John

Thanks Stu

The tripod I have in mind if I went for it is the Berlebach Uni 28 with an EQ5/HEQ5 hub. Sounds like this is a possible option from Rowan (M10 bolt fitting).

What fitting is the centre threaded hole in the base of the AZ75 Stu ? (apologies if you have already mentioned this)

I've been in a similar position and let an Ercole go. I have another now and have learned about the importance of counterweighting to make the mount work well. The quandary for me is whether I keep the Ercole (which cost me about £150 I recall) and the Skytee II (about £130 I think) or let both go and find another £250 or so for the AZ75 in due course I'd have to be convinced that I could live without the slow motion controls that the Skytee II has. Lately I find I'm using them all the time I'll await Stu's and Alan's reports with great interest

And the cost I would think. If they had produced simply a smaller version of the AZ100, apart from a modest saving in the raw materials used, I reckon the production effort involved would be much the same. Having seen the workmanship involved with the AZ100 worm drives and the aluminum wheel on both axis I can see that incorporating those in the AZ75, albeit on a slightly smaller scale would add a lot of work to the manufacture. Where the AZ75 might gain some points would be if it can handle a reasonably heavy / long scope without the need for counterweighting. The Giro type mounts certainly need careful counterweighting to ensure smooth motions even with comparitively modest scopes on board from my experience.

From the outset (ie: prior to the launch of the AZ100) I had hoped that a high quality version of the Skytee II might be produced, including slow motion controls and maybe allowing a slightly higher capacity instrument. I felt that the market would probably support a retail cost of £400-£600 for such a mount - somewhere in between that of Skytee II and the Giro Ercole and the £1K plus mounts such as the APM Maxload / T-Rex etc. I guess the reality is that quality engineering and materials have costs associated with them that preclude that so some compromise is needed ?

I'm just recalling the reactions from members when I posted some info on a new alt-az that didn't have them a while back. But that was not a Rowan of course

I have to say that I don't use my Ercole much because of the lack of slow motion controls. Before I got my Tak and TMB/LZOS I was happier without but those two scopes seem to eat high power so easily ........ Mind you, my dob is very much "push" driven and I get on OK with that at high power as well

That's a shame. When I posted some info on another new alt-az mount a while back in a similar price bracket the lack of slow motion controls seemed an important factor for many who commented.

A decent 5 inch refractor may well show the propeller - it is a contrast feature and refractors are good at that

Mr John says 70 points

Well that generated some interesting comments I'd never heard of these ratings before so my post was in good faith and not intended to stir things up I'm very happy with my scopes, even the ones that are "off the chart"

This is excellent news - just what the market has needed for some time IMHO A really well engineered mount that sits between the Skytee II / Giro Ercole niche and the AZ100 / APM Maxload / niche.

As a visual astronomer I'm now 100% committed to the alt-azimuth mount in one form or another. I have owned a number of equatorial mounts over the years, some very good, but for my, simple, observing preferences with setups that are quick and easy to put out and take in, I've found alt-azimuth mounts tick the boxes for me.

Some nice galaxies near Messier 13 as well https://skyandtelescope.org/observing/m13-and-galaxies/

I've recently come across this thread on the Cloudynights forum relating to comparative telescope performance rankings compiled by an amateur Japanese astronomer called Mr Yoshida: https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/200130-2009-telescope-ranking-by-mr-yoshida/#entry2567240 I've not come across these before and wondered if anyone here knows any more ? They certainly seem to stir up some debate amongst the "refractorholics" Here is a table of his more recent rankings. Some models appear more than once so I assume are different examples:

Excellent report - thanks for sharing it I was observing The Dumbbell Nebula with my 120mm refractor last week and found that a UHC filter made quite a difference to the definition of it's shape. It took on a much clearer "hourglass" look with the filter in place.

Glasses worn for reading etc but not for observing. Eyepieces with their eye cups right up seems to enable me to find the correct eye position, mostly.

No problem at all - I used to have one of the scopes but, rather embarrassingly, I've forgotten the size of those bolts ! It's the primary collimation bolts that I'm interested in.

Hello and welcome to the forum. I have used a 150mm F/5 newtonian with tube rings and a dovetail bar on the AZ-4 alt-azimuth mount and it works in a similar manner to a dobsonian:

Thanks but I don't have the scope (yet) - I wondered if anyone else has one ?

I've not used a Panoptic 41mm but the Ethos 21 and Nagler 31 seem to fit my Astronomik and Lumicon 2 inch filters well

Does anyone know the size of the older primary collimation screws on the Orion Optics Europa newtonian primary cell ? My memory is telling me M6 but I'm not 100% sure These are the ones that I'm thinking of: Many thanks if anyone can help

Another advantage of my bespoke dob mount.

Cool - I have a pair of those but I've not used mine other than for occasional birding. I'll have to give them a go at astro sometime