. The 900 RA is not nearly as bad as it doesn't weigh to much.

#45 Alph

Alph

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1759
  • Joined: 23 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Melmac

Posted 21 March 2011 - 12:59 PM

Has this been confirmed anywhere on their forums as yet? I asked for the photography capacity of the PMX before and was given the "it depends" answer.

The context of my question was the fact that my intended mount payload included a C14-XLT-Fastar + piggy-backed APO refractor package.


That's right. It depends on your APO package. It could be an 8" APO, right?

#46 gbarolak

gbarolak

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 121
  • Joined: 10 Dec 2006
  • Loc: Houston, TX

Posted 22 March 2011 - 10:07 PM

Sorry if I missed it earlier in the thread but why do you need a mount with this much capacity? If you max lift for a mount is 25 lbs, would that not also me your max lift for an OTA?

Sounds like you could get by with a lot smaller than a MX or AP900 and still have an excellent AP setup.

#47 Mike Clemens

Mike Clemens

    Frozen to Eyepiece

  • *****
  • Posts: 7577
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2005
  • Loc: Alaska, USA

Posted 22 March 2011 - 11:56 PM

I found the 900 to be easier to move whole than the 1200 RA section is alone.






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics