1.81
#...
·
 |
|---|
|
I am planning to upgrade from an EQ6-R Pro to either an Astro-Physics: Mach2GTO or 1100GTO The Mach2GTO would end up costing less considering the portable pier I would be able to use. I haven’t found a portable pier for the 1100GTO outside of the Advanced Telescope Systems 8” which costs $2,795 plus shipping. That being said, my preference is leaning toward the 1100GTO. It has the portability factor which is very important to me. I know that you can remove 4 screws from the base of the Mach2GTO, which weighs 11lbs, dropping the weigh down to a manageable 31lbs. 1. My biggest concern is guiding. I know that the absolute encoders on the Mach2GTO work very well. My hope is that the 1100GTO without encoders will effectively be almost as good. 2. Can either mount be polar aligned with N.I.N.A.? That is what I currently use. 3. Currently I have 2 telescopes. A William Optics FLT 132 and a ZenithStar 61II. The Mach2GTO would handle both without any issues. The cost of this upgrade would limit the purchase of a third telescope for a while. So even that the 1100GTO has a much higher weight capacity, it isn’t a concern, but I wouldn’t want to limit myself. I’m currently on Astro-Physics waiting list. |
11.02
#...
·
·
5
likes
|
|---|
|
Hello Todd, I am an expert user of both of these mounts. If there is a configuration for you that the Mach 2 cost less in than the AP1100 without encoders then you take the Mach 2 every day of the week. It has encoders. The 1100 is extremely portable for an observatory class mount though, I run my CDK14 on one in New Mexico and it performs flawlessly all night the scope runs. My 1100 has encoders though. To answer your numbered questions: 1. Both will track identically with guiding. Seeing limited. Both can use sky modeling as well, with or without encoders. The modeling from AP works very well. 2. Both can be polar aligned with NINA or even better -- SharpCap. 3. You could probably mount 2 of each scope you mentioned and a full grown Husky on either mount and either would work fine. Both are incredible mounts with massive weight capacities. I loaded my Mach 2 to 70lbs of gear with a very long focal point (AGO 12.5" iDK with a PL16803, guider, 5-7 wheel, over 14 pounds of camera gear alone) and it was just fine. The 1100 would scoff at that weight and fall asleep. Do you want a 14"+ scope? Get the 1100. Under that? Mach 2 is king. Forever mount in the scenario where you have no plans for a 14" OTA. You can dual scope on that all you want with the options you listed, even if they were two 150mm WO refractors. -Bill |
12.08
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Can't comment on 1100 since I don't have one. But like Bill said, Mach2 works extremely well as a portable mount. I once put a CFF 12" RC on it and guides. No problems at all. @Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography You mentioned that SharpCap works better than NINA. Have you tried both? I use SharpCap and it works very well and very fast. However, I read several times that people claim NINA gives better alignment results. I kind of wonder if that's really the case. |
|
11.02
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
Wei-Hao Wang: NINA gives false positive results. I have tested both in New Mexico on my CDK14 using PEMPro drift alignment to validate the accuracy and SharpCap was dramatically better. My scope neighbor used NINA, and had a ton of problems, so I suggested he use SharpCap to align his mount and all of his problems went away. I know everyone loves NINA, largely because it is free. But as with everything -- you get what you pay for. SharpCap is leagues better in my experience. |
|
1.81
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
| I have Sharpcap. Every time I’ve attempted to use it for polar alignment it comes up with an error. I’ll attempt to use it again once I have clear skies |
1.20
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
I am fortunate to have both a Mach 2 and an 1100 with encoders. I use them separately at different sites. I image in very windy environments, and I believe the encoders are a big help. That said, I build a sky model and guide as well, and both mounts are equally good. I am always seeing limited, not mount limited. Note that you can upgrade the 1100 with encoders later, if you desire. Like everything AP, you may have to wait a year or two to get a set. I agree 100% with @Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography. I personally would never break my Mach 2 apart to make the pieces lighter on a regular basis. The mount head for the Mach 2 is manageable for me for now, but it might take more care as I get older. The 1100 does break very easily into 3 pieces and is wonderfully portable for such a beast. The through the mount cabling with the 1100 is a dream. With the Mach 2 you are stuck with what AP gives you, which is good enough if you are very careful with your cable lengths and quality. I've got the Mach 2 stored in one (very large) pelican case, but the 1100 in 3 separate cases (with room for other stuff). The Mach 2 takes up less space, but the one case is heavier than each of the cases for the 1100. If I had to live with only one mount, it would be the 1100 - its lighter (individual) pieces and the through the mount cabling are a huge win. Either scope is more than capable to handle any scope I own or anticipate owning. Their tracking / guiding performance is the same. I was frugal and got the bare bones AP portable pier for the 1100 (still expensive, but less so than ATS). It doesn't adjust for uneven ground very easily, but surprisingly I've never had a big issue either digging or propping up a foot or two to get level if the limited adjustments don't do it. I may never upgrade that pier for portable use. I've got the Eagle pier for the Mach 2 and it's a wonderful, though expensive solution. |
1.20
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
I have the 1100GTO without encoders and works very well, no complains about tracking, of course guided. Between Mach2 and 1100GTO, I would take 1100 due to the following: You can add encoders later on if you consider you need them Higher payload, so you will have more scope flexibility. very portable as described already. If you don't get encoders you have the flexibility of using different software, even ASIair for a moving rig. I use a Losmandy foldable tripod which could also be an option. if you buy the plate adapter from AP |
6.08
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
I would say it comes down to what you plan to put on it. The Mach-2 has the 75lb capacity before you add counterweights, and the 1100 has 110lb before counterweights. I got the 1100 with encoders mostly because they help greatly with wind, not to mention that I can put about my 60lb of scope and 60lb counterweights and it acts like there's nothing there. If you don't ever plan to go big, go for the Mach-2 but it dose have its limits. For the extra cost of the 1100 you're pretty much good to go with about anything. Imaging, like me, and from what looks like your location, If your setup will clear the pier/tripod, for me it anything from Orion and south, you can image from sunset to sunrise and never touch anything, just start and go, and this applies to any AP mount. As for polar alignment, as long as you can see Polaris, AP has a polar scope (RAPAS) that once setup, and I have not needed to adjust mine right out of the box. Once setup it knows your latitude longitude your elevation and where you are in your time zone down to the second. I can setup and as soon as it dark enough to see Polaris, usually about 15 to 20 minutes after sunset before it's even dark and I'm good to go, and on a bad night I may get guiding at .3 usually it's in the .02-.07 range. It's rare to lose a sub due to guiding. I've used the AP900-1200 and now the Mach-1 and switched to the 1100 from the 1200 just because the 1200 was getting heavy as I always travel to dark sites. You will be more then satisfied with either one you chose. |
11.99
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography: My experience has actually been the opposite. Since I started using NINA's 3 point polar alignment, I have not had to use SharpCap at all - in fact I did not renew my SharpCap subscription. It is quick, with my AP Mach 2 has been pretty much press a button and it takes the images for the 3 points automatically and tells me how to move my mount. It has been completely reliable, and, since I use an OAG, it means I do not need anything other than my primary OTA for the alignment. I have also used NINA with my Mach 1, and with the V2 chip, is just as reliable as with my Mach 2. The Q chip requires me to slew the scope through the AP interface versus doing it automatically through NINA. With regard to the 1100 vs Mach 2 discussion - I was twice on the 1100 waiting list and twice got the notification. I chose to wait for the Mach 2, so I can only comment on that. The only thing I will say about the Mach 2 is on the issue of its portability. I am a backyard imager, so periodically have to take my mount indoors. I have not found it too cumbersome at all to move it between my garage and backyard. While I have not yet taken it to a dark site, I do not anticipate that, at its weight, there would be much to prevent me from doing so. |
1.43
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
| Not trying to hijack the thread, but given a GSO 10" Carbon Truss Newtonian (total 45 lbs), would a Mach2GTO perform as well as an Ap1100-AE? The 1100 would be the better choice but at a much higher cost, so would the Mach2GTO be sufficient for such a payload? |
|
11.02
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Joey Conenna: I think it would be perfectly fine for that. |
1.51
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Go for 1100. More flexible, can handle more weight, much stabler than Mach2. I have seen multiple issues with Mach2, although all can be fixed. AP1100 is rock solid. Yuexiao |
0.00
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography:Wei-Hao Wang: You never miss an opportunity to dump on NINA for some reason. I consider that opinion worthless. |
|
6.08
#...
·
|
|---|
see below |
|
6.08
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Joey Conenna: Yuexiao Shen: I agree, while I'm not sure about the issues, you're getting close to the upper limits of the mount once you add everything else. The scope you mention is getting on the big side, and if you don't need encoders right off, the 1100 is cheaper than the Mach-2. You can always add encoders later if you'd like. Like I stared above, I can run over 120lbs scope and counterweights on my 1100 with no issues. As for an AE or non-AE, there's no difference in its capacity. |
|
0.00
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Bob - You mean .02-.07 pixels, presumably, for guiding error. |
22.76
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
|
I've owned an AP1600 with encoders and a Mach 2 and in my opinion, the Mach 2 is the best mount that AP has ever made simply because of the way that the encoders are mounted. The Mach 2 never gets lost! The only question is if it will handle the size of the scope you want to put on it. Roland used to insist that a Mach 2 was ideal for a C14 but IMO, that's marginal. John |
|
6.08
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Bob - Yes, it's on a pixel scale. |
|
0.00
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
| Makes sense. But reporting in pixels is problematic as it can’t be used to evaluate guiding quality. |
|
6.08
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Well maybe in some cases, I do most of my evaluating by looking at my stars in addition to how the graph presents itself. To keep this on topic, my AP 1100GTO-AE will constantly produce nice tight round stars with 15-to-20-minute exposures all night long, that tells me guiding is going good.  |
|
1.81
#...
·
|
|---|
|
I certainly appreciate the response to this thread. Great advice from all. Both choices have their advantages. I certainly like the encoder option that the Mach2GTO offers. The 1100GTO is also a good mount choice with adding encoders at a later date if warranted. Fortunately, I still have time before they're available to purchase before making a final decision. Clear Skies, Todd |
|
6.08
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
First off, great choice with either, just put your name down for both and you can get which one you decide on when it comes available, and only buy direct from AP. Not sure what you mean by double tax, unless you live in Illinois, AP home state, you will pay tax. You may pay a little less in New Jersey, but still taxed. AP charges you whatever your state tax is, CA where I'm at is 7.75% that is all I was taxed by AP, plus shipping. So, I'm at a loss as to the double tax you mention. |
|
1.81
#...
·
|
|---|
|
I reread the sales tax policy. I obviously misread it. Astro-Physics is required to collect and remit sales tax on all orders delivered in the State of Illinois. Orders shipped to an Illinois address or picked up at Astro-Physics will be charged Sales Tax at a rate of 8.25%. We are also required to collect sales tax for California effective April 1st, 2019. |
|
6.08
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Still not sure what you mean by "we" I assume you mean Astro-Physics. Astro-Physics did add California tax to cost of my mount I got in 2022, they charged me the 7.75% on top of the cost of the mount, plus shipping. They don't add Illinois tax on top of California tax. No double taxing hear. |
|
1.81
#...
·
|
|---|
| I just copied Astro-Physics statement regarding the tax. I understand that you’re not charged twice for sales tax |
