Mount stability question

[AcisAce]

Which one of the two mounts do you think will be better in terms of stability (Both are supporting the same OTA ).

Looks like equatorial,

Dobsonian,

 

I have never seen that type of equatorial mount (monopod instead of tripod ) before. Do you think it is stable enough .

 

PS. Even the dobsonian one seems to have a narrow base to me.

[dweller25]

The pillar stands are VERY stable.

However both these setups look undermounted to me

[jambouk]

What is the worry here? Astrophotography isn't going to be easy with either other than the very basics. I suspect neither will fall over. Maybe compare the weight of the two set ups. I think an equatorial mount gives you easier control when tracking something, but some "Dob" owners become better at tracking than those with manual equatorial mounts or traditional alt-az mounts.

James

 

[laudropb]

The scope on the pillar mount looks very under mounted to me and I think it would be unstable.

[Peter Drew]

My money would be on the Dobsonian. 

[happy-kat]

If you can't motorize the eq then there in my mind is no advantage over the dobsonian so I would choose the dob.

[Cornelius Varley]

Without knowing the telescope's dimensions it's difficult to determine the size of the mounts. The equatorial head looks a little small for the ota

[Ricochet]

1 hour ago, Cornelius Varley said:

Without knowing the telescope's dimensions it's difficult to determine the size of the mounts. The equatorial head looks a little small for the ota

http://www.sharpvisionindia.com/prod1.htm  6" Galaxy models by the look of it.

I would go with the Dob base due to a preference for Alt/Az Newts and also because you could reuse the bearings to build a more sturdy base if required.

[Waldemar]

definitely 6" models... mounted on a  pencil thick EQ ????  this is going to be  a major bummer if you expect anything of it.

Maybe the tri-pier is stable enough, but the mounting most certainly not!

 

[Chris Murray]

Hia, you dont say if you want to image or for visual? if you want to look at the stars in a manual way then the dob will give a lot of fun, if you take it a bit further and put a camera on there, the pier could be more use full, as with the eq mount tracking is possible, however i agree with the above, the mounts look a bit shabby for that size scope

chris

[AcisAce]

Only for viewing. It's highly unlikely that I will use it for photography. Mostly double star observation and planetary details are my priorities.

[Waldemar]

I really am afraid you overestimate the possibilities of these sets.. I do not want to spoil your pleasure, but I do want to warn you for too high expectations...
maybe you should read the 'what can I expect to see' thread 

Rergards,
Waldemar

[AcisAce]

 

That was the first article I read after joining SGL. Are you implying that a 6 inch won't be able to resolve double stars ?

12 hours ago, Waldemar said:

I really am afraid you overestimate the possibilities of these sets.. I do not want to spoil your pleasure, but I do want to warn you for too high expectations...
maybe you should read the 'what can I expect to see' thread 

Rergards,
Waldemar

 

[Stu]

To answer your questions one by one.....

The pillar in the first picture will be very stable, however the EQ mount in top of it looks very flimsy and will wobble a lot when you are focusing or if it's windy.

The dobsonian mount in the second image looks fine and should give a nice stable platform for observing. I don't see that it looks too narrow but you could alway attach a bigger base plate to it.

The scope itself looks like a 6" f8. I would think that it would give you good views of planets and also be reasonably capable on double stars. It will need to be collimated and cooled well to achieve this. You will get diffraction spikes caused by the secondary vanes but the views should be good.

Alternatives? An 8" f6 dobsonian would be more capable on most targets and would not be much larger, just heavier. Personally I find the view of double stars through a good refractor to be much crisper and sharper than through a Newtonian, but that is my personal preference. A lot depends on your budget and circumstances. The 6" f8, provided the optics are good should give you nice results though.

These are a couple of examples of similar format dobsonians which look narrow but I believe work very well.

[DaveS]

Agreed that the dob will be more stable. That EQ head looks very slight for the OTA, though there's nothing wrong with the pillar.

And there's nowt wrong with a 6" f/8 newt as a starter 'scope, I would say it's a pretty good bet.

[AcisAce]

Thank you everyone, I'm gonna go with the Dobsonian then.