Choosing between 4" ED Refractors for visual

[paulastro]

5 hours ago, quasar117 said:

Would the Starfield benefit from being mounted on Skytee2 rather than AZ4? I'm aware I'd be losing the slomo control on the AZ4. I'm just concerned under high magnification vibration might be handled better with the Skytee2.

 

Yes it would.  My Askar 103 apo triplet ( a bit heavier than the Starfield) was not good at higher powers on an my AZ5 or AZ4 which I tried it on - I couldnt use the Askar to its full potential at higher powers, VERY frustrating.  I had a Tecnosky (the Starfield is a rebadged version of it)  which gave the same problem.

I bought the FLO version of the Skytee11 and it really is steady as a rock with either of these scopes.  The slow motions are very good.  

[Moonlit Night]

You absolutely don’t need a Skytee. I ran this scope on the rock sold steel legged AZ4. A Starfield mounted on one of those could last a lifetime. It’s as if they were designed to go together. One of the few very genuine Astro bargains. 

[Nicola Fletcher]

13 hours ago, Mr Spock said:

Starfield 102mm f7 is £899. Don't hesitate, just buy it. It's one of the best 4" scopes out there. I could barely separate it from my Tak.

Couldn’t agree more with @Mr Spock. I have the Altair Starwave 102 ED-R which is the same as the Starfield from FLO and also I believe TS optics offer the same scope. It’s superb, giving wonderful views, with  solid construction and a great focuser that allows you to mount two finders at the same time. I won’t part with mine even though I have a Takahashi FC100 (and I also have a 12” dob which of course beats all of them but is much more of a pain to set up!).

Mine goes on an AZ-EQ5 or, more commonly these days, on a Giro Ercole Mini with a counterweight, mounted on a Gitzo tripod for a superb grab and go option. Lack of slo-mo controls doesn’t bother me in the slightest.

Edited February 19 by Nicola Fletcher

[Moonlit Night]

The slow mo is interesting, never bothered me at all. You never hear dob users complaining about a lack of it. 
 

Whatever happened to ScopeTech AZ mounts? Everyone raved about them for a few weeks and then came people who said the slow mo had seized or were very tight. I heard they stopped selling them, expensive too. 

[Space Hopper]

21 minutes ago, Moonlit Night said:

The slow mo is interesting, never bothered me at all. You never hear dob users complaining about a lack of it. 

A good, and very valid point.

 

[Second Time Around]

1 hour ago, Moonlit Night said:

The slow mo is interesting, never bothered me at all. You never hear dob users complaining about a lack of it. 
 

Whatever happened to ScopeTech AZ mounts? Everyone raved about them for a few weeks and then came people who said the slow mo had seized or were very tight. I heard they stopped selling them, expensive too. 

I believe only some had a problem and this was rectified.  Mine's been fine I'm glad to say.  In fact, my Mount Zero is superb in so many ways!

Apparently, the reason they're no longer available is a patent violation.  Whether this will be solved or not I don't know.

Anyone?

[quasar117]

4 hours ago, Moonlit Night said:

You absolutely don’t need a Skytee. I ran this scope on the rock sold steel legged AZ4. A Starfield mounted on one of those could last a lifetime. It’s as if they were designed to go together. One of the few very genuine Astro bargains. 

Would I have to be constantly altering the altitude clutch to prevent the scope from slipping when observing at different altitude angles?  

Say for instance I had a 2" low power eyepiece on, would it affect the balance?

 

 

[Tiny Clanger]

1 hour ago, Second Time Around said:

I believe only some had a problem and this was rectified.  Mine's been fine I'm glad to say.  In fact, my Mount Zero is superb in so many ways!

Apparently, the reason they're no longer available is a patent violation.  Whether this will be solved or not I don't know.

Anyone?

The Sightron mount of a similar design is now available, I suspect that company may have held the patent.

I bought a Sightron last month, and was hugely disappointed, too much 'wag' with a 102mm f7 'frac (compared with my Castor or even AZ5 ) and, crucially, where the Scopetech has a bend in the horizontal part so the az slo mo is offset, in the Sightron that bar is straight, so the slo mo is directly below the OTA, and the knob interferes with the tube at high alt. I tried using a cable and it was no improvement, still in the way. The only way to make it work was to use the AZ control knob pointing away from the user, which is awkward and means using a cable to reduce vibrations would be a reach, or having the clamp and OTA on the outside of the vertical arm which did not seem a stable arrangement to me.

I tried the sightron in place of my AZ5 for my 127 mak and found the vibrations died down far faster with my AZ5. The Sightron went  back 😞

Edited February 19 by Tiny Clanger

[Stu]

16 minutes ago, Tiny Clanger said:

The Sightron mount of a similar design is now available, I suspect that company may have held the patent.

I bought a Sightron last month, and was hugely disappointed, too much 'wag' with a 102mm f7 'frac (compared with my Castor or even AZ5 ) and, crucially, where the Scopetech has a bend in the horizontal part so the az slo mo is offset, in the Sightron that bar is straight, so the slo mo is directly below the OTA, and the knob interferes with the tube at high alt. I tried using a cable and it was no improvement, still in the way. The only way to make it work was to use the AZ control knob pointing away from the user, which is awkward and means using a cable to reduce vibrations would be a reach, or having the clamp and OTA on the outside of the vertical arm which did not seem a stable arrangement to me.

I tried the sightron in place of my AZ5 for my 127 mak and found the vibrations died down far faster with my AZ5. The Sightron went  back 😞

Interesting feedback, must have been a disappointment. I hadn’t noticed the arrangement of the slo motion controls and agree that must get in the way. The ScopeTech is better in that respect.

When you say ‘too much wag’, I assume you mean that it just took too long for vibrations to die down? Was this both on the same tripod, as that is a major component of the stability as I’m sure you know.

[Tiny Clanger]

36 minutes ago, Stu said:

Interesting feedback, must have been a disappointment. I hadn’t noticed the arrangement of the slo motion controls and agree that must get in the way. The ScopeTech is better in that respect.

When you say ‘too much wag’, I assume you mean that it just took too long for vibrations to die down? Was this both on the same tripod, as that is a major component of the stability as I’m sure you know.

Exact same tripod - took the Castor off, swapped in the Sightron under the 102mm, tested it, didn't quite believe what I saw, restored the Castor to the tripod, checked it, swapped to the Sightron again, faffed with the arm's angle, tried the az slo mo on the far side, tried every variation I could think of, was unable to find one where the vibrations using the Sightron were not far longer lived than with the Castor, gave up.

On a different tripod took the AZ5 off, swapped in the Sightron under the 127 mak. , again the vibrations took longer to settle with the Sightron than with the AZ5, and the az control was again in the way and could not be used with a cable.  Not what I expected from such an expensive mount .

The actual slo mo knobs are plastic, needlessly thicker than the ones that came with my AZ5, and held on by a single, finger tightened, white plastic topped screw. I tried swapping to the SW ones to see if I could gain a little extra alt clearance and was struck by how secure the SW ones were in comparison, being held on with two grub screws tightened by allen key. It didn't help using the slimmer SW knob, or the SW slo mo cables (no slo mo cables are included with the Sightron) .

The mount itself is really nicely made, it has a quality feel, the slo mo movements are smooth, the movement when you loosen the clutch is lovely, it looks the part. I suspect it would be fine with an 80mm or smaller short 'frac, the smaller diameter tube might not be fouled as much by the location of the az slo mo, but it certainly didn't work for what I wanted it for.

[RobertI]

4 hours ago, quasar117 said:

Would I have to be constantly altering the altitude clutch to prevent the scope from slipping when observing at different altitude angles?  

Say for instance I had a 2" low power eyepiece on, would it affect the balance?

 

 

Swapping between 1.25” eyepieces causes no balance problems on the AZ4. If the scope becomes very unbalanced from swapping from a light eyepiece to a very heavy one, I generally rebalance the scope by sliding it along rather than tightening the alt axis - it’s easy to do with a lightweight 4” especially if you have a handle fitted. The Skytee can cope with significant imbalances better, especially when there is another scope on the other side, but the AZ4 is pretty good. 

Edited February 19 by RobertI

[Ratlet]

Glad nobody has mentioned the combo of az5 and 102 star field.

Had the dob out last night for the first time in ages and was thinking how i prefer it for a session with the chair, but having the newt on the az5 was better for the quick looks (just more comfortable).

Come on here and see this thread.  Maybe I should get that 102...

[quasar117]

1 hour ago, RobertI said:

Swapping between 1.25” eyepieces causes no balance problems on the AZ4. If the scope becomes very unbalanced from swapping from a light eyepiece to a very heavy one, I generally rebalance the scope by sliding it along rather than tightening the alt axis - it’s easy to do with a lightweight 4” especially if you have a handle fitted. The Skytee can handle significant imbalances better, especially when there is another scope in the other side, but the AZ4 is pretty good. 

Can't seem to find an AZ4 that doesn't comes on its own without the steel tripod. As I already have a sturdy tripod. Do you think the AZ4 can be mounted on other tripods with M10 stud or is a proprietary mount that can only fit on the Skywatcher 1.75" steel tripod?

[Space Hopper]

Could you run to an AZ 75 ? Rowan Astro. Or a second hand one.

I remember seeing one for sale just recently.

Edited February 19 by Space Hopper

[John]

2 minutes ago, quasar117 said:

Can't seem to find an AZ4 that doesn't comes on its own without the steel tripod. As I already have a sturdy tripod. Do you think the AZ4 can be mounted on other tripods with M10 stud or is a proprietary mount that can only fit on the Skywatcher 1.75" steel tripod?

I've fitted the AZ-4 to a variety of different tripods. As long as they have the M10 screw it seems to fit. The mount works better with an EQ5 / HEQ5 tripod hub though because they have that round ~60mm recess in the top. The AZ-4 is a slightly awkward design IMHO because it does not fully fit into that 60mm recess but I guess that is the way it was designed ?

I hope you find the AZ-4 up to the job. Personally I think it might be pretty much on it's limit with a 102mm F/7 refractor at the high powers that such scopes are capable of supporting.

[mikeDnight]

4 hours ago, Tiny Clanger said:

The Sightron mount of a similar design is now available, I suspect that company may have held the patent.

I bought a Sightron last month, and was hugely disappointed, too much 'wag' with a 102mm f7 'frac (compared with my Castor or even AZ5 ) and, crucially, where the Scopetech has a bend in the horizontal part so the az slo mo is offset, in the Sightron that bar is straight, so the slo mo is directly below the OTA, and the knob interferes with the tube at high alt. I tried using a cable and it was no improvement, still in the way. The only way to make it work was to use the AZ control knob pointing away from the user, which is awkward and means using a cable to reduce vibrations would be a reach, or having the clamp and OTA on the outside of the vertical arm which did not seem a stable arrangement to me.

I tried the sightron in place of my AZ5 for my 127 mak and found the vibrations died down far faster with my AZ5. The Sightron went  back 😞

Exactly the same reason I sent a Sightron back too!

[mikeDnight]

1 hour ago, quasar117 said:

Can't seem to find an AZ4 that doesn't comes on its own without the steel tripod. As I already have a sturdy tripod. Do you think the AZ4 can be mounted on other tripods with M10 stud or is a proprietary mount that can only fit on the Skywatcher 1.75" steel tripod?

I've used an AZ4 on several different tripods, and I've used it at high powers. For me the worst thing about it is that if you don't move it for a while the motions stick and cause the movement to jolt slightly. Once in motion it will flow easily providing its moved regularly. 

As the Rowan 75 has been mentioned, which does not have slow motions, I'll throw another option into the mix which does have slow motions - the Vixen APZ from Bresser UK. 

[Space Hopper]

My apologies there, I didn't realise the AZ75 had no slow motion option.

I just thought it was unable to take the motors, although i do know it can be fitted with encoders and a suitable DSC

But i'm going off topic......sorry

[Moonlit Night]

14 minutes ago, Space Hopper said:

 

But i'm going off topic......sorry

Don’t worry, I did that earlier…

Edited February 19 by Moonlit Night

[mikeDnight]

26 minutes ago, Space Hopper said:

My apologies there, I didn't realise the AZ75 had no slow motion option.

I just thought it was unable to take the motors, although i do know it can be fitted with encoders and a suitable DSC

But i'm going off topic......sorry

We should have an Off Topic section. I expect we'd then stay on topic, but how boring would that be! But here I am going off topic! 

 

[Tiny Clanger]

44 minutes ago, mikeDnight said:

Exactly the same reason I sent a Sightron back too!

It's not just me then !

I'd read nothing but very happy reports of the things until now.  I really wanted to like it, but it just didn't fulfil its promise.

[quasar117]

1 hour ago, mikeDnight said:

I've used an AZ4 on several different tripods, and I've used it at high powers. For me the worst thing about it is that if you don't move it for a while the motions stick and cause the movement to jolt slightly. Once in motion it will flow easily providing its moved regularly. 

As the Rowan 75 has been mentioned, which does not have slow motions, I'll throw another option into the mix which does have slow motions - the Vixen APZ from Bresser UK. 

The Vixen APZ looks the business for sure! At twice the cost of a Skytee2 though is it twice as good? 

 

 

[jock1958]

18 hours ago, paulastro said:

Yes it would.  My Askar 103 apo triplet ( a bit heavier than the Starfield) was not good at higher powers on an my AZ5 or AZ4 which I tried it on - I couldnt use the Askar to its full potential at higher powers, VERY frustrating.  I had a Tecnosky (the Starfield is a rebadged version of it)  which gave the same problem.

I bought the FLO version of the Skytee11 and it really is steady as a rock with either of these scopes.  The slow motions are very good.  

Hi Paul what’s the FLO version of the Skytee 2 and how does it differ from other versions?
Until an affordable quality replacement comes along I’ll soldier on with my 8 year old ST 2. 

[John]

4 minutes ago, jock1958 said:

Hi Paul what’s the FLO version of the Skytee 2 and how does it differ from other versions?
Until an affordable quality replacement comes along I’ll soldier on with my 8 year old ST 2. 

Yep - my old ST 2 does a sterling job with my 100mm - 120mm refractors. The fit and finish is a little basic but it just works.

 

[jock1958]

3 minutes ago, John said:

Yep - my old ST 2 does a sterling job with my 100mm - 120mm refractors. The fit and finish is a little basic but it just works.

 

Yep was out with it last night and my old Tal 100RS.