ioptron better than skywatcher?

[StarryEyed]

Seems both iOptron and SW have upgraded the iEQ45 and the NEQ6(AZEQ6GT) over time. Both still have some unresolved design (I cant believe that no one saw spring-loaded worms being a problem) or quality issues (bolts that snap or strip are unforgivable) respectively and it would appear that these are not going to change in the long run for these mounts.

However knowing the limitations as we do with the two mounts above does put us in a position where both mounts have been revised and improved and regardless of what the manufactures say consumers know what they are getting. Neither are perfect.

Everything else beyond these mounts is unproven and common sense dictates letting others take the risk and wait and see or skip the EQ8 and CEM60 and go for broke. Making the difference up with a relatively small loan and avoiding the EQ8's and CEM60's make a bit of sense right now if I can avoid problems and just get on and enjoy what I am doing. If I do this again I am not going to let myself get robbed of both time and satisfaction. I guess if I had bought the right mount eight years ago I would not have pulled out three years later and be back again after that time I would probably be using on a TAK EM200 laughing every time I used it.

[ollypenrice]

I use a Tak EM200. In fact I use two. I don't laugh every time I use them I'm afraid. The only mount I've ever used which really does just work night after night is Yves' Mesu 200.

Olly

PS, and the Dob!   

[dvb]

I have an older NEQ6 and an iEQ45. 

The NEQ6 carries my home-built 30 lb. / 48" long 10" Newt quietly and effortlessly. 

But, I had grown tired packing the NEQ6 around, so got the lighter iEQ45.  (I still use the NEQ6 for star parties when I can drive the mount to the site.)

The iEQ45 is considerably lighter, but does not manage the 10" Newt well - lots of jiggle with focusing. 

The motors are also noisier, but not too objectionable.  It carries the Quattro 200CF nicely.  It might carry 45 lb., but only with a compact tube like a Schmidt-Cassegrain but, frankly, I wouldn't try it.  The controller isn't as nice as the Skywatcher - it takes a very firm, sustained press to ensure a key has registered.  On the other hand, the heating function of the controller is handy.  

I will be looking at the CEM60 - it is supposed to use the quieter (stepper?) motors SW uses.  The head doesn't weigh much more than the iEQ45 (25lb v 27 lb).  If it will indeed carry 45 lb. as well as the NEQ6, it may solve my problem of having 2 EQ mounts.  

A remaining issue is how it handles the meridian flip - some forecast that this will be awkward, but I think only field tests will tell. 

[StarryEyed]

I will be looking at the CEM60 - it is supposed to use the quieter (stepper?) motors SW uses.  The head doesn't weigh much more than the iEQ45 (25lb v 27 lb).  If it will indeed carry 45 lb. as well as the NEQ6, it may solve my problem of having 2 EQ mounts.  

dvb

This CEM60 is interesting its (on paper) a step up from an EQ6 without getting close to an EQ8. In part which lead to this question about iOptron being better than Sky Watcher. They seem to be across the board ahead of Sky Watcher in terms of features but are they actually made better.

In your opinion owning both mounts which has

   Given you less problems in doing what you want to do? (GOTO accuracy and tracking accuracy for example)

   Given you less problems as a result of the quality of manufacturing?

Kevin.

[StarryEyed]

I use a Tak EM200. In fact I use two. I don't laugh every time I use them I'm afraid. The only mount I've ever used which really does just work night after night is Yves' Mesu 200.

Olly

PS, and the Dob!   

I understand your point in eight years time if I buy a MESU200 I will be laughing. I still wish I bought a EM200 eight years ago as you would know there were fewer options then. 

It is interesting that the higher end of the market has become a little crowded and it seems that to get those levels of performance and quality there is little option than paying for it and buying from  Europe (I'm glad to say) and the usual suspects the States or Japan. Europe seemingly having the most manufactures for high performance mounts. This I guess indicates that as I have said else where "there are no bargains".

Do you think it is possible that we will see a quality made mount below £3K in the next five years?

or is it something that the likes of iOptron, Skywatcher and regrettably Vixen either don't want to try or just cant manage to create. They all seem to be fixing problems and trying to provide better products with features that are relatively cheap to implement OK its useful to have a mount that flips between EQ and AZ but really how many people need this as opposed to the umber of people that wish for a mount that was just better at being a mount.

[StuartJPP]

Buy a premium mount and buy once, buy a budget mount and buy multiple times hoping for minor improvements.

At the lower end of the market product churn is what the manufacturers are after as well as enticing potential new victims into the cycle, usually with flashy unnecessary features and bold claims. Or improving one feature and sacrificing another. They don't want to produce a budget mount that is perfect, they want you to buy the next "upgrade".

As to the original question, I can't say. SW seem to be better supported with a track record and iOptron seem to be more innovative with some interesting offerings.

[StarryEyed]

Buy a premium mount and buy once, buy a budget mount and buy multiple times hoping for minor improvements.

At the lower end of the market product churn is what the manufacturers are after as well as enticing potential new victims into the cycle, usually with flashy unnecessary features and bold claims. Or improving one feature and sacrificing another. They don't want to produce a budget mount that is perfect, they want you to buy the next "upgrade".

As to the original question, I can't say. SW seem to be better supported with a track record and iOptron seem to be more innovative with some interesting offerings.

Stuart.

Each time  I look at this mount question I end up at the conclusion you have offered above. This isnt the first time I have looked at the merry go round and this time around something keeps stopping me from getting on as I know were it ends. I want to get out of the playground and go an explore the park and I needs wheels not something that will take me in circles.

[dvb]

The iOptron has given me no trouble, apart from being disappointing as to its rated capacity and not liking the responsiveness of the hand controller. The go-tos with the iOptron have been good, provided the mount is not over-loaded.  I did replace the rather feeble, short stock saddles with an ADM  (I understand the saddles on the current models are better.)  One-star usually suffices/ Three-star seems to be unusable. 

I did have a problem with "bendy" altitude bolt with the NEQ6 - I replaced it with the product from an English company (sorry, I forget its name, and no can no longer find a website for it.)  Otherwise, the go-tos are very good and, of course, the capacity and quietness are excellent. 

I can't really comment on the latest firmware, as I haven't been able to download it.  

[Davey-T]

The iEQ45 is now quite a bit cheaper than the EZ6 but now would be a good time to buy a 10 Micron as prices are set to increase significantly very soon.

Dave

[Marki]

Seems both iOptron and SW have upgraded the iEQ45 and the NEQ6(AZEQ6GT) over time. Both still have some unresolved design (I cant believe that no one saw spring-loaded worms being a problem) or quality issues (bolts that snap or strip are unforgivable) respectively and it would appear that these are not going to change in the long run for these mounts.

 The AZEQ6GT is somewhat more than an upgrade to the NEQ6. It dispenses with bolts altogether, and is a much better engineered piece of kit.

I thought your point in a later post about how much use people get out of mounts that can be both AZ and EQ interesting - I bought my AZEQ6 as an attemtpt to "future-proof". I currently am a visual observer and only occasionally attach a camera for the odd moon picture, so wanted an easy, robust and accurate AZ mount for my lighter/smaller scopes, but I wanted the capability of to do DSO imaging in the future. I now find I use the mount in EQ mode almost exclusively, as it raises my larger refractor higher, but still only for visual use.

In my decision, budget was an issue for me, given the uncertain economic times we live in. Living in rented accommodation, I don't have the option to build an obsy or even a permanent pier. The AZEQ6 seemed to hit a good spot in terms of cost/functionality/"portability"/reliability. I'm not sure that any of the majors could produce anything significantly better than what I already have for less than £3k in the next few years and even then thats over twice the price of the mount I now have. To get that degree of superior function/build quality/reliability I'd imagine I'd be looking at least £4k or possibly a lot more. However, given how technology and manufacturing processes can potentially change, maybe the next 5-10 years will see something much more capable at a much more competitive price come to market.

I imagine "mass producers" like iOptron and SW (and Celestron etc.) are trying to balance production cost vs. function vs. likely number of customers with enough cash to buy a product at a certain level. They may have slightly different approaches to this equation, but I don't think that any are intrinsically better than the others. Smaller more bespoke producers are always likely to be able to attract the customer with a higher specification requirement and/or more cash.

I think its good that there are a lot of good options for mount types and quality/functionality to suit a range of budgets and specification requirements, and in this respect most of the manufacturers bring something useful to the market.

[ollypenrice]

The iEQ45 is now quite a bit cheaper than the EZ6 but now would be a good time to buy a 10 Micron as prices are set to increase significantly very soon.

Dave

Heh heh, I'm a bit strapped this week so you get the 10 Microns in this time and I'll see you right next time, OK??       

Olly

[StarryEyed]

"I imagine "mass producers" like iOptron and SW (and Celestron etc.) are trying to balance production cost vs. function vs. likely number of customers with enough cash to buy a product at a certain level. They may have slightly different approaches to this equation, but I don't think that any are intrinsically better than the others. Smaller more bespoke producers are always likely to be able to attract the customer with a higher specification requirement and/or more cash."

I believe they are manufacturing for the lowest common denominator. Their products have to sell world wide and that applies as much to sales in the far east as it does in Europe or the States. I wonder what a AZEQ6 retails for in China after all Celestron, Orion, Skywatcher and not doubt a few others are brands whose products are created using the same business model. similar for GSO and others. I read somewhere that most of the parts are generic and all a company has to do is pick its supplier and state its desired quality or price. Telescope service do this buy in from Synta and assemble their telescope in Germany in some ways this sounds like a better solution than containers full of scopes if they take the time to put the scope together nicely. Their 120 doublet has the same objective as the equinox for example thought this has sold out and been replaced by a 130 I believe.

I do wonder if with the same "parts" some companies put their products together with more thought and care which lead me to this question and TS got me curious about this.

[Davey-T]

Ordered  some finer pitch pulleys, belt and tensioner for the RA drive on my iEQ45, should be arriving today . These are made by iOptron to improve the mount, don't know if SW do this sort of thing.

Dave 

[StarryEyed]

They do offer upgrades dont they I like that fact. Rather than going to third parties for this kind of thing to which there is nothing wrong at all but when the manufacture offers it impresses me.