Thanks for the review, interesting results especially in that 2nd test (guiding error not really corresponding to the stacked image result). However I think you should've disclosed the fact that your AM5 (earlier version) is of different specs to current version of the same mount which was silently (I would even say "secretly") downgraded earlier this year to the same gear specs that are used in AM3. Therefore any results from your AM5 mount are meaningless for anyone who is buying that same mount today. Not even dealers were notified of the change. The periodic error duration for the earlier version was 432secs whereas for the downgraded version of AM5 it is now 288secs (same as AM3), lower PE duration results in less accurate guiding because shorter PE period will cause steeper slope of the periodic error (which in turn results in less smooth guiding). Lastly it would be great if at some point you could do comparison vs the Rainbow Astro RST-135. Cheers.
@@timwhite1111 of course they officially didn't call it a downgrade, but the fact is they didn't even announce the change, they let the users and dealers believe the PE period is 432secs where in fact they changed the gearing that resulted in the PE period being changed to 288secs. but by any metrics shorting PE period is a downgrade. would you rather have 40 arc secs error every 432secs or every 288secs ? as an example peak to peak error of 40" (-20" to +20") translates to average error of 0.093 arc-sec per sec (432 PE duration) VS 0.139 arc-sec per sec (288 PE duration), the per second error increase of 50%. also the shorter PE period will cause steeper slope of the periodic error (peak to peak value), none of which is desired for smooth guiding. When I purchased my AM5 I was deciding between AM3 and AM5, the only reason I went for AM5 was the advertised PE period of 432, only to find out (once I started using it) that the PE period is much shorter. If I knew AM3 and AM5 were identical in terms if PE period I would've chosen the cheaper and more portable AM3 instead. I confronted my dealer and they were unaware of the "downgrade", the dealer then questioned ZWO who finally admitted the change.
@@bobeshoz I think your maths is flawed here, the peak to peak (or at least the error) yo-yos loads of times per period, every few seconds, it's not 40 arc secs error per period, and changing the period length doesn't affect that actual error, it is the same.
Thanks Nico, this video is very helpful. I've been interested in the NYX-101 for a while now but since my setup is 2350mm focal length, I've been waiting for someone to experiment and demonstrate long focal length guiding.
I finally got clear skies for my AM3. My AVX died (I won't bore you with details) and I love this mount. I have the Askar 103 and it performed flawlessly. Dither settling was quick and tracking was below .9 all evening. I did use a counterweight. I thought tipping over could be an issue with scope, camera, etc hanging off to one side. Thanks for the comparison review.
I always super enjoy these comparisons. Maybe it's important to remind people that seeing can cause a pretty large discrepancy in guide error, even with the same night. Even a super premium mount cannot perfectly correct those issues. I've seen an average RMS as low as .3 and as high as .9 during the same night and I'm fairly certain it came down to the seeing conditions.
I have both the AM3 and AM5 and in my experience ( so far limited time on the AM3), the weight limits on the ZWO’s is a little optimistic. My 17 pound 102 set up showed pretty much identical results that you got. Put a six pound counterweight on and it was a massive improvement on tracking. Like wise on the AM5 with a 9.5 inch SCT that was only two pounds under the limit for not using counter weights. Immediate improvement with 10 pounds of counter weight. I’m going to try the six pounder counterweight next time I use it and see how it does. The counter weight is a very useful accessory to use regardless, as it gives the rig a lower center of gravity and less “tippie “.
Great review as always Nico! Got my AM5 two weeks ago and I’m so happy with the guiding numbers I’m getting now. I was very surprised that they don’t include a power cable for the mount especially at the price point,however. Cheers Si
Thank you Nico for the informative video. I am saving for the NYX-101 because I am a mobile imager, working towards flying to my destinations using scopes in the 500-1200 mm focal length. Your video made me feel secure in my decision to eventually buy the NYX-101!
@@WilliFromEarth I think ASAIR support NYX. ASAIR and PHD2 guiding numbers differ. For example, for the same set up PHD2 shows 0.8-0.9, while ASAIR 0.4-0.5. They have to keep costumers happy.
Started watching - bought last week an AM3… now hoping this review will not tell me I bought the wrong unit…. Let’s watch the video!! EDIT: yes, the AM5 might be the better choice, but not for me, using only 250mm and 480mm, I think the AM3 was still the best I could buy for the money…
Great comparison, as always. Thanks much! I agree about not putting scopes the size of the 130 on the AM3 or AM5. But I wonder if the effect on the images is due, not so much to their payload limits, but because the lever arm of the 130 exceeds the torque specs of those mounts. Too long a scope might unbalance the ZWO mounts more quickly than the payload. Just a thought. Could be other things too, of course. Anyway, great review!
Break in for anything with gears and seals must be taken into account. Assume the AM5 is the only one broken in. Also, in the final comparison, the tracking RMS only gets part of the picture, second order effects. The graphs appear to show bias; the average tracking is not zero on the AMs, but nearly zero on the NYX despite the noise. That could explain the cones on the AM3, and to a lesser extent on the AM5. Great video.
Thanks for doing this comparison Nico!. 1. A few questions: (a) How frequently was the guider making corrections during each sub-exposure? Once per second? Twice per second? (b) I wonder how many of the spikes in each guidelog graph were due to either i/ gusts of wind, and/or ii/ the typical sudden 'periodic error' which all harmonic mounts have. (c) Did you monitor the weather conditions during these imaging runs to see when there were gusts of wind? 2. FWIW, I am not surprised that the AM3 struggled with either OTA. Those ASKAR refractors are quite long, so they would exert a significant torque on a mount if there were any gusts of wind. It would make sense that the smallest, lightest mount would suffer the most in such a case. Consequently, IMHO, one cannot make any fair comparison between the performance of these mounts & their carbon fibre tripods (which are definitely the weak point in each rig), because the AM3, AM5 & NYX-101 were all stressed to different degrees by the weight of each telescope. 3. Finally, if you do any further testing of harmonic mounts, I would encourage you to see if you can get your hands on an iOpton harmonic mount that has strainwave gearing on both axes. fYI, the iOptron HAE29 has the same capacity as the AM5, but the HAE29 is much lighter. The lower weight to capacity of the HAE29 may be a bonus, especially for imagers who travel to their favourite location via vehicle or are taking a flight to their imaging nirvana. Also, the HAE43 has the same capacity as the Pegasus NYX-101, so that would be an interesting comparison. Furthermore, some imagers are taking advantage of the narrow channels through the RA & Dec axes in the iOptron HAE mounts to route a power cable to their preferred power distribution system (e.g. PrimaLuceLab Eagle, Pegasus Powerbox, etc.) As far as I am aware, that is something that is lacking in all other harmonic mounts. Last, as is the case with the Rainbow Astro RST-135E harmonic mount, iOptron offers versions of their harmonic mounts with an encoder on the RA axis, which greatly smooths the 'periodic error' of the mount...so it would be interesting to see if such a feature is worth the much higher price tag of the encoder versions. Thanks, again, for doing this video! 👍
Thanks Nico for the review! I'm a fan of your channel. And I wait for each next vid you make! I have to mention that I think the test is not very accurate. Guiding depends on seeing, seeing can change dramatically even in zenith during the same night. More accurate test should include the 4th rig based on a mount with absolute encoders that will capture seeing conditions to filter out time intervals with seeing out of given range. So all data sets that accounted are acquired on the same seeing conditions. What your test had measured is capability of the mounts to recover from moments of poor seeing and maybe mild wind gusts. Which is basically a real world test and very valuable information. Based on your experiment I can make a conclusion that _all_ tested mounts are great mounts within defined specs. They are big step up from low-mid range worm gear mounts that were popular in the past. They recover fast, have no backlash and are compact. Of course time will tell about how they hold in a long run but for occasional use they are perfect.
Great video, thanks ! For ST4 port, it can be usefull for planetary imaging. In my case, I use the connexion via ST4 to autoguide directly with the main imaging camera with Firecapture... Much more easier than a classic "deep sky" configuration ! 😉
Great showcase of these! A follow up on the NYX-101 to push it to it´s limit would be greatly appreciated, as information on this new mount is scarce at the moment :)
Fantastic presentation again Nico. I particularly liked the guiding logs as it provides a nice comparative benchmark for those of us with other mounts.
Very comprehensive comparisons! I've been looking at the AM5 as my next mount upgrade, as I need something that can handle the 8se with full imaging gear on it. The 8se is right on the edge of what my current CEM25P can handle, and it strains at wonky positions. But now I'm thinking about looking into the AM3 as an alternative, as I think it can handle the load just fine.
The first photo, I mean. I had to put another comment here because for some reason I am unable to edit my You Tube comments. By the way, is it possible, in your opinion, to adapt the NYX to a Celestron CGX- L tripod?
Did you add extra weight to the tripod weight basket? Did you balance the scope in the length direction by putting a round wooden dowel under the scope vixen bar and roll it until you find the center? You then mark that spot and place that center in the middle of your mount.
Thanks for video! I'd like to see GX-12 connectors for USB as well. I made one for my EQ6R-PRO and happy with it. USB-A-B-mini-micro are designed for office use only and non moving parts, should never be used outdoors in dynamically moving equipment.
To me and with the caveat of watching your excellent review on an IPad - the ZW5 wins and I have another $900 dollars ob headroom. I will buy the ZW5 when I can and pray for a hand controller version soon. But that will cost more too. Who says stars are expensive. Really outstanding review.
Thx for your video. Do u know its possible to Adapt an esprit 150 (only observation) on the NYX-101 ? And i have a Berlebach Planet tripod with eq6 option plateform. Do u think its compatibleThx for your answer
Great video - do you have any data on seeing conditions? My gut tells me seeing deteriorated during the night seeing the graphs. I think on the lighter scope, the AM3 was getting worse tracking due to seeing and also why the stars are a bit softer……
Hey Nico, can I get you to show your balancing routine using the NYX-101? Even the AM5 would be helpful. I'm using an 8" Edge HD with the 2.5" CHL Moonlite focuser with a QHY268C. And I have a fair amount of counter weight on the front of the OTA due to all of the weight from the Moonlite Focuser and camera. No counter weight on the RA. I'm getting similar results as you have. But I used a SCOPS OAG which I think might be part of my problem. Trying to get sharp round stars using an OAG can be quite a challenge. And my accuracy on guiding varies between 1.29 and 0.65 Arc Seconds. Be interesting to see your routine as I'm not sure how I balance the mount or if its even necessary. ;o)
Fantastic review as always from Nico. It would be nice to see a comparison of the stacked images for the three mounts after initial image processing. Specifically I'm wondering if after processing by BlurXTerminator the difference in star profiles would no longer be visible across the mounts? Of course it's always best to start with the highest quality rate data, in which case probably the AM5 is best, unless you need to use a heavier load, but these days software can perform miracles to compensate for optical aberrations, and tracking errors.
I like the comparison images you took of the Iris Nebula through the three mounts. It's a better way to evaluate the mount's performance than simply comparing the RMS. Despite the cost, I'm leaning toward the NYX-101 given its higher payload capacity. Do you have any additional information on it that you could share?
Excellent video as always Nico! I purchsed the AM3 in September and could not be happier. I was going back and forth between the AM3 and AM5. Agena probably thinks I am nuts as I ordered the AM3 in June, cancelled it and then reorderd it in Sepember in order get their 20 Years deal, then cancelled it and ordered the AM5, then the next day cancelled it and reordered the AM3 🤪. After finally deciding why I was getting this in the first place, the AM3 was the obvious choice. I already have an Atlas Pro which I love, and a Sirius on a cencrete pier in the Astroshed, for my larger scopes - the AT115 and Edge800. If these were what I needed the new mount for I most certainly would have purchased the AM5 or NYX, however, the AM3 is for my portable widefield setups - mainly the Askar FRA300. This works great for this set up which the Askar has a FL of 300mm. The other night I forgot to engage the autoguider and I was taking 2-minute subexposures. I checked them the next day and 75% of them were just as good as the ones collected using the guiding. As you eluted to, if one were to use a larger scope with a focal length of 700mm or larger, go with the AM5 or NYX but if you are using a smaller scope, this is fine. I do occasional travelling, sometimes on a plane and the AM3 is small enough to easily go into carry-on luggage. It looked like the AM5 produced the sharpest nebular detail but it was real close with the NYX. Cheers Kurt
Thanks for this video. I am still not sure what the purpose of the counterweight on the Harmonic Mounts. Does this assist the system or is it to stop tip overs? If it is for the gearing is there a ratio between the scope weight and the counterweight?
@@NebulaPhotos I had an intuitive sense that this is the purpose as I was having problems with my AM5 not being able to do a meridian flip with my 8” EdgeHD, which has heavy accessories such as OAG, Filter Drawer, Moonlite focuser, etc attached. I then added a counterweight thinking it may assist the mount but it didn’t. Thanks
Great Video thank you very much for the comparison! Does someone know how sturdy the pegasus tripod is ? I read 50kg maximum paypload but 15kg for photographic equipment ? For up to 15kg its okay but above that it will flex ? Anyone with some experience ? Thanks a lot!
Thank you for the video. When you place the balance weight, do you need to "balance" the set up or just place the weight at farthest locations on the extension?
The thing is i'm most interested in can it match the CQ350 pro tracking because too me that's the most important thing.. the only thing I dislike about the CQ350 Pro is the weight but if this isn't going to track even close to it and I like long exposures then it's pointless for me.
Great vidoe Nico! As I am planning to get a SWG mount too this video is really what I was looking for. I am uncertain if the AM3 would be enough for me or if I have to go with the AM5. The downside of the AM5 for me is that in Germany it is 800 Euro more expensive than the AM3. My heaviest scope is a GSO 8" RC which comes at 10.5 kg/ 23.1 lbs fully equipped with camera, OAG, filter drawer, AsiAir. From the specs the AM3 should be fine running that weight with some 3- 5kg/ 7- 11 lbs counter weight. I guess on the AM5 I would be able to leave away the counter weight or just attach a small one. At the moment I am running an iOptron CEM40, a no-brainer in terms of weight with my current telesecopes. All those question when getting into new tech. 😂
Hey Nico, love your work. Can you do a performance comparison with both new Sky Watcher harmonic mounts. I'd love to see them up against the NX and the AM5
I have both the AM3 and the AM5 and on a light rig I can't spot any differences in guiding. The AM3 doesn't have the azimuth lock or the 12V DC output (handy for flats). But the AM3 is my go to portable mount now.
Now you can add the Skywatcher Wave 150i , hope you can get hands on tondo a review, something nicer is you can still use your hand controller on its new armonic mount.
Have you thought of doing photo/video of rocket launches? Your insane skills and gear would make some incredible shots, I bet! And to collect some more views for the channel would be amazing. Keep up the great work!
I think it would be really interesting to see a shootout like this between the traditional Worm Gear, Harmonic Drive and Direct Drive mounts of a similar class, to get an idea of how much of an upgrade each of them is, maybe a future video idea? :P
Thanks for the review! I have a question: can the SW150750 be used on the AM3 for astrophotography? All equipment together with the camera does not exceed the lower limit of the load capacity without a counterweight (about 7.5 kg). And would it be crazy to use SW2001 on AM3? In this case, the weight of the entire equipment will be about 12 kg, but the large size and windage of the SW2001 are intimidating.
The 150 should work fine. The 200 would also be okay in an observatory or in a place with no wind. With wind, I think the large surface area of that scope combined with how lightweight the AM3 is would be a bad combo. Of course you can compensate with a big tripod and weights but in that case why not just a heavier mount
6:13 so the st4 port isn’t required for guiding? I use a 120mm mini guide camera and have always plugged in the st4 cable between that and the am5 in addition to the usb-c cable between the 120mm and asiair. Is the st4 cable not necessary? Can you guide with just the usb-c connection?
Correct, you don’t need the st4 cable and you are likely already not actually using it (you just have it connected, but no data is being passed). Under guide settings just make sure the Asiair is recognizing the ASI120 and the AM5 and in that case you can ‘pulse guide’ and not use the ST4 cable.
Great Review Nico! Contemplating getting the 130PHQ have the AM5 and TC40 and 200 Pier. I do use it currently with a C 9.25 with counterweight and don’t seem to have any issues. What would you think if I was to go to the 130 and would it help to have a weight in the cloth holder on the TC40?
Excellent review. I recently got one of these mounts (Rainbow Astro) which I use with a 12kg payload. I use a carbon fibre tripod but I think it’s the weak link in the system and am seriously considering moving to a heftier model for use at home.
I've been doing a little searching for harmonic drive components and haven't really found what I want yet. I want to add a harmonic drive to an old fork mount I have and have been toying with the idea of disassembling the AM5 or NYX-101 and having adapters made to attach it to my fork. Since the mount is basically at balance the only force the drive has to deal with is overcoming the inertia to get it moving. Any thoughts on doing something like this?
I don't know much about it, but there are people making their own harmonic mounts (for example: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-k2GoMa2DpH8.html and there are others on RU-vid). I think you can buy the harmonic drive gearing much cheaper so I wouldn't suggest buying an AM5 or NYX-101 to do this. Search 'strain wave gearing' on eBay. The video I linked above mentioned he got his "HarmonicDrive CSF-17 pair for ~400 usd used from eBay"
@@NebulaPhotos Thx I'll check it out! Watched the video... JZ's skill set is way above mine... plus he has access to the university machine shop and I don't have anything like that. Taking apart a mount and putting the drives on my forks axles is probably the only way unless someone starts building kits for the purpose of outfitting old mounts.
Great review! I have both the AM5 and Askar 103APO. I use a 50mm 200mm FL guide scope with ASI120MM guide camera. Any recommendations on ASI air calibration steps? Just joined your Patreon channel also!
In photography, I've been told that carbon fiber tripods are better than aluminum or steel because they absorb minor vibrations better and don't transmit them to the camera nearly as much. Do you feel like they have the same benefit for astrophotography?
If you are talking about tripods of the same size with similar leg thickness, yes the carbon fiber may do better with vibrations. When I was talking about using aluminum or steel tripods for bigger telescopes, I meant much bigger tripods where the legs are much beefier than the carbon fiber ones, and the weight of the tripod is 3-4x heavier. In that case, I imagine the aluminum tripod will handle vibrations better but it’s of course less portable.
Weird, I'm using an AM5 and the sound it makes is quite different from yours, definitely much more similar to the AM3 in the comparison. Edit: btw, it would be awesome if you could test Friction Drive mounts like the JTW P75, they offer incredible value on paper and make some pretty bold trackng accuracy claim, they're awful for portability but seems a fantastic choice for a fixed observatory!
Some people on my discord were saying in need to do a firmware update on the AM5 to fix the clicking sound. I’ll give it a try. Thanks for the suggestion of the fiction drive mount. I’ve never heard of that model, where would I find it?
I considered it but they were all in the .3-.4 range and I think under .4 I don’t think there is much to be gleaned, compared to just looking at the images. For example, that one with the triangle stars at the end from the AM3 had 0.35 eccentricity which was around the same as the other two, but clearly showed an issue visually.
Thanks Nico. What you measured or demonstrated was interesting. What I think would show off the mounts ability would be Unguided testing. Say like 60-120 second images, comparing FWHM and the length of star trails. That will tell you what needs to be guided out of the SWG mount and a relative demo of how well the mount tracks, not the guiding setup.
PHD2 has a feature that does just that. But it wouldn´t be an accurate test of the mounts abilites, as their strength specifically lies in guided operation.
@Nico, did you have a chance using the NYX with the ASIAIR? People have a lot of questions concerning this combination. People like me, who are looking for a lightweight mount with a lightweight and easy to use astrophotography controller ;-). Questions concern mostly the guiding with the ASIAIR and the meridian flip.
I unfortunately didn’t get a chance. Limited nights with it and I lent my ASIAir to a friend. I read that they are working on better compatibility with the ASIAir so it may be good to wait and see how that turns out.
These mounts are great for anyone who is mobile with their setups, but since I image at home and I got an EQ6Rpro, any of these would be a side-grade and not an upgrade, since my mount can perform just as well as these.
I don’t have an overall favorite. In advising someone, I’d look at what else they use (payload weight, PC vs. ASIAir) and their budget and help them decide from there. Personally, I still use my EQ6R the most and it’s probably my favorite mount, but that mostly has to do with familiarity.
Yes, sort of. There is an effort called INDI and KStars that works on Mac and can control a lot of astronomy gear. It's a bit more geeky/buggy than the Windows side of things which is why I use Windows for control of my astro gear (it's the only thing I use Windows for).
Yes, I do. For me the EQ6R is my old friend. I’m very familiar with it, and it works just as well as the AM5 except for portability. So the only time I really prefer the AM5 is for quickly packing the car and not having to bother with counterweights
I've been having some issues with my am5, that I'm hoping I will eventually solve. I had been using an orion sirius eq-g(HEQ-5 pro) with a rowan belt conversion for many years. The AM-5 definitely gives me sharper images with short exposures than the sirius does. But when pushing for longer exposures, the sirius seems to be doing better. At around 1400mm, anything over 2.5 minutes, I begin to get football shaped stars with the am5. Whereas I could push the sirius mount much further than that. I know 1400mm is further than zwo recommends for the mount, but it's an edge hd 8. So, it is not a long refractor, and I had assumed the limit was because of weight distribution. If anyone else is having similar issues, or even has a solution, id like to hear them.
Tracking performance wise, it’s on par with the AM5 at the payloads I tested. The NYX-101 would appeal to those that want to put on a lot more weight (up to 66 lbs with CW) or are drawn to how it handles the ports (locking gx12 instead of 12V barrel, full power routing through the mount + optional saddle). A minor point would be the ASCOM / windows software has a lot more features than the ZWO driver which is bare-bones.
@@NebulaPhotos - Thank You Nico. Did the NYX handle a larger load as expected? I have a middle weight refractor, VX120, and keep watching reviews like yours to help me decide what lightweight mount will be needed to upgrade for successful goto and photography. BTW, your observatory is coming along nicely even if more slowly than you hoped.
@@guyjordan8201 Unfortunately, I didn't get to test larger loads as the Askar 130PHQ (2nd test in video) is the heaviest telescope I have at the moment. I think the AM5 would handle the VX120 just fine. And thanks on the observatory! Cheers, Nico
I've been looking for a goto mount for my Zhumell 12-inch dob. My optiical tube alone weighs in at 66 pounds. Most of my 2 inch eyepieces are a pound or more. UGH! LOL. Great video though.
It wasn’t a long exposure, it was a short exposure (1 sec.) under dark skies with a very bright object (Orion nebula). In 1 sec, the stars do trail a little, but because the eyepiece already bloats the stars it’s not super noticeable
Some nice comparisons Nico. Thanks. But I think your sound measurements are a bit amplified. My AM5 is the quietest mount I have ever owned. If you have your original guide logs posted somewhere I'd like to dig in with my own analyses, if you would be willing :). A great video overall which answers a lot of questions. CS, John
Forgiven😅, but i had the idea, you could have (or do next time) added a referenz sound most ppl know to give an idea how loud it is in real. I know now how it sounds, but not how loud it really is.
are you sure it's ok to judge a mount by a stack of images? one could easily ruin a stack by just allowing one poor image in it while the rest of the frames are sharp and crips. it depends on the referrence frame etc. also, seeing, clouds, haze, changing from hour to hour could also very easily ruing one's session. i think you shouldn't post rms and other details unless you really know how to fine tune the settings for the exact moment of the night you're shooting (to take into account seeing, part of the sky, declination etc). one time 36 min session with default params is null and doesn't mean anything.
I take pains to eliminate bias in these tests. Some of these things are not shown in the RU-vid video in the interest of time. But they include: -getting to know the mounts in a number of ‘practice sessions’ -carefully watching the session live to make sure seeing/environmental/other conditions aren’t a factor -blinking the subs -running subframe selector -carefully picking the best reference frame -throwing out the worst sub from each session etc. I wouldn’t post the video if I didn’t feel it was representative of the performance of these mounts with the gear shown.
seeing will ALWAYS be a factor, it's the only thing you can't do a thing about. seeing is what determines the guiding settings. also, another thing, especially on long focal leghts is differential flexture, which you can't avoid and creeps in your photos, leading to less than desirable effects. did you use an oag or a different scope for guiding? i stand by my previous, you shouldn't post conclusions like these: rms was better hence, stack is sharper. it's misleading and not (totally) true. i can show you 0.2rms guiding with a resulting poor stack, and 1.2rms with extremely good results. with the same equipment. i think a better scenario for what you're trying to achieve is use a mono camera with a very narrow filter and a 30' or a 60' exposure.
I think you can in fact avoid differential flexture - it is the exact reason I used the ASI2600MC Duo for these tests which integrates the guide sensor on-axis at the same plane as the imaging sensor. I fully understand that the best RMS # does not necessarily result in the best images. This is what I was trying to gently explain to my viewers through this video. For example, if you were using a very generous image scale with a tiny guide scope it would be quite easy to get a great RMS but in that case all you are measuring is the insensitivity of the guide system. I also addressed variable seeing in the video and explained that it had deteriorated by my last test with the Pegasus which may explain some of what we were seeing in the guide graphs. I understand these tests aren’t perfect, but I try my best and will always attempt to explain those imperfections through the narration in the videos. As for your suggestion to use mono, a narrowband filter and short exposures - it’s intriguing - I assume the motivation would be to minimize the effect of seeing blur on the image results. I think that might work well if I eliminated the worst 20% before stacking. The reason something like that hasn’t occurred to me is I typically gravitate towards ‘real-world’ testing - tests that I design to eliminate as much bias as possible, but are representative of the type of imaging your average astrophotographer would still do. Your suggestion of short exposure narrowband may be a better test technically, but might not connect with viewers in the same way a more normal scenario would.
i wouldn't call a 30 or 60 minute exposure a short one... :) and yes, i know differential flexture can be eliminated, that's why i asked if you used an oag
Ah, sorry, I misread, I thought you wrote seconds. Why such a long exposure? That would seem to me to make the effects of seeing harder to parse, and also introduce a variety of other potential problems/biases
Ok the new mounts are pretty useless considering their price, begainners and people with a low budget just wabt a tracker that mere mortals can afford.
They do but these are the expensive mainstream options. I use the UMi 17 mount which performs exactly the same but is quite a lot cheaper. Harmonics are pretty much all the same off the shelf components anyway. DIY is also an option but its nicer to buy a nice unit. I loooooove it so much.
