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

AT92 vs AT102EDL for visual only

  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#51 gwlee

gwlee

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,989
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2015
  • Loc: 38N 120W

Posted 28 June 2020 - 05:53 PM

Yeah it's really sad that with just a little more engineering and execution these mass produced mounts could be at least 50% better. And it would only cost another $10. And it's double sad because some of these have been produced for years, yet they keep on producing junk; well, sometimes they turn out ok. But they're so inconsistent. In any case I still think the market is wide open for someone to produce really good mounts that aren't much more than the mass produced ones, and yet considerably less than the premium brands.

Some good, but inexpensive alt/az choices, such as Universal Astronomics (UA), are no longer on the market except for the occasional used scope that pops up on the CN classifieds, so less incentive for the surviving manufacturers to improve their products. 
 

I chose a DM4 for my 92mm scope. It works very well, but it’s very expensive. Would probably have chosen another UA mount if Larry was still operating UA. 


  • Tyson M and Jethro7 like this

#52 Tyson M

Tyson M

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,668
  • Joined: 22 Jan 2015
  • Loc: Canada

Posted 28 June 2020 - 06:03 PM

The AT102EDL looks like a promising scope for a good price.  For visual use only I am thinking one would prefer it over the AT92, unless portability was the highest priority above everything else, at the expense of some field curvature. 


  • Jond105 likes this

#53 Jethro7

Jethro7

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 663
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2018
  • Loc: N.W. Florida

Posted 28 June 2020 - 06:26 PM

Yeah it's really sad that with just a little more engineering and execution these mass produced mounts could be at least 50% better. And it would only cost another $10. And it's double sad because some of these have been produced for years, yet they keep on producing junk; well, sometimes they turn out ok. But they're so inconsistent. In any case I still think the market is wide open for someone to produce really good mounts that aren't much more than the mass produced ones, and yet considerably less than the premium brandsHello 

Hello Mike,

I totally agree, such as with the ES Twillight 1 it they simply made the DEC riser solid that would have gone a long way to making it more stable. The production cost might even be cheaper.As for the slow motion worms they needed to be shimmed up to remove play, all be it for viewing it's not as important, I just did not like the slippage. The alternative is to tighten down the grub screws till the slow motion controls are very stiff. Live and learn and move forward and that's where the Losmandy AZ8 and Berlebach  Uni tripod will come in. Because of the Twilight 1 I have no faith in the Twillight 2 mount. 

 

But on the other hand my AT 102 ED is a exception it is a very nice scope for the money.

 

HAPPY SKIES AND KEEP LOOKING UP Jethro


Edited by Jethro7, 28 June 2020 - 06:27 PM.


#54 TNmike

TNmike

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 181
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2016
  • Loc: Kingston, TN

Posted 28 June 2020 - 06:30 PM

After getting my AT60ED and using it with a M1V mount, I'm now used to a mount without slo-mo controls. I didn't think that would happen but it did. Yeah, if those mounts were as good as the scope, you'd be talking business!



#55 gwlee

gwlee

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,989
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2015
  • Loc: 38N 120W

Posted 28 June 2020 - 06:32 PM

The AT102EDL looks like a promising scope for a good price.  For visual use only I am thinking one would prefer it over the AT92, unless portability was the highest priority above everything else, at the expense of some field curvature. 

If you can comfortably handle the AT102EDL, I think it’s might be a better choice for visual than the AT92. I was also concerned that it might have too much FC. While I was trying to decide, I found a 92mm f6.7 scope and bought it. 



#56 TNmike

TNmike

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 181
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2016
  • Loc: Kingston, TN

Posted 28 June 2020 - 06:56 PM

TV has such a large selection of types and focal lengths it would be hard to find holes to fill, which is what they would really need to do.




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