Sightron Japan alt/az

[Stu]

26 minutes ago, cajen2 said:

Does the vertical arm on the SZ not adjust for rake?

Yes it does. It handles the FC-100DC with no problem.

[Ratlet]

I wonder if you could attach a motor to one of the slowmo controls for using in eq mode to get tracking.

I like goto for tracking but hate it for moving the scope about.

[paulastro]

2 hours ago, cajen2 said:

Does the vertical arm on the SZ not adjust for rake?

Yes, but its not long enough for a short 6inch reflector tube.  Its frustrating, it was just a little too short.  It only just takes my C5.  I'm fact I got excited when I saw your post as I thought the arm might be longer in the Sightron.  If it was I might have been tempted to add it to my AZ mount portfolio 🙂.

I wouldn't part with my Mount Zero, I'd just like it to be a little bigger.

[cajen2]

4 hours ago, Ratlet said:

I wonder if you could attach a motor to one of the slowmo controls for using in eq mode to get tracking.

I like goto for tracking but hate it for moving the scope about.

As I said, I believe there are motors in the pipeline.

[paulastro]

I think I'm right in saying that they started to make motors  for the Scopetech Zero.  A few seemed to appear but as far as I know they quickly withdrew from offering  them.  Perhaps it was that they were too expensive to make, or there wasn't the demand.

[cajen2]

On 10/09/2023 at 15:15, cajen2 said:

There you go @The60mmKid

Very awkward because of the Heritage exterior secondary struts but by altering the rake of the arm, it's possible.

@The60mmKid You're welcome.

[cajen2]

For those with wider OTAs like Maks and SCTs, I've just noticed the last photo on @FLO's website with the scope on the outside and a counterweight bar. No problem then with the scope hitting the mount.

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/alt-azimuth-astronomy-mounts/sightron-japan-alt-azimuth-mount.html

 

Edited September 12, 2023 by cajen2

[cajen2]

Anyone at Astrocamp wanting to inspect the Sightron more closely, I'm on Pitch 26. The way things are going, that's the nearest we'll get to any actual observing!

[Ratlet]

Wish I could get a look at it.  Thinking that it in combination with a Starfield 102 might be pretty tasty.  How have you found it with a bit more time?

[cajen2]

 

4 hours ago, Ratlet said:

Wish I could get a look at it.  Thinking that it in combination with a Starfield 102 might be pretty tasty.  How have you found it with a bit more time?

Nothing extra yet, sorry. I'm sitting here at Astrocamp in Wales, hoping to try it out under proper dark skies, and we've had 10/10ths cloud and thunderstorms since I arrived. It's supposed to clear up later (😂) and I'll still be here tomorrow night so maybe it'll improve.

[cajen2]

A brief clear spell - enough to get the finder aligned...on to Jupiter, just got it centred, cloud....on to Vega, just got it centred and focused, cloud.....Then the clouds came over with a vengeance and that was it.

So the only thing I can say is the slo-mos allow the target to be centred very easily.

So tonight is the last chance and  is looking encouraging - it's actually sunny ATM!

Edited September 18, 2023 by cajen2

[jjohnson3803]

I'm quite happy with my Zero for my fast refractors up to my ST102.  From the looks of it, the Sightron is pretty much the same mount (and maybe it was Sightron who filed the patent infringement suit against ScopeTech).  Some people say the Sightron is a bit more robust than the Zero, but I have no hands-on experience with the Sightron to compare.

IIRC, motors were offered for the Zero, but were crazy expensive.  I'm in the market for a second Zero, but would go with the Sightron unless a used Zero shows up.

 

Edited October 6, 2023 by jjohnson3803

[cajen2]

Just to say I've had an extended session with the Sightron under dark skies at the SWAG meet. It performed impeccably: I'm really pleased with it. I don't even miss tracking as the slow motion controls are very smooth. Vibrations are almost negligible below about 120x mag and quite manageable above.

[Jim L]

On 10/09/2023 at 01:40, cajen2 said:

As some of you may have seen, I took delivery of one of these recently (it's not like me to be an early adopter!). The Scopetech Zero is no longer available and the Sightron seems to be similar:

I bought it for grab & go for my Starfield 102ED. Here they are married up:

The mount weighs just 1.45 kg and has a max payload of 7kg. When fully loaded, the Starfield is about five and a half kg. 

Last night, I was able to try it out for the first time. Here are some reactions for anyone considering the same mount.

Notes:

1. The vertical arm is adjustable for rake. Make VERY sure this is firmly fixed before adding the scope. I didn't and the arm slipped, giving me a near heart attack! I would also suggest having it as vertical as possible to keep the CG above the azimuth pivot.

2. There are two options for the locations of the slow motion screws. I assume long dangly ones could also be fitted, though I felt no need for them. 

3. The slo-mos are very smooth and make it very easy to centre and track a target, even at high mags. I found a "null" between (e.g.) left and right turns, a little like a car with a dead- ahead null in the steering. Once I found it, I had no problems with it - it's considerably better than having backlash....

4. There were vibrations at higher mags when focusing, which I'd expected as my scope is quite long and approaching the mount's payload capacity. These dampened very quickly, however, and didn't cause me any undue difficulty.

Conclusions:

For my G&G purposes, the Sightron is absolutely ideal, being light, easy to fold up and transport and sturdy enough. I can now pick up and carry scope, mount and tripod very easily. I would probably go for something with a higher payload as a permanent mount for my scope.

For people with small f/l fracs of 50-90mm apertures, or smaller Maks, I'd have thought the mount would be perfect even for permanent use.

I ordered a Sightron mount from Astro Hutech here in the states and my impressions align very closely with yours with a couple of additional observations:

The “null” you’ve noted in your mount was quite large in the alt axis of my unit, amounting to somewhere over 30 degrees. Next, the single screw saddle may have a propensity to loose some grip after tightening. On two separate occasions I rechecked the saddle screw grip and found it alarmingly loose. I don’t know whether it’s change-in-temperature related or from some other cause, but it won’t hurt to recheck the saddle screw occasionally over an observing session. Better yet, replace it with a more secure dovetail saddle from ADM or More Blue. Lastly, the silver finish doesn’t seem to be particularly tough and my mount arrived with a couple of small rub marks partially through the finish from shipping, which bodes poorly for long term durability of at least the silver color choice.

So, while there are more than enough very good features to make the Sightron a worthwhile light weight mount, a bit more care on the part of the manufacturer to eliminate some niggling issues with materials and assembly could make this an excellent choice.

[cajen2]

The saddle on mine is fine but I've found I do need to double check the vertical arm. I fold that down when travelling and the teeth don't always mesh exactly when repositioning it. 

I haven't had any problems so far with the silver finish.

Any minor concerns like these are totally outweighed for me by the mount's light weight, versatility and quality.

[jjohnson3803]

On 11/09/2023 at 08:52, cajen2 said:

As I said, I believe there are motors in the pipeline.

Any update on this?  The motors for the ScopeTech Zero were very expensive.

[cajen2]

25 minutes ago, jjohnson3803 said:

Any update on this?  The motors for the ScopeTech Zero were very expensive.

Not that I've heard of. If they ARE very expensive, I see no reason for preferring the mount over a dedicated go-to, say an iOptron alt/az Pro.

[jjohnson3803]

18 hours ago, cajen2 said:

Not that I've heard of. If they ARE very expensive, I see no reason for preferring the mount over a dedicated go-to, say an iOptron alt/az Pro.

I've been thinking the same thing.  As an aside, I wish there were a basic EQ with usable setting circles and a basic clock drive like my old C8.

[cajen2]

I'm a point and squirt merchant - don't want to be messing about with EQ alignment. I don't do AP anyway. Alt/az: point and go...😛

[graham56]

i have just got one , balance is very inportant   forget the slow mo,s without an extension, i have put flex,on much better,i am  mating with a tak fs60c made in heaven ,on a 

vixen hal 130 

[Naughty Neal]

It looks like the mount arm is joined halfway up  and can be reversed via undoing likely an allen bolt , one could then mount a scope on the out side for easier zenith or  viewing.

As an aside what are users views on being able to  mount a 102ed f11 , would an f11 be too long at a total lenght of some 1200mm ?

[cajen2]

39 minutes ago, Naughty Neal said:

It looks like the mount arm is joined halfway up  and can be reversed via undoing likely an allen bolt , one could then mount a scope on the out side for easier zenith or  viewing.

As an aside what are users views on being able to  mount a 102ed f11 , would an f11 be too long at a total lenght of some 1200mm ?

Hi NN.

I think an F/11 would be pushing the limits of the mount a bit too much for comfort. As I've said, with an extension pier and my F/7 Starfield, I do get vibrations at high mags (150x plus) when focusing, though these dampen very quickly. A longer OTA plus perhaps a heavier weight might be a little much.

The original set of photos on the FLO website had one with a reversed mounting as you describe, but this seems to have disappeared.

Edited February 20 by cajen2

[Jim L]

3 minutes ago, cajen2 said:

Hi NN.

I think an F/11 would be pushing the limits of the mount a bit too much for comfort. As I've said, with an extension pier and my F/7 Starfield, I do get vibrations at high mags (150x plus) when focusing, though these dampen very quickly. A longer OTA plus perhaps a heavier weight might be a little much.

A 92mm f/6.65 is about as large as I’ve found comfortable with this mount; my 102mm f/7 was a bit too much. The mount arm can be reversed at the mid joint.

[cajen2]

On 20/02/2024 at 16:57, Jim L said:

A 92mm f/6.65 is about as large as I’ve found comfortable with this mount; my 102mm f/7 was a bit too much. The mount arm can be reversed at the mid joint.

I've just been using my SF on the Moon, at a maximum mag of 239x. Vibrations were there when using the focuser or slo-mo controls, but with the Berlebach, they were only momentary, quickly dampened and were no hindrance at all.