4 replies to this topic

[GTom]

My Lightrack II tracker is missing some key pieces to accommodate a decent size telephoto - actually even my cheap aliexpress ball head gave up the ghost few days ago, it'd definitely need investment. If I go this route, I'll get a very nice tracking, no guiding needed mount with a long list of limitations.

 

On the other hand, I can let the Lightrack go and get an SA GTI instead. Not perfect hardware, but my 2.8/300 nikon lens+camera are within its specifications and even wth the stock  it is certainly more resistant to vibrations than a custom tailored gimbal mounting on top of the lightrack.

 

which way does the "smart money" go, which one should be the better direction? Main goal is productivity and hassle-free operation

Edited by GTom, 10 September 2024 - 07:18 PM.

[Andros246]

That’s pretty impressive to claim 1 arc second of error on the light track.

If your goal is hassle free that would be a smart telescope like a seestar.

EQ mounts in general are not hassle free

[GTom]

LoL, the seestar is definitely not for my climate, it needs dozen+hours to produce a half decent result on a capital large+bright target such as Andromeda or Orion. Here (W Scotland) this needs a year...

 

Probably put it wrong, I meant UNREASONABLE hassle. If you can have goto, why do lengthy star-hopping? If you can have fine adjustment on both axis, why messing around with a ball head in the dark?

 

OTOH, the quality of the lightrack is simply lightyears ahead of anything skywatcher ever released, tempting to stay on the platform and make it a bit more comfortable to use.

 

That’s pretty impressive to claim 1 arc second of error on the light track.

If your goal is hassle free that would be a smart telescope like a seestar.

EQ mounts in general are not hassle free

[Andros246]

LoL, the seestar is definitely not for my climate, it needs dozen+hours to produce a half decent result on a capital large+bright target such as Andromeda or Orion. Here (W Scotland) this needs a year...

Probably put it wrong, I meant UNREASONABLE hassle. If you can have goto, why do lengthy star-hopping? If you can have fine adjustment on both axis, why messing around with a ball head in the dark?

OTOH, the quality of the lightrack is simply lightyears ahead of anything skywatcher ever released, tempting to stay on the platform and make it a bit more comfortable to use.

On the light rack tracking quality I would love to see how they got those results of 1 arc seconds of error because I don’t even know of a way to measure that, most of the time even high precision encoder mounts pdh2 only reports .2-.3 error with those because of the seeing.

I guess if they used such an undersampled setup it would tell them their error was that low because it wouldn’t have that much magnification to be able to see the error.

Regardless anyway to go back to your question yes the GTI is much more hassle free rather than your light track with goto and platesolving and pc control capabilities. But that doesn’t mean you may not have a hassle free experience LOL

Edited by Andros246, 13 September 2024 - 09:15 AM.

[GTom]

.2 - .3 error of those EC mounts is several times better than the claim of Fornax. AFAIK they tested with a well balanced 600mm scope on their pricey declination unit. 1 arc second is far fetched for real life but I know of more than one user measured 2". My own experience is that my 2.8/200 canon lens if properly polar aligned doesn't show any trailing under 5 minutes unguided. This years task is to mount my 2.8/300 nikkor on it, but that's not a very straightforward exercise: strong, big ball heads do exist but very uncomfortable for framing. Saw examples with gimbal heads: works, keeps the RA moment arm nice short (no counterweight needed) BUT adds too many joints that amplify any vibrations/guiding imperfections. Gimbal heads also add a long moment arm along the ALT axis. The best solution is to turn it into a quasi GEM by adding a low profile 2 axis unit on top AND counterweights. I do have an old pentax ALT/AZ mount and just realized today that it accepts m10 counterweight shafts, so a stainless m10 threaded rod is already on its way to me, if lucky, this "investment" bit will be cut short to £9 spent

 

On the light rack tracking quality I would love to see how they got those results of 1 arc seconds of error because I don’t even know of a way to measure that, most of the time even high precision encoder mounts pdh2 only reports .2-.3 error with those because of the seeing.

I guess if they used such an undersampled setup it would tell them their error was that low because it wouldn’t have that much magnification to be able to see the error.

 

As it seems the Lightrack will only need a small new investment, just a little "cloudy nights" prep work, I will still go for buying a goto mount. Less and less sure though that it will be the SA GTI: too expensive for what it is (an EQ configured AZ GTI is approx HALF price) and after watching this I am unconvinced that the build quality is any better than the cheap AZ GTi.

 

Regardless anyway to go back to your question yes the GTI is much more hassle free rather than your light track with goto and platesolving and pc control capabilities. But that doesn’t mean you may not have a hassle free experience LOL

Edited by GTom, 13 September 2024 - 04:20 PM.