Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

What does "premium" mean when referring to mounts?

  • Please log in to reply
144 replies to this topic

#1 EFT

EFT

    Vendor - Deep Space Products

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 5282
  • Joined: 07 May 2007
  • Loc: Phoenix, AZ

Posted 30 June 2019 - 01:46 PM

This question has come up many times, including in a current thread.  While the discussion would be better had in the mounts forum, I am generally unable to start a thread there.  So I will start it here instead.

 

To me, the "premium" term is all that we have been able to come up with for a descriptor.  In general, I feel that it refers to mounts that:

  • are largely handmade, one at a time (as opposed to assembly line made),
  • are known to be made consistently with the highest-quality materials (e.g., billet aluminum, stainless steel, etc. with appropriate alloys used for the purpose vs. cast metals and thin plastics),
  • have consistentlexcellent fit and finish,
  • are mostly, if not entirely, machined rather than cast,
  • are very consistent from unit to unit and batch to batch, etc.,
  • perform very consistently, hour to hour, night to night, etc.,
  • perform consistently with a high degree of accuracy AND precision,
  • are consistently well supported by the manufacturer,
  • consistently require very little, if any, support for the mechanical aspects of the mount,
  • consistently require very little, if any, significant adjustment by the user for the highest performance.

Now, before people jump in and try to say "my mount does this but it is not considered a premium mount", please consider the underlined and bold words.  A premium mount is most, if not all of these things, not just a few of them.  Most important though, is the consistency of these factors, not that any individual factor might be met be any particular mount or brand. 

 

While "premium" mounts tend to cost more, the cost really has nothing to do with the designation as "premium."  Cost is only a reflection of the reality of the cost of materials, the manufacturing time and precision (including expensive machining time), time for individual testing before it leaves the manufacturer, etc.  A mount that can meet all these qualities at half the price would still be considered "premium."

 

There are definite exceptions to meeting all of these factors such as some mounts that are not machined from billet aluminum, some mounts that require a lot of fiddling, some mounts that are not well supported, etc. 

If there are people that think there are other factors that should be included, feel free to bring them up.

 

PLEASE, DO NOT CONSIDER THIS AS AN INVITATION TO BEGIN ANOTHER ARGUEMENT OF "MY MOUNT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED PREMIUM BECAUSE..."  That is not the topic here and not what I and other people are looking to discuss.  If you are looking to argue about what specific mounts should be classified as, then please start a new thread about that in the mounts forum.


Edited by EFT, 30 June 2019 - 01:54 PM.

  • Joe Bergeron, Jon Isaacs, timmbottoni and 4 others like this

#2 sg6

sg6

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5946
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2010
  • Loc: Norfolk, UK.

Posted 30 June 2019 - 02:38 PM

I would just like to identify one that is robust and preferably one that did not need a degree in electronics and networking to do a (should be) simple update.

 

Skywatchers are notorious for Error 16 and 17, they spontanuously die, turn one on and you seem to have a 1 in 10 chance of some error message. I used to know the page and instructions for 16/17 and explain how to go about it all. The ironic thing is I don't own one, but so common I could tell a person where to look and what to do.

 

iOptron seem far too tempermental about set up. Don't ever even think tp pick one up with anything on it or without having performed a 4 hour mechanical calibration to be sure the springs are just set 120% right.

 

I worked on a printer where the update was load/copy software on to a USB stick - simple drag and drop, plug USB in, say Yes or No to the software. 20 seconds, never failed. It is a black art to do a mount update.

 

I do think that the manufacturers idea of "Premium" does not match the users idea. Many manufactirers seem too keen to add a bell or whistle, claim an insignificant improvement just to make the claim. In a way just the sheer number of aftermarket improvements offered give an idea of how poor they start out.

 

Question on iOptron - so many models of the same mount does that mean the basic one is just garbage?

 

Post makes 10 points, I would say

1 and 2 are not going to happen - too costly.

3 within reason.

4 is the same as 1+2 and is included in 2 anyway.

5 should be.

6 and 7 just don't happen, might happen a lot of the time but not all the time.

8 is luck/chance.

9 and 10 seems really that you are expected to make the final set up and adjustments in order to get one to perform, and then continue making checks necessary adjustments at intervals.



#3 gnev

gnev

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 82
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2017
  • Loc: Montana

Posted 30 June 2019 - 04:41 PM

I prefer to think of these mounts as Custom Mounts.  They remind me of the workmanship that went into cars like Deusenburg and Pierce Arrow to name a few.


  • Moonlight in Vermont likes this

#4 EFT

EFT

    Vendor - Deep Space Products

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 5282
  • Joined: 07 May 2007
  • Loc: Phoenix, AZ

Posted 01 July 2019 - 12:09 PM

 

There's a dozen light year between worm wheel and premium.

 

Look here from MW:

 

Definition of premium (Entry 1 of 2)
1a : a reward or recompense for a particular act
b : a sum over and above a regular price paid chiefly as an inducement or incentive
c : a sum in advance of or in addition to the nominal value of something
bonds callable at a premium of six percent

d : something given free or at a reduced price with the purchase of a product or service
2 : the consideration paid for a contract of insurance
3 : a high value or a value in excess of that normally or usually expected
put a premium on accuracy

 

Premium adjective
Definition of premium (Entry 2 of 2)
: of exceptional quality or amount
also : higher-priced

 

Look at how the word itself it so tied into pricing and money. To me is it why that word should never be used to define performance which is what one should be talking about when it comes to mounts. And I have said that many times.

Either I don't understand your answer or you didn't understand my analogy.  All I was trying to point out is that there are some pieces of equipment for which there is little consensus on what to call it for the purpose of easy reference that is generally understood (e.g., "what does XXX mean" when it comes up over and over).  My analogy was simply to show that it is possible to come to a consensus on what terms to use to refer to something.  The constant back and forth on what to call top-line (new term?) mounts has gone on for a while now and is getting nowhere.  So I was hoping to start a thread dedicated only to a discussion of the terminology used to refer to mounts in different classes.  Again, not what mounts should or should not be in those classes.

Given the cited definitions, I could argue that the word "premium" does work.  It is not always defined as a reference to cost.  The third primary definition says that it means "a high value or a value in excess of that normally or usually expected //put a premium on accuracy" and is equally applicable as an adjective.  I might  look at the MW definition completely different in that only two of the subsections indicate a relation to the cost of an item while one of the three primary sections and a primary adjective definition are excellent definitions of what a top-of-the-line mount would be.  However, definitions from various dictionaries differ, but if you look at the MW thesaurus, the argument against "premium" makes more sense.  There, all of the synonyms and antonyms refer to cost (it makes me wonder about the third definition then).  Thus, why there needs to be a different term.  So I can agree that the term "premium" is not a good descriptor which is why I would like to find a different term.

 

I know how I have referring to these mounts most of the time, but I am now convinced that it is not the correct term (see how easy that was?).  So I am open to something else since I am tired of arguing about what to call them.  If there were a smooth continuous line from garbage to top-of-the-line, then this issue might be less obvious, but there is not.

I think that people can probably agree on your position against the term "premium", so do you have any suggestions?



#5 EFT

EFT

    Vendor - Deep Space Products

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 5282
  • Joined: 07 May 2007
  • Loc: Phoenix, AZ

Posted 01 July 2019 - 12:33 PM

To me, one nice thing about this forum is that people look at things in different ways. It's great fun for me to find things that work better for less or the same money in the way that I plan to use them. I loved, for a long time, my Rigel Systems focusers. They are inexpensive, cleverly designed, worked OK and (wait for it) cheap. I'm not interested  buying something based on how it works under extreme conditions or whether or not astronauts or other celebrities use the product. Even the S&T "Hot Product" is pretty meaningless since they never run any kind of comparison test. You may be (and for good reasons), but I'm not, and so my recommendations surely reflect that bias.

 

I'm probably one of the few people on this forum who last night imaged on a CEM120EC2, an AP1600 and a Paramount MX+. What I find is that for pretty pictures under dark skies each mount works just fine. All three mounts "disappeared" under the automation that I run. All three got excellent data and last night were all under .4 arc seconds RMS all night long (AFAIK). Yet one cost much less than the other two. Hmmm. My use cases may not be your use cases, of course. I just took 4-10 minute subs and will try to make pretty pictures (not very successfully) out of them when I have the time.

 

I've pretty much decided that the term of art "premium" in the context of telescope mounts is synonymous with "aspirational". This is true for most classes of consumer products like mounts and telescopes. Marketing organizations go to great lengths to convince people that more expensive means more value. Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't, but it always means "more expensive". Ever see a fat ugly old person driving a Mercedes in a commercial?

 

One of the most satisfying equipment moments I ever had was seeing my modest AZ/EQ6 perform the first night in my backyard. It performed (in my use case) to the same standard as the Mach 1GTO that I sold (to raise cash to buy my Paramount MX+). There it was, at 1/4th the cost, producing the same quality of images that the higher priced mount had produced.

 

We can certainly argue about what mounts fall into what categories, but that's not the purpose here.  There are many mounts that can produce "pretty pictures" as you call them, but the difference in effort, the amount of equipment needed, experience necessary to obtain the desired result is often very different regardless of the price. 

 

To me, the most important thing about the factors that I proposed is consistency and the number of factors a product meets.  One person may have a completely different experience with the same mount as another and samples on that basis are insufficient to derive a definition from.  It is the overall consistency of a product over many samples and many users that help to form the basis for terminology that makes sense.  We could get into a discussion of statistical analysis in defining what mounts should or shouldn't be placed in a given group, but because we don't have hard statistics on any of the numbers here, that discussion would be unlikely to conclude anything all that useful.

 

Another factor that might be added to my list is "consistently durable and long-lasting".  If others have factors that they would add to the list, or a completely different list, bring them on.



#6 EFT

EFT

    Vendor - Deep Space Products

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 5282
  • Joined: 07 May 2007
  • Loc: Phoenix, AZ

Posted 01 July 2019 - 12:37 PM

I don't think the word "custom" works since, by definition, none of the commercially available, retail mounts would fit that definition.  "Custom" implies some that was made or modified specially for individual.


  • Jon Isaacs likes this

#7 Ed Wiley

Ed Wiley

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1982
  • Joined: 18 May 2005
  • Loc: Texas, USA

Posted 01 July 2019 - 12:45 PM

On the other thread I proposed "consistent in the remote environment." This based on my limited experience and what others who maintain remote observatories seem to find suitable for their needs of consistency and reliability. Of course, consistent and reliable also ports over to those who do not maintain a remote observatory.

 

Ed


  • Phil Cowell likes this

#8 WadeH237

WadeH237

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4776
  • Joined: 24 Feb 2007
  • Loc: Snohomish, WA

Posted 01 July 2019 - 01:28 PM

When I talk about "premium" equipment, especially in the context of astronomy stuff, I am describing something that has a higher cost, with the expectation that you are paying to a higher and more consistent level of quality and/or performance.  And the inclusion of cost is a very integral part of how I use the term.

 

Here are some examples:

 

I consider Astro-Physics a manufacturer of premium mounts (and certainly not the only one).  I think that we can all agree that there is a higher cost associated with them.  It is generally understood that they have a consistently high performance from sample to sample.  And the quality of workmanship is exemplary.  They are works of art.

 

I consider Rolex a manufacturer of premium watches.  Again, they have the cost aspect covered.  I call them out as a counterpoint to Astro-Physics above for this reason:  While they have an exceptionally high quality of workmanship, they are not particularly strong performers.  As mechanical watches, they are absolutely beautiful.  I consider to also be art (and while I would love to have one, I don't).  But a (potentially cheap) electronic watch is likely to keep better time.  I have a Citizen watch that syncs with an atomic time signal, recharges its battery with solar power, and automatically adjusts for daylight saving time.  It is *always* accurate to far less than one second.  In this way, it outperforms every Rolex watch that I've ever heard of - but I don't consider it a premium watch.  I could by a dozen of them for less than the cheapest Rolex.

 

Getting back to astronomy gear, I think that there are a few products out there that some people consider premium, but I don't.  I think that this is where some of the more spirited conversations happen.  I'll call out iOptron here.  I will never consider their mounts to be premium, simply because they don't have the cost that I feel is integral to the definition of "premium".  That's not a put down on these mounts in any way.  Based solely on owner comments, I consider them to be among the best "bang for the buck" mounts out there.  I've never owned one, so I simply take these comments at face value.  I have had a chance to play with a few, and their quality of construction is not even close to what I see in Astro-Physics.  Again, this is not a criticism about iOptron mounts in any way.  If they can reach their price point and get well performing mounts into the hands of a greater number of amateur astronomers, then it benefits all of it.  As all of the "non premium" manufacturers keep upping their performance, it puts pressure on the "premium" manufacturers as well, which also benefits all of us.

 

And finally, I would address outlier performers.  There are some scopes and mounts out there are overachieve, sometimes in a huge way.  I think that this is a consequence of wider manufacturing tolerances.  If you happen to end up with one, then congratulations on winning the astronomy lottery, but it doesn't make it a premium product.

 

All of this is, of course, my opinion.


  • delgado39 and psandelle like this

#9 StarmanDan

StarmanDan

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4658
  • Joined: 27 Aug 2007
  • Loc: Where the stars at night are big and bright...

Posted 01 July 2019 - 04:18 PM

For me, a premium mount is the one I can't afford... regardless of price.  lol.gif


  • Jon Isaacs, timmbottoni, psandelle and 4 others like this

#10 OldManSky

OldManSky

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1982
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2019
  • Loc: Valley Center, CA USA

Posted 01 July 2019 - 04:39 PM

I owned a "premium" mount -- an AP900GTO.  It was carefully made, mostly machined, worked very well, and was very reliable.

It also took me 2 years on "the list" to be able to get it, and it cost a considerable amount of money.

 

Don't get me wrong, I loved it.  There it is, up there on the left, in my avatar pic.  But I probably won't buy another one.  I don't want to get on another list and wait years to see if I get something.  I don't want to pay 3-4x the cost of a "non-premium" mount for 1.5x the performance.  So I'll muddle along with less-than-premium, which works quite well and quite reliably, thanks, and if/when it breaks I'll buy another (and another and another and another) and still have paid less than the "premium" mount.  That's me, of course, your mileage may vary.

 

And I swear I 'm not trying to start an argument, but just have to address a couple of comments by sg6:

 

"iOptron seem far too tempermental about set up. Don't ever even think tp pick one up with anything on it or without having performed a 4 hour mechanical calibration to be sure the springs are just set 120% right.

 

My current iOptron mount has had 0 mechanical calibration, performs well above guaranteed spec, and I've upgraded the software twice -- took a total of 2 minutes each time, no issues.  Just FYI. smile.gif

And *that* to me is the main difference between "premium" and "not-premium" -- not whether they're hand-assembled or not, not whether they're all-machined or not, etc.  The "premium" companies do extensive QA, and nothing goes out the door until it works to spec.  The "not-premium" companies often do cursory QA, and that's not always the best.  So you might get a really good one, you most of the time will get one that's just fine, you might sometimes get a clunker that QA didn't find.  And you have to deal with that.  

 

"Question on iOptron - so many models of the same mount does that mean the basic one is just garbage?"

 

No, generally it means that they've found some ways to improve things, or fixed some bugs discovered after shipping/usage in the field for a long time.  If you're a "premium" mount maker these are called upgrades/improvements.  I guess if you're not, they're called "garbage...?"


Edited by OldManSky, 01 July 2019 - 04:56 PM.

  • delgado39, psandelle, biz and 2 others like this

#11 Dwight J

Dwight J

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3285
  • Joined: 14 May 2009
  • Loc: Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada

Posted 02 July 2019 - 01:37 AM

I consider a premium mount as one that works out of the box and keeps on working for many years.  These are mostly expensive but not overly so compared to buying many mounts just to get one that works.  I like my Tak mount as there are no

updates to fuss with.  It works with whatever planetarium software I choose, currently SkySafari and The Sky6. 


  • OldManSky likes this

#12 RandallK

RandallK

    Mercury-Atlas

  • -----
  • Posts: 2832
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Nanaimo, B. C. Canada

Posted 02 July 2019 - 02:11 PM

Probably anything other than mounts manufactured in the People's Republic of China...not meaning that the Chinese mounts aren't great. Many are terrific in fact. Like my SkyWatcher HEQ5-Pro. But the premium mounts are machined and finished better than the Chinese made mounts. 


  • t-ara-fan likes this

#13 Ballyhoo

Ballyhoo

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3991
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2011
  • Loc: San Diego

Posted 02 July 2019 - 02:30 PM

premium equals, made to a highest standards of buyer expectation with respect to function and design. Not only looks and feels nice, but functions exceptionally superior to standard designs. 

 

edit, I really love my IEQ45. I know it is not premium. The premium scopes will operate to higher tolerances, for example, improved tracking, with less eccentricity to the stars in imaging. But the Ioptron is a good mount in the "affordable class."  Not cheap, but not expensive. Now my AVX: I used it last night and i had to discard 60% of the 120 second subs.  One sub would be perfect, or good, the next two crap. then next one okay, the next one bad...   


Edited by Ballyhoo, 02 July 2019 - 02:33 PM.

  • timmbottoni likes this

#14 spatzek

spatzek

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 57
  • Joined: 06 Apr 2005

Posted 02 July 2019 - 03:10 PM

I agree in Ed's list. My own mount is a CGE Pro and a C14. I am a visual observer and this mount does the job. Premium -nope not at all.

My friend Niels has this little but smart mount company only 1.5 miles away from my home. I have the deepest respect that he from the beginning without any compromises believed in his TTS-160 Panther mount. This is in my world a really true premium mount. He had used my C9.25 and C14 to test different configurations. And I just love his way of thinking out of the box. It all comes to a price and it is expensive to produce a mount as the Panther mount. First time I met Niels was when we was teenagers and now we both has this silver grey hair...


  • schmeah, BGazing and 555aaa like this

#15 555aaa

555aaa

    Vendor (Xerxes Scientific)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 1444
  • Joined: 09 Aug 2016
  • Loc: Lynnwood, WA, USA

Posted 02 July 2019 - 04:01 PM

Well this is a dangerous subject!

 

I have heard some describe two types of mounts, "modern" and "traditional." What is different is the way that they are controlled. Traditional mounts rely on precision gearing to produce performance. Modern mounts have sufficiently accurate encoders so that they don't need to rely on precision gearing or any gearing at all. So to control (guide) a traditional mount, one is primarily compensating for relatively fast errors in the gear train plus backlash, but in a modern mount, the control approach is dominated by compensation for slow terms such as polar misalignment, refraction, and sag in the optical system. It means no backlash or inherent backlash compensation, because the control loop is measuring the actual mount position and speed directly. It means that simultaneous fine tracking rates should be used on both axes versus pulse guiding. It means automatic wind gust or other upset compensation.  It means reasonably precise high speed control for satellite tracking. It becomes possible to use methods such as interframe guiding instead of traditional guiding or elaborate mount modeling.

 

If you think about it, the way we do guiding now is a throwback to the pre-computer days, where the clock drive in a mount had only a couple pre-selectable speeds and the guiding drive for dec had only one speed. 

 

-Bruce



#16 EFT

EFT

    Vendor - Deep Space Products

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 5282
  • Joined: 07 May 2007
  • Loc: Phoenix, AZ

Posted 02 July 2019 - 04:45 PM

While I think there is some agreement on what it means to refer to a mount as "premium" (even if the use is not in line with some definitions).  However, is there a better term than "premium"?  A lot of people seem to be offended by the term and want to argue about it every time it comes up. 

 

"Top-line" is too generic as it can be used to describe any mount that is in the top line of a particular manufacturer.

"High quality" or "top quality" would certainly invite a lot a argument about what mounts are that even though it is not a bad term to describe "premium" mounts since their is no direct connection to cost in its definition.

"High precision" doesn't really work because there is no set level at which the precision of different mounts in the continuum of low to high quality could be said to fall and establishing numeric values would not be of much use do to the different ways of measuring that.

 

I would say that there is a similar difficulty in deciding what to call mounts that are not "premium."  At this point, there tends to be one fairly clear distinction and this whether the mounts are mass produced or not.  I tend to use the term "mass-produced."  While there is one mount that seems to always fall between "premium" and "mass-produced" mounts, it seems to be about the only exception.  In my opinion, no mass-produced mount (regardless of the country or origin) has ever met enough of "premium" requirements I outlined.  That may change, but not any time soon because there is no impetus to change.

 

I started this thread to try to get some suggestions on what other terminology might work better.  The more people that contribute, the better, particularly if people who don't like the term "premium" contribute.  It would be nice to come up with some consensus on what a good label would be, but if not, "premium" will stay the designator and I will keep having to ask people that complain about the term what their suggestion would be.  So people invite anyone you know to contribute.


  • Jon Isaacs likes this

#17 Vondragonnoggin

Vondragonnoggin

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8619
  • Joined: 21 Feb 2010
  • Loc: Southern CA, USA

Posted 02 July 2019 - 04:58 PM

I haven’t used that many mounts to be able to compare, but I consider my T-Rex to be a Premium alt-az mount and is a joy to use. Sitting on the Avalon T-Pod 130 it’s the sturdiest Mount for the scopes I’m using.

 

I hope it lasts a lifetime and since I put scopes 15lbs or less on it 80% of the time, I’m sure it will. Occasionally gets a 25lb OTA, but rarely compared to the 15 lb scopes.


  • EFT and 25585 like this

#18 Phil Cowell

Phil Cowell

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5984
  • Joined: 24 May 2007
  • Loc: Southern Tier NY

Posted 02 July 2019 - 05:09 PM

To me a new premium mount is one where better than 95% work out out of the box without any tweaking or adjustment above site configuration and modeling. They should also be capable of being fully remotely operated in a remote observatory. Very high accuracy and smooth PE.

In line with remote operation, through the mount cabling is a must. This is 2019, the days of imaging systems with on mount rats nests is a thing of the past. Remote software from the vendor to provide remote operation and integration capabilities. Protection measures to prevent motor cook offs in a contact condition should be implemented. Hand controller shouldn’t be required, in remote operation there’s no one there to use it anyway.



#19 CharlesW

CharlesW

    Long time member

  • ***--
  • Posts: 3659
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2012
  • Loc: Chula Vista, CA

Posted 02 July 2019 - 06:27 PM

You might also include that a premium mount invokes an emotional response. I’ve owned Paramounts for about seven years, everything from the MyT to an ME2 with encoders. Because I have a remote obs I only see the ME2 once every five or six weeks. But when I do, I’m reminded what a work of art it is. All premium machines should do that. It’s not something you use, it’s something you relish using. 


  • Phil Cowell, Vondragonnoggin, epdreher and 1 other like this

#20 WadeH237

WadeH237

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4776
  • Joined: 24 Feb 2007
  • Loc: Snohomish, WA

Posted 02 July 2019 - 07:31 PM

A lot of people seem to be offended by the term and want to argue about it every time it comes up.

I don't think that you can avoid this.  We all like to think that we've made a good purchase decision, and any term you care to use will be met with offense from some folks - it if makes it look like there is something better out there.



#21 Michaeljhogan

Michaeljhogan

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 230
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2014

Posted 02 July 2019 - 07:44 PM

Premium mounts are Planewave L-350 Direct Drive Mounts and European 10 Micron GM 2000 GM 3000 GM 4000 and the amazing ASA DDM 100

DDM 200 and DDM 500 these are the true top end Premium mounts also ALCOR-SYSTEM NOVA Direct Drive 120 and 200 all european mounts

used by Professional Astronomers even ESO a favorite ESO mount used in Chile is the ASTELCO NTM-500 and its bigger brother NTM-1000 Series

Planewave is challenging these european companies and doing a great job.

 

Astro-Physics is a second tier premium American company that makes great mounts but for amature astronomy like unstoppable Takahashi mounts

old design works of art Software Bisque great mounts too and the new comers Hobym Crux 320HDA  200HDA 170HD.

 

The cheaper Ioptron CEM-60 & CEM-120 non EC non premium mounts today can do the very same PEC as the older Astro-Physics 900 and 1200 thats

why Astro-Physics phased them out they knew what was coming hence the new 1100 and 1600 only build quailty not as good and what do we say about

the unbreakable Skywatcher EQ6-R Pro and its many versions is that premium grin.gif  when was the last time you heard about one break.

 

To this day us in Europe will never understand the cult that has grown around Astro-Physics waiting 3-5 years on a mount when for the same

price you can get the ultra premium direct drive ASA or 10 Micron or incredable Planewave L-350 for 10,000 and you dont have to wait 5 years

dont get me started on Astro-Physics Apo,s Takahashi mounts and Apo.s are hand made yet you dont have to wait years.


Edited by Michaeljhogan, 02 July 2019 - 07:49 PM.


#22 f430

f430

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 441
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2015
  • Loc: La Mesa, CA.

Posted 02 July 2019 - 08:44 PM

To this day us in Europe will never understand the cult that has grown around Astro-Physics waiting 3-5 years on a mount,,,,,

You won't have to wait long for a mount. I recently waited one month for my 1100GTO.

Now, for a telescope you will have a long wait, but not for a mount....


  • epdreher likes this

#23 schmeah

schmeah

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5270
  • Joined: 26 Jul 2005
  • Loc: Morristown, NJ

Posted 02 July 2019 - 09:00 PM

This is silly. Now we have to distinguish between premium and non premium,  regular premium and “true top end” premium, first and “second tier” premium, etc, etc. Like the nauseating ads for premier, elite, academy youth soccer clubs, these labels are all about making one feel better about his/her purchase, or child as the case may be.

 

But IMO, a “premium” mount is one that allows you to sleep through the night, every night, fully confident that upon awakening every sub will have round, tight (low FWHM) stars, barring unavoidable atmospheric/weather disturbance. And this would be when imaging at long FL (> 2000mm) and near full stated capacity (no 50% rule nonsense) and absolutely consistent from mount to mount.

 

But why not just call it an “expensive” mount. Because that’s what they are, and for good reason.

 

Derek


Edited by schmeah, 02 July 2019 - 09:45 PM.

  • Stelios, dswtan, rgsalinger and 4 others like this

#24 t-ara-fan

t-ara-fan

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 737
  • Joined: 20 Sep 2017
  • Loc: 50° 13' N

Posted 02 July 2019 - 11:35 PM


But why not just call it an “expensive” mount. Because that’s what they are, and for good reason.

 

Exactly.  I had a HEQ5-Pro.  OK, but I was always fiddling with it. Adjusting gears, adding a leg spreader and tray, etc.

 

I upgraded 2 levels to a Mach1GTO, and never regretted it for a second. Everything on it is the best it can be, not just an obvious trade-off between cost and quality. It is a real pleasure to use and even just look at.

 

Due to glory of free market capitalist system in your country, price correlates well with quality.  {read that with a Russian accent}  Or they would be out of business.


  • schmeah likes this

#25 gotak

gotak

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2068
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2016
  • Loc: Toronto, CA

Posted 02 July 2019 - 11:57 PM

Most foggy discussion ever.

 

Lets collect some of the words used so far in favor of "premium":

 

  • best it can be, not just an obvious trade-off between cost and quality - quantify best? not obvious cost vs quality? So the trade off is so subtle there's no way to describe it?
  • fully confident that upon awakening every sub will have round, tight (low FWHM) stars, barring unavoidable atmospheric/weather disturbance - Eh, so how can one be fully confident if we know there are unavoidable and uncontrollable conditions? So how do we differentiate what caused the stars to be unround and/or high FWHM from atmosphere vs mount? Especially if we are sleeping?
  • I’m reminded what a work of art it is. All premium machines should do that. It’s not something you use, it’s something you relish using. - Best description of premium yet I think. It's all touch and feel. I have seen people stare at the Mona Lisa for longer than I cared to (me: I came, I saw, Ok, next!), so maybe I am the weird one cause I can't feel like that about a mount. Not when the point is where it's pointing and how, not what it looks like.
  • But the premium mounts are machined and finished better than the Chinese made mounts - How does one quantify that statement? 
  • works out of the box and keeps on working for many years - That generic statement covers basically anything depending on what years means and what works means to different people
  • Consistently - define please. Where's anyone's data set?

 

One things is clear there's no one way to look at it. 




CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics