New SW AZ5

[Alan White]

I know its been put forward by others but this is the best but more expensive solution £47 plus post.

https://www.berlebach.de/?bereich=details&id=123&sprache=english

 

Edited August 7, 2017 by Alan White
Typos as usual!

[davyludo]

14 minutes ago, Alan White said:

I know its been put forward by others but this is the best but more expensive solution £47 plus post.

https://www.berlebach.de/?bereich=details&id=123&sprache=english

It's a shame that this adaptor is fairly expensive (in my opinion) because I also think it's potentially the best solution. Can't understand why they didn't stick with an M10 fixing. Weird 

[mikeDnight]

Paulastro called round today and brought his Tak DL  to see how the AZ5 coped with the extra weight and length. The AZ5 carried the DL well, with a damping time of around three seconds. There did seem to be a little more vibration when the scope was looking at the zenith than at any other angle, though in the field this will likely prove to be insignificant, as we tend not to repeatedly hit the tube while looking through the eyepiece.

With the increased length of the DL, it was difficult to comfortably reach the azimuth slow motion control. The flexi extension control would prove to be of no advantage, as it is neither flexible or aimed in the right direction. A longer, more flexible control would be needed.

Being critical, I would say the weak spot (point of flexure) is where the mount arm connects to the azimuth body. This would limit the size of usable scope with this mount. Then there's the azimuth control knob, which would be more easily accessible if it were pointing back towards the observer using a frac or Cass design.

Is the AZ5 worth the money? Most certainly! Is it worth replacing your AZ4  for an AZ5? Not unless you would benefit from using slow motion controls when using high power lunar and planetary observing etc. Does it look pretty? Yes! ?

[John]

Thanks for that additional feedback Mike

Have you ever used a Vixen Porta II by the way ? - I wonder how the AZ5 (as a mount head) would compare with that ?

[spaceboy]

31 minutes ago, mikeDnight said:

 Then there's the azimuth control knob, which would be more easily accessible if it were pointing back towards the observer using a frac or Cass design.

My guess ..... without having seen one in person, is that the head can be adjusted so that you can have the slow motion control facing in the direction you want. I have it in the back of my mind that this was done on a very similar mount. I'd be wasting my time trying to find the link but I am almost certain it is possible. Now the part you may not want to hear is that IF my memory serves me correct it would require the cap on the side of the alt being removed. You could of course try trawling the internet to see if you can find what I am referring to. There are after all only a handful of AZ mounts with slow motion controls so you may well come across the page yourself.

[mikeDnight]

1 hour ago, John said:

Thanks for that additional feedback Mike

Have you ever used a Vixen Porta II by the way ? - I wonder how the AZ5 (as a mount head) would compare with that ?

Hi John,

Yes I've owned the Porta 'll as well as the original Porta mount, but personally I found both prone to excessive vibration. I remember the damping time of my Porta ll was around seven seconds, which at high power, I found very distracting. My scope at the time was a TV NP101, which was not a light weight scope. May be the DC would have been better suited! 

[John]

Thanks Mike. I'll put that idea to one side then !

I had a Porta I which worked well with my Vixen ED102SS so I wondered if the Porta II was a step up, which I think the FC-100DL needs because of it's length.

 

 

Edited August 7, 2017 by John

[mikeDnight]

1 hour ago, spaceboy said:

My guess ..... without having seen one in person, is that the head can be adjusted so that you can have the slow motion control facing in the direction you want. 

Sadly not I'm afraid. The azimuth control is definitely in a fixed position without any option for changing the angle.

[mikeDnight]

7 minutes ago, John said:

Thanks Mike. I'll put that idea to one side then !

I had a Porta I which worked well with my Vixen ED102SS so I wondered if the Porta II was a step up, which I think the FC-100DL needs because of it's length.

 

 

Hi John,

Both my Porta mounts were on aluminium tripods, so may be they would have performed better on steel tripods? The AZ4 on the other hand seemed much more solid to me and carried even a Equinox 120ED reasonably well. Today, Paul's DL  F9 glided like butter on his AZ4 and was pretty solid. 

Edited August 7, 2017 by mikeDnight

[John]

3 minutes ago, mikeDnight said:

Both my Porta mounts were on aluminium tripods, so may be they would have performed better on steel tripods? 

Mine was on the Vixen aluminum tripod too. You had no choice with the Porta I as I recall. The Porta II could be moved to another tripod but other than that I think it's probably the same mount as the Porta I.

Anyway, this thead is on the AZ5 so I don't want to derail it. Thanks for your thoughts so far on the AZ5

[GavStar]

48 minutes ago, John said:

Thanks Mike. I'll put that idea to one side then !

I had a Porta I which worked well with my Vixen ED102SS so I wondered if the Porta II was a step up, which I think the FC-100DL needs because of it's length.

 

 

Not to derail the thread further but I used the porta 2 on both my FC100DF and FC100DL. However I've upgraded the tripod to a vixen Hal 130 tripod which makes it significantly more stable. The DF is fine and the DL is ok but getting near the limits of the mount. I think the slo controls with flexible extensions are great on the porta 2. I'd be very interested to see how with better tripods the porta 2 and az5 compare stability wise. 

Edited August 7, 2017 by GavStar

[mikeDnight]

Hi Gavin,

Though the AZ5 damps down rapidly with my FC100DC its damping time was increased by about a second when it carried Paul's DL, so i can only assume that longer or heavier scopes would only exasperate the issue. We felt that the weak point on the AZ5 head is the relatively small interface between the altitude arm and azimuth bearing. The AZ4 was more solid at this point showing no flexure! Perhaps if the AZ5 arm were solid as with the AZ4, it may be less prone to give at this point. Despite this, the mount is certainly good value for money and capable of carrying the DC well, but its no T-REX!

 

[GavStar]

Ahhh the T-Rex. Unique imo as an alt az with slo mo controls and ability to take 6 inch refractors with ease. Such a shame they are not being produced anymore - hopefully a near copy will be done by another manufacturer soon. I'm looking after my t-Rex very carefully.

 

[John]

Yes, I'd love a T-Rex if one ever becomes availble - it would suit my 130 F/9 tripet extremely well

Very interesting stuff on the AZ-5 though and very helpful in establishing where it sits in the order of things. The design is elegant and the slow motion controls a nice touch. The price is pretty reasonable too. If I had an F/7.4 Tak FC 100 then I'd almost certainly go for one

[F15Rules]

13 hours ago, mikeDnight said:

Hi John,

Both my Porta mounts were on aluminium tripods, so may be they would have performed better on steel tripods? The AZ4 on the other hand seemed much more solid to me and carried even a Equinox 120ED reasonably well. Today, Paul's DL  F9 glided like butter on his AZ4 and was pretty solid. 

Hi John,

I think Mike's point about the tripods is important.

Last year I had my Vixen ED103s apo on a Porta II mount and was very pleased with it. As you know, my ED103s was a bit longer than your Vixen ED, so would have put a bit more strain on the mount. Here is a picture of it from the "Show us your frac" thread: 

It's important to note that in this set up, the Vixen was "fully loaded", ie it carried an Altair 10x60mm finder with reticle and 1.25" eyepiece, a 2" diagonal and a large ES eyepiece, so adding significantly to the weight. Also, the mount I had also had the lighter ali tripod, and I do think that it struggled at high powers, although it was ok at lower powers. 

I think that, on the tubular steel tripod from an EQ5, or better still, the 2" CG5 type tripod, it would have been much more stable at higher powers. In fact, the main reason I let the Porta go (and I now wish I hadn't!) was the tripod: that, and the fact that at the time this was my main scope, and I had an excellent Vixen GP on solid wood tripod which was so much better for high power. If a scope can take high powers well, as this one (and yours) could, it's a shame not to be able to exploit that capability, even as a grab and go set up.

I really like the AZ5 head, it looks great. And I loved the slo motions on the Porta, much preferred it to the AZ4 I had previously as the "nudging only" thing I found very clunky, with the stiction that Mike referred to earlier. Maybe I could have fettled that out, but I didn't try that.

Now that I have another ED103s I really do want to get another Altaz mount before long. I'd definitely consider the Porta II head, but only if I could get a suitable tubular tripod to put it on: at least you can  do that with the Porta, whereas with the AZ5 I understand that you need to buy the Berlebach type adapter to be able to fit the AZ5 head to such a tripod, increasing the cost by another £50 or so.

I do think that both the Porta II and AZ5 tripods look great for this type of scope. I guess I intuitively just "trust" Vixen quality more than SW, but that's just me!

Dave

Edited August 8, 2017 by F15Rules

[davyludo]

I know adaptor plates are a nice easy/clean way of doing things....but I'd like to point out that Mike has put the AZ5 head on a Vixen tripod (that looks like it has similar fixings to the SW tripods) without an adaptor (see images in following post):

@mikeDnight could you possibly let us know your thoughts on how you feel how well the AZ5 is attached to your tripod (without adaptor)? Does it feel secure enough, or do you feel an adaptor plate would be a better option?

From what I can see - you had to cut off the little alignment peg and then replace the M10 bolt (assuming same as SW tripod fixing size) with a 3/8" bolt to attach the head? By the way, what length was the bolt?

If you feel it is secure enough....then maybe this is the easiest and cheapest option. It probably means that you can't use the accessory tray/spreader on the AZ4 steel tripod. I assume with the Berlebach adaptor still allows the M10 rod that the tray attaches to, to be fitted....and the aligment peg doesn't need to be cut off. 

Thanks again Mike for all your help and info - sorry to bother you with more questions.

[John]

39 minutes ago, F15Rules said:

Hi John,

I think Mike's point about the tripods is important.

Last year I had my Vixen ED103s apo on a Porta II mount and was very pleased with it. As you know, my ED103s was a bit longer than your Vixen ED, so would have put a bit more strain on the mount. Here is a picture of it from the "Show us your frac" thread: 

It's important to note that in this set up, the Vixen was "fully loaded", ie it carried an Altair 10x60mm finder with reticle and 1.25" eyepiece, a 2" diagonal and a large ES eyepiece, so adding significantly to the weight. Also, the mount I had also had the lighter ali tripod, and I do think that it struggled at high powers, although it was ok at lower powers. 

I think that, on the tubular steel tripod from an EQ5, or better still, the 2" CG5 type tripod, it would have been much more stable at higher powers. In fact, the main reason I let the Porta go (and I now wish I hadn't!) was the tripod: that, and the fact that at the time this was my main scope, and I had an excellent Vixen GP on solid wood tripod which was so much better for high power. If a scope can take high powers well, as this one (and yours) could, it's a shame not to be able to exploit that capability, even as a grab and go set up.

I really like the AZ5 head, it looks great. And I loved the slo motions on the Porta, much preferred it to the AZ4 I had previously as the "nudging only" thing I found very clunky, with the stiction that Mike referred to earlier. Maybe I could have fettled that out, but I didn't try that.

Now that I have another ED103s I really do want to get another Altaz mount before long. I'd definitely consider the Porta II head, but only if I could get a suitable tubular tripod to put it on: at least you can  do that with the Porta, whereas with the AZ5 I understand that you need to buy the Berlebach type adapter to be able to fit the AZ5 head to such a tripod, increasing the cost by another £50 or so.

I do think that both the Porta II and AZ5 tripods look great for this type of scope. I guess I intuitively just "trust" Vixen quality more than SW, but that's just me!

Dave

Very interesting Dave

I've always liked Vixen stuff and enjoyed my Porta I when I had it.

The Vixen ED102S looks be pretty similar in terms of weight and lenght to my Tak FC-100DL. I'm now wondering if the Porta II head on my Oberwerk hardwood tripod would be a good setup for that scope

 

[Stu]

1 hour ago, F15Rules said:

Now that I have another ED103s

That sounds exciting Dave, when did you get that??

[F15Rules]

Just now, John said:

Very interesting Dave

I've always liked Vixen stuff and enjoyed my Porta I when I had it.

The Vixen ED102S looks be pretty similar in terms of weight and lenght to my Tak FC-100DL. I'm now wondering if the Porta II head on my Oberwerk hardwood tripod would be a good setup for that scope

 

I think it definitely be worth trying that combination John?

Dave

[F15Rules]

Just now, Stu said:

That sounds exciting Dave, when did you get that??

Hi Stu,

I'll start a new thread so as not to hijack this one further!?

Dave

[paulastro]

18 hours ago, mikeDnight said:

Paulastro called round today and brought his Tak DL  to see how the AZ5 coped with the extra weight and length. The AZ5 carried the DL well, with a damping time of around three seconds. There did seem to be a little more vibration when the scope was looking at the zenith than at any other angle, though in the field this will likely prove to be insignificant, as we tend not to repeatedly hit the tube while looking through the eyepiece.

With the increased length of the DL, it was difficult to comfortably reach the azimuth slow motion control. The flexi extension control would prove to be of no advantage, as it is neither flexible or aimed in the right direction. A longer, more flexible control would be needed.

Being critical, I would say the weak spot (point of flexure) is where the mount arm connects to the azimuth body. This would limit the size of usable scope with this mount. Then there's the azimuth control knob, which would be more easily accessible if it were pointing back towards the observer using a frac or Cass design.

Is the AZ5 worth the money? Most certainly! Is it worth replacing your AZ4  for an AZ5? Not unless you would benefit from using slow motion controls when using high power lunar and planetary observing etc. Does it look pretty? Yes! ?

 

 

Yes, at last I managed to get around to Mikes and have a play with the DL and the AZ5, also taking my AZ4 round for comparison. 

The AZ5 looks very striking and the 'sculpting' of the fork which to me was reminiscent of an art deco design, very elegant.  It is obvious, as shown in one of Mike's previous posts in this thread that overall the AZ4 certainly looks more robust, and I felt this was certainly reflected in the sturdiness.  In my opinion, the DL on the AZ4 was clearly less prone to vibration than the DC was on the AZ5 - in any position. The  AZ5 always seemed  to resonate  more to me than the AZ4 after being tapped, though as Mike said the time for both to come to rest was about the same. 

The smoothness of movement in the two mounts seemed a tad better on the AZ4 to me, but this may be due to the fact that having to adjust the two screws on the AZ5 to obtain the smoothest adjustment was a little fussy.  With the AZ4 the adjustment seems much easier to obtain and more intuitive in operation - it's certainly quicker.

The slow motions seem to work well, though are clearly not as smooth and positive as on both Mike's and my own GP mounts - though at the price point of the AZ5 this was no surprise.  The GP has extremely smooth slow motions. 

Mike mentioned the angle of the slow motion in azimuth, and I'm afraid for me this would be a deal breaker if I wanted to use the AZ5 with the DL.  I couldn't reach the knob and a floppy wouldn't have been any help either.  It can be done of course if I stood round the left of the mount facing the tube, but I like to stand at the end of the tube looking along the tube.  If you move to the side it affects the orientation of the image of course.

 

There is only one knob to hold the tube in place which worried me a bit as I like to have a second one as a back up, the DL is noticeably heavier than the DC and if you ever forgot to tighten the single knob the scope wouldn't stay on the mount for too long!  If I had one I'd have to have it drilled to take another knob.

 

This all sounds rather negative but it's not meant to me.  I liked the AZ5 alot, and if I had a DC I would certainly consider it.  It would be great with my Equinox 80 (I could reach the slow motion knobs!) but there wouldn't be any advantage to me using the DL with it if I can't use the slow motion facility, in addition to the AZ4's extra stability.

Thanks for letting me come round and try it out Mike - can I please come round again one clear night with my Equinox?

[F15Rules]

That's really helpful Paul, thanks.

So the AZ5 doesn't have the smaller, second safety screw on the scope clamp, as the GP and EQ5 mounts do, for example? That WOULD be a worry for me, and would push me to the Porta II or even the AZ4 route..

 

Dave

[paulastro]

2 hours ago, F15Rules said:

That's really helpful Paul, thanks.

So the AZ5 doesn't have the smaller, second safety screw on the scope clamp, as the GP and EQ5 mounts do, for example? That WOULD be a worry for me, and would push me to the Porta II or even the AZ4 route..

 

Dave

Thanks Dave.  Yes, that's quite right, no safety screw.  It's a shame as I can't think it would have added to the cost much to have included one.  Of course, not difficult if you have the skill and necessary tool, but many people don't - including me!

[mikeDnight]

11 hours ago, davyludo said:

I know adaptor plates are a nice easy/clean way of doing things....but I'd like to point out that Mike has put the AZ5 head on a Vixen tripod (that looks like it has similar fixings to the SW tripods) without an adaptor (see images in following post):

@mikeDnight could you possibly let us know your thoughts on how you feel how well the AZ5 is attached to your tripod (without adaptor)? Does it feel secure enough, or do you feel an adaptor plate would be a better option?

From what I can see - you had to cut off the little alignment peg and then replace the M10 bolt (assuming same as SW tripod fixing size) with a 3/8" bolt to attach the head? By the way, what length was the bolt?

If you feel it is secure enough....then maybe this is the easiest and cheapest option. It probably means that you can't use the accessory tray/spreader on the AZ4 steel tripod. I assume with the Berlebach adaptor still allows the M10 rod that the tray attaches to, to be fitted....and the aligment peg doesn't need to be cut off. 

Thanks again Mike for all your help and info - sorry to bother you with more questions.

Hi Dave,

The AZ5 attached directly to the Vixen tripod is solid, but I did saw off the peg to allow attachment. The bolt was about three inches long as it had to pass through the aluminium casting on the tripod top. Is someone's happy to cut off the peg on the tripod top it would save the cost of buying an adapter.

[davyludo]

13 minutes ago, mikeDnight said:

Hi Dave,

The AZ5 attached directly to the Vixen tripod is solid, but I did saw off the peg to allow attachment. The bolt was about three inches long as it had to pass through the aluminium casting on the tripod top. Is someone's happy to cut off the peg on the tripod top it would save the cost of buying an adapter.

Hi Mike, 

Perfect - thanks for the extra info. I'm tempted to just cut the peg off my AZ4 tripod and take the same approach as you. Put the adaptor money towards eye pieces 

Might just take the plunge and order the AZ5 head on payday!