Jump to content


Photo

AVX and ZeQ25: PE/goto accuracy info

  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 Intihuatana

Intihuatana

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 104
  • Joined: 15 Jan 2014
  • Loc: Weston, FL

Posted 31 January 2014 - 11:05 PM

PE or goto accuracy is not usually spec in medium/lower end mounts.

For whoever, like me, was wondering how these mounts compare, here are responses from Ioptron and Celestron technical support.

Anyone with actual field data can challenge or verify the numbers?.

Both mounts seem in the "ballpark"...but interestingly the AVX got a solid response vs a vague one from the "makers" of the Z.

If these numbers hold true the AVX has a bit better "spec"... but both seem to be in the same ballpark.

There has to be a benchmark or baseline to judge these specs for the consumer's benefit, like "Goto accuracy for our XYZ mount is < "abc" at 50% maximum load and +/- x arc sec maximum polar alignment error..." similarly for PE. Such important specs?. Sure, there is variability in the manufacturing process, components, etc but there has to be a "maximum".

Ioptron's response about the ZEQ25:
PE : "...we don't spec PE for ZEQ25...from customer's feedback or
posts in forums, the best PE reported was 9 arc sec peak peak,
and average PE is about 15-30"
Goto accuracy : "...goto accuracy should be a few minutes".

Celestron's response about Advanced VX:
PE : +/- 5 arc seconds
Goto accuracy : +/- 10 arc minutes
"PEC will further improve the above numbers"

Knowing there was no issue with the mount's accuracy at the spec level, it was easy for me to decide for one of the mounts basically because I had the chance to "play" with one in advance of the purchase and got the confidence I was going to like it....hope this post helps another one too!.

#2 Bluejay08

Bluejay08

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 76
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2009

Posted 31 January 2014 - 11:18 PM

+/-5 arc second PE, that's a spec for a few thousand dollar mount.

#3 jrcrilly

jrcrilly

    Refractor wienie no more

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 33881
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2003
  • Loc: NE Ohio

Posted 31 January 2014 - 11:34 PM

+/-5 arc second PE, that's a spec for a few thousand dollar mount.


Yes. And 10 arcsecond goto is a spec for no mount ever built. Whoever answered your question doesn't have the information to answer it correctly.

Ioptron's response is probably correct for both mounts. The thing is, those are NOT specs. Specs are promises. If yours doesn't meet them, that's your problem because neither manufacturer promises even those larger figures.

#4 Mkofski

Mkofski

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1540
  • Joined: 19 Jul 2011
  • Loc: Greenfield, Indiana, USA

Posted 01 February 2014 - 12:05 AM

I'm real impressed with iOptron's approach.

#5 Falcon-

Falcon-

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2009
  • Loc: Gambier Island, BC, Canada

Posted 01 February 2014 - 12:26 AM

Not a chance the AVX is +/- 5 arc seconds. Of course neither is the ZEQ able to boast numbers like that, but at least iOptron gave you the realistic "15-30" on average number.

The AVX is in fact quite a good mount, but that Celestron rep did a disservice by quoting numbers like that.

Going back to the original question you tried to get answered I suspect you would find that for PE the results will be similar enough between both mounts as to not worry about it. For Go-To accuracy I am a big fan of the NexStar go-to system (so long as you give it a proper 2+4 star calibration). I found it very accurate indeed on my CG5 (the predecessor to the AVX).

Even so I like the mechanical design of the ZEQ25 better. It is my opinion that for visual observing or planetary imaging the AVX is the better mount, for long exposure deep-sky imaging the ZEQ25 is the better mount (for mechanical design reasons). What is your intended use for the mount? I would guess by the hunt for PE numbers you want to do long exposure AP....?

#6 Falcon-

Falcon-

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2009
  • Loc: Gambier Island, BC, Canada

Posted 01 February 2014 - 12:35 AM

The +/- 5 arc second figure was tickling the back of my mind..... and sure enough that *IS* the spec Celestron specifies for the CGE-Pro. That is the $5000 mount with 90lb payload CGE-Pro mind you, not the $800 30lb payload AVX.

The charitable view could be that the Celestron rep was confused about what mount you where asking about perhaps. :shrug:

#7 Jon Rista

Jon Rista

    Mercury-Atlas

  • -----
  • Posts: 2771
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2014
  • Loc: Colorado

Posted 01 February 2014 - 11:06 AM

I read something over the last couple days from a guy who did some testing on the CGEM DX mount. It did not perform as well as the CGE Pro's +/- 5 arcsec pre-pec PE, but he did indicate that after testing a couple DX mounts a few times, he verified 16arcsec P2P PE and 12arcsec P2P PE, before PEC. After programming PEC, PE dropped so much he said that the guiding software (I think it was PHD) "flatlined", with practically no indicated error at all. He did not specify exactly how much in terms of arc seconds, but I gather it was less than 1, as anything more than 1 arcsec P2P PE and you couldn't really call it "flatlined".

Anyway, that's the CGEM DX. There is the CGEM below that, and the AVX below the CGEM. I'd found a couple statistics over the last week that indicated the CGEM P2P PE w/o pec was anywhere from 15-60 (no numbers with pec, sorry), so I would imagine the AVX can't be any better than that. That is, however, without PEC. I did find some numbers that showed the Atlas EQ-G drops to ~10 P2P PE w/ PEC, and since that mount is largely the same as a CGEM, I imagine you would get something similar with PEC programmed. Throw in guiding, and your performance should be even better.

#8 Intihuatana

Intihuatana

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 104
  • Joined: 15 Jan 2014
  • Loc: Weston, FL

Posted 01 February 2014 - 12:06 PM

MADE A MISTAKE IN THE SPECS....SORRY HERE CORRECTED NUMBERS. Celestron's provided goto accuracy is in minutes not seconds.

AV
PE : +/- 5 arc seconds ( 10 peak to peak)
Goto accuracy : +/- 10 arc minutes ( 20 peak to peak)

Z
Average PE: +/-7.5 to 15 arc sec (15 to 30 peak to peak)
Best reported PE: +/- 4.5 arc sec (9 peak to peak)
Goto accuracy: "a few minutes"

Apologies for the confusion!!!!

#9 Jon Rista

Jon Rista

    Mercury-Atlas

  • -----
  • Posts: 2771
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2014
  • Loc: Colorado

Posted 01 February 2014 - 12:19 PM

The manufacturing tolerances on CGEM and AVX mounts aren't as high as on CGE Pro, so don't expect a 10 P2P PE on the AVX in general. The CGEM/CGEM DX mount P2P PE without pec has ranged from 15 to 60 (guess the 60 was someone who got a particularly bad copy with bad gearbox error?)

It does seem that you can greatly mitigate PE by programming PEC, though.

#10 orlyandico

orlyandico

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5630
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2009
  • Loc: Singapore

Posted 01 February 2014 - 01:40 PM

I seriously doubt any claims that a CGEM DX with PEC will be sub-arcsecond. That's wishful thinking/operator error. The 8/3 gear error on the CGEM / DX is already at best 6" p-p and no PEC can eliminate that.

Celestron doesn't even quote sub-arcsecond for the CGE Pro with PEC. That's a mount with a guaranteed +/- 3" before PEC. They only claim "may be reduced to +/- 1" with PEC." This is a mount with Pittman motors that don't have the dreaded 8/3 gear harmonic.

Anyone who claims their guiding graph "flatlined" simply is using too short a guide scope. That is not an indication of PE accuracy.

Bottom line there are no magical diamond-in-the-rough bargains in the mount business, particularly in the Chinese mount business. I have learned this good and hard. Any wishful thinking or attempts to prove otherwise are doomed to fail. One must accept these mounts for what they are.

#11 Jon Rista

Jon Rista

    Mercury-Atlas

  • -----
  • Posts: 2771
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2014
  • Loc: Colorado

Posted 01 February 2014 - 05:01 PM

It isn't +/-1 with PEC, it is +/-1 with PEC and guiding. With PEC only it's certainly worse than 1arcsec PE.

EDIT: Actually, let me correct that. It isn't +/-1 with PEC, it is "flatlined" with PEC and guiding. I'm honestly not sure what the guy means by flatlined, however it is better than the intrinsic +/-5 PE the mount starts out with.

I received an email from Celestron today. I asked a few questions, one of them regarding PE for the CGEM and CGEM DX. According to Celestron, they claim +/-5 PE for both mounts, as well as the CGE Pro. Now, I read that to mean 10arcsec P2P PE, not 5arcsec P2P PE. So, +/-1arcsec with PEC+guiding is still ~2arcsec P2P PE... (just to make sure were on the same page.)

#12 Tim C

Tim C

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1085
  • Joined: 11 Nov 2007
  • Loc: Marietta, GA

Posted 01 February 2014 - 10:18 PM

too bad there isn't some sort of "spec" for declination performance. If I have a problem guiding with the Chinese mounts (and I've owned them all practically) it has always been in declination. Magically, never had any problems with a Tak.

#13 orlyandico

orlyandico

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5630
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2009
  • Loc: Singapore

Posted 01 February 2014 - 11:42 PM

Exactly Tim. This is why I've always said PE isn't everything.

Its easy to get low PE. Declination guiding is a whole other ball of wax..

In any case I'd really love to see where Celestron states - in writing - that they rate the CGEM for ±5". That would probably be grounds for a class action lawsuit :tonofbricks:

#14 Falcon-

Falcon-

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2009
  • Loc: Gambier Island, BC, Canada

Posted 02 February 2014 - 01:01 AM

All this talk about DEC guiding.... This is why I mentioned in my earlier post that I thought the ZEQ25 was better then the AVX, for imaging specifically, for mechanical reasons. The ZEQ25 has smooth ball-bearing support for both RA and DEC while the AVX has ball bearings for the RA but plain bearings on DEC. That alone removes what I see as the #1 problem in DEC guiding on low cost mounts - stiction in DEC causing unpredictable/jerky guide corrections.

(The other issue is backlash but that is more easily manageable regardless of the mount - there just tends to be more of it in mounts of this price range vs multi thousand $ mounts)

too bad there isn't some sort of "spec" for declination performance. If I have a problem guiding with the Chinese mounts (and I've owned them all practically) it has always been in declination. Magically, never had any problems with a Tak.


I am sure you could document things like typical backlash amount and a measure of static friction for DEC (if that is the correct thing to measure for stiction). Of course that type of thing gets into rather technical detail and given manufacturers do not tend to want to measure typical PE it seems unrealistic to expect those DEC figures. One could dream though. ;)

#15 Intihuatana

Intihuatana

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 104
  • Joined: 15 Jan 2014
  • Loc: Weston, FL

Posted 03 February 2014 - 09:14 AM

Article publishes comparative PE results (unguided and guided) of a Celestron Advance Series mount ( CG-5 ?), before and after a modification:

http://helixgate.net...nds/raworm.html






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics