38 replies to this topic

[LDW47]

Chris, BIF:  Wood Legs.  I upped the jitter-free capabilities of several mounts EQ & AZ by swapping metal legs for wood.  (Got a pristine set of old Vixen legs on ZEN Market at a bargain price!)  They're heftier than Tak or Surveyor Gear versions... but don't up the rig weight too much.

And I gave away a couple of wooden tripods that I could have used myself, eh. I never did learn.

Edited by LDW47, 21 March 2025 - 01:05 PM.

[Chris1485]

I like the idea of using my EQ-3 in Alt-Az mode.
That's the next thing I'll try.
Wooden legs is something I'll keep my eyes open for, for sure.
And you've made me think about a 6" Mak now!
That would give me a big boost in aperture..

[Chris1485]

I've tried adjusting my EQ-3 mount head to work in AZ mode, but can't move the head to vertical as part of the casting obstructs the foot that the adjusting screws bear on.

I would need to cut or grind away this part to create enough movement in the head for it to reach vertical..

I'm looking to make some wooden tripod legs out of some 2 1/2" x 1 1/2" timber I have. This should create more stability but ultimately may be too heavy..

[Jon Isaacs]

 

Chris, BIF:  Wood Legs.  I upped the jitter-free capabilities of several mounts EQ & AZ by swapping metal legs for wood.  (Got a pristine set of old Vixen legs on ZEN Market at a bargain price!)  They're heftier than Tak or Surveyor Gear versions... but don't up the rig weight too much.

 

In my experience, it's the design that is important.. A solid metal tripod that is properly designed goes a long way.  I upgraded to legs on my Portamount to wooden legs but then I upgraded the tripod to a surveyor's aluminum tripod and that took it another step.. This is a 4 inch F/7 WO Zenithstar on an Portamount... 

 

 

This is the tripod I use when I need something solid.  $20 at a garage sale..  

 

 

What is was originally built for:

 

 

Jon

Edited by Jon Isaacs, 08 April 2025 - 07:43 AM.

[balcon3]

No one has mentioned the Stellarvue M002C. I don't have that mount but a lot of people seem to put their 4 inch refractors on it and like it. Not too expensive. No slow mo controls. I really like my Vixen APZ mount on Vixen HAL130 tripod. It handles my 100mm f/7.4 refractor very well. Very smooth and excellent slo mo controls. I think it could probably handle an f/10 pretty well but I can't say for sure since haven't tried one on it. A bit more expensive, but reasonable if bought from direct Japan ($375 for the mount).

[Mike W]

Hi,
I have a 102mm Achro that I'm having trouble using with my current mounts. EQ-3 + AZ-4.
I'm looking for a light weight mount that can satisfactorily hold the relatively long tube of the F10 Achro.
Both my mounts generate shake when extended to sufficient height for the Scope and are very prone to being affected by wind.
I struggle a little currently to lift and move my EQ-3 particularly when mounting the scope.
Any suggestions?

 

Thanks,

 

Chris (UK)

Sky Watcher AZ5

[Bomber Bob]

No one has mentioned the Stellarvue M002C. I don't have that mount but a lot of people seem to put their 4 inch refractors on it and like it. Not too expensive. No slow mo controls. I really like my Vixen APZ mount on Vixen HAL130 tripod. It handles my 100mm f/7.4 refractor very well. Very smooth and excellent slo mo controls. I think it could probably handle an f/10 pretty well but I can't say for sure since haven't tried one on it. A bit more expensive, but reasonable if bought from direct Japan ($375 for the mount).

My SV-M7 carries both my massive old Jaegers 6" F5 + C8 -- ADM on the left, & Vixen clamp on the right.

 

I finally found a Classic EQ for my 1974 Dakin 4" F10:

 

 

It's a 1960s Mizar KAISER.  Heftier than the later Mizar AR-1 or SP, but still light enough for me to carry in & out of the house.  And, it's one of the prettiest mounts I've ever had.

[RichA]

I'd love one, but unfortunately out of my current budget..

 

https://www.firstlig...h-mounting.html

Arguably overprice, nothing special about them really.

[Terra Nova]

The Celestron Omni 102XLT (F9.8) seemed to me to be very nicely paired with the Omni CG4 mount. The two together made a very nice outfit. I would highly recommend it for a beginner or for a casual longtime amateur.

Attached Thumbnails

• 

Edited by Terra Nova, 10 April 2025 - 01:20 PM.

[doug mc]

I made this altitude arm out of 4mm plate steel. I kept the height of the scope attachment plate the same as the original arm in angled position. Radical improvement on stability. I can even use my GSO 6 inch f/5 on it. That's a Twilight one mount. 

Attached Thumbnails

• 

Edited by doug mc, 10 April 2025 - 07:37 PM.

[Gary Riley]

[quote name="Terra Nova" post="14074446" timestamp="1744309160"]

“The Celestron Omni 102XLT (F9.8) seemed to me to be very nicely paired with the Omni CG4 mount. The two together made a very nice outfit. I would highly recommend it for a beginner or for a casual longtime amateur.”/quote]

I had that exact same setup one time. I could use mine with just the 7 lb counterweight just fine. Good setup for sure. Sold the refractor and kept the mount. Now I have a SW 120 ED Pro mounted on it.

Gary

[db2005]

RE the suggestion of a Vixen Porta II mount: I have owned two Vixen Porta mounts and while they are great for 3" aperture refractors I found them very inadequate for a 100 mm f/9 ED scope, even with a beefier tripod. I found the EQ-5 to be a much better match.

[balcon3]

RE the suggestion of a Vixen Porta II mount: I have owned two Vixen Porta mounts and while they are great for 3" aperture refractors I found them very inadequate for a 100 mm f/9 ED scope, even with a beefier tripod. I found the EQ-5 to be a much better match.

I think the length is more the issue here than the weight. It seems reasonable that a shorter 4 inch refractor will work with the Portamount II, as several responses in this thread have indicated. The problem with 6 inch Mak, even though it is short (450mm) is that its focal length is 1800mm so the OP will be operating at high magnification, where any shakes will be highly magnified. I don't think the Portamount II would be stable enough for a 150mm Mak.

[db2005]

I think the length is more the issue here than the weight. It seems reasonable that a shorter 4 inch refractor will work with the Portamount II, as several responses in this thread have indicated. The problem with 6 inch Mak, even though it is short (450mm) is that its focal length is 1800mm so the OP will be operating at high magnification, where any shakes will be highly magnified. I don't think the Portamount II would be stable enough for a 150mm Mak.

At a few occasions I mounted my Celestron C8 on the Porta II and found the stability to be surprisingly good and very decent for casual viewing. I also found it to work well with a 127 mm Mak.

 

While OTA weight obviously does matter, length is more important. The longer the scope, the more the OTA behaves like a sail in the wind.