Quote:

---

The Apo Maker is at the Photokina in Germany, I visited them today and spoke to them today. The new 2.5" focuser is almost finished, we got a sample to test it now with heavy imaging equipment.
They have by now 4 samples , 1 looks good, on 3 others they working on alignment problems.

I told them I need a fully working sample for 10 november for the big telescope show in Tucson, Arizona, where we want to show it to the world first time

it looks like this will work.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The Apo Maker is at the Photokina in Germany, I visited them today and spoke to them today. The new 2.5" focuser is almost finished, we got a sample to test it now with heavy imaging equipment.
They have by now 4 samples , 1 looks good, on 3 others they working on alignment problems.

I told them I need a fully working sample for 10 november for the big telescope show in Tucson, Arizona, where we want to show it to the world first time

it looks like this will work.

---

One out of four samples is good, the others have alignment problems? Does not instill confidence in this particular telescope maker Markus. Is this Chinese company just starting out making telescopes?

---

Gotta remember these aren't production units. but pre-production samples. Best to get things nailed down before starting to crank them out!

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Nice - sounding good Markus! The only comment I have is a prefer a nice tapered barrel where the tube meets the focuser. It just looks a little nicer than the ones that utilize a "flat" flange. Yours shows a little bit of an angle already. I'm saving for the 6"!

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I have said since long before this thread started, that f/9 was probably going to be necessary to achieve the level of desired correction. Others seem to want shorter tubes, but have difficulty understanding that adequate focal length is needed to achieve decent correction...

If you don't allow sufficient focal length to achieve a higher level of correction, you may as well settle for an achromat, which at least offers low cost for it's lower level of performance...

---

I agree with your opinion. If people are going to influence the production of these scopes based on what mount they have at home that's going to rob us of better colour correction then, I'd say markus make the f/l what ever it needs to be to achieve best correction. I'm sure people will find a way around their mounting issues.

---

I agree that the mount should take a lessor determining role and I would defer to Markus and his expertise. I have used my CG5GT to push around both the CT152 and my current AR152, without any issues. The AR152 with all the implements is probably pushing high 20, close to 30 lbs, essentially well over the recommended weight for the mount. But, the CG5GT has been quite capable and for the past year still gives accurate GoTos and tracking. For visual I don't see a problem at all, not even close with the projected weight figures Markus has supplied. Warren McGuire on this forum did a review of his CT152 and that included a guider and he shared the same experience with the CG5GT as I have had.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I have said since long before this thread started, that f/9 was probably going to be necessary to achieve the level of desired correction. Others seem to want shorter tubes, but have difficulty understanding that adequate focal length is needed to achieve decent correction...

If you don't allow sufficient focal length to achieve a higher level of correction, you may as well settle for an achromat, which at least offers low cost for it's lower level of performance...

---

I agree with your opinion. If people are going to influence the production of these scopes based on what mount they have at home that's going to rob us of better colour correction then, I'd say markus make the f/l what ever it needs to be to achieve best correction. I'm sure people will find a way around their mounting issues.

---

I agree that the mount should take a lessor determining role and I would defer to Markus and his expertise. I have used my CG5GT to push around both the CT152 and my current AR152, without any issues. The AR152 with all the implements is probably pushing 25 lbs, essentially over the recommended weight for the mount. I know Celestron claims a max carry weight of 35 lbs for the CG5, that is too optimistic. But, the CG5GT has been quite capable and for the past year, still gives accurate GoTos and tracking. For visual I don't see a problem at all, not even close with the projected weight figures Markus has supplied. Warren McGuire on this forum did a review of his CT152 and that included a guider and he shared the same experience with the CG5GT as I have had.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

7kgs {15.4 lbs} is just fine on a EQ5 head as long as you have fully extended 2" STEEL LEGS, the right wider flat hub with the lower set central hole that accepts a EQ5 head and a solid long dovetail bar in place. Any other leg+hub combo/dovetail bar won't work with the scope to kill the irritating shakes, i've tried them all.

I'm riding 23 lbs on my combo with a 6" f/8 achro OTA and it's close as you'll get to rock solid for most observer's taste in the field. Only 3 secs to settle down after you touch the focuser guys.

Markus's new 6" f/8 WILL work on a lighter mount based on the provided weight if you have the right combo of things in place. Go for the next step up for sure if you don't....

---

Post Extras: