The spec sheet of the GTiX mentions higher payload than the predecessor AZ GTi. Ist that a genuine difference? If mounted on a wedge, shall we expect better unguided and guided results?
AZ GTiX for astrophotography?
Engaging
Gtom,
I have used Skywatcher GTIX for a while. I can give you some feedback. The internet is sparse on the subject.
Tech spec says 6kg one side loaded and 11kg two sides loaded. That looks to me like a slight upgrade over Skywatcher GTI, replacing a counterweight with a second saddle. I find that configuration usefull.
Payload wise, I have not tested this at the max payload capability. Other problems will impede performance sooner (propably, as below)
My typical use would be 200-300mm refrector on one side, with total weight somehow around 3kg and larger guide scope with some other accessories acting as a counter balance. Propbaly next 2kg. So that is about 5kg total, which is about 40% of declared payload in such a config. I use the mount on Skywatcher EQ Wedge. With such a setup, IF conditions are favourable, little wind, good balance on the mount, no cable dragging etc., I can get consistently guding (PHD2) within range of 0.6-1.0 arc second. I loaded an exemplary photo of Dragons of Ara to my gallery as an example. Small resolution though, just to show what is possible with this mount. I dont have any intention to upload full resolution, so you cannot looks at stars at 1:1. But I can tell you, this setup works well.
In other scenario I use longer scope, +1000mm and somehow heavier, but not pushing the maximum payload either. Results here are much more random. Parcially, because much longer focal lenght. Parcially because extra lenght and torgue needed to keep guiding precision high. Parcially, because much more sensitivity with a larger scope for wind.
I have not done unguided photography with this mount for a quite while. From memory, it did not perform well in such a situation. Of course depending on a focal lenght, aligment etc., but I would say, unguided performance would be limited to 5-10s exposure, with some significiant drift over time, lets say +1h. That setup could work well for EAA, but for more ambitious, long integration astrophotography, doable, but somehow troublesome.
With guiding, given decent enviromental conditions, I can do several minutes exposures without significinat issues. The longest one I tried was 1200s. Typicly I will do 30-300s. Doing projects several hours per session is not an issue.
In az-alt mode it feels more stable, maybe parcially due to Skywatchers EQ Wedge being not the best quality - it need a lot of tightening, it did some mods. But with this mode, of course one faces significiant field rotation. It can be overcame with manual cam rotator (a lot of pain) or auto rotator (money + some pain). Or just use the wedge .
Putting this in perspective, this mount is about 4-5x cheaper than proverbial ZWO AM5 and not counting ZWQ tripod, which would surely work better. But at what cost?
In short, I would say, if used with max 400-500mm scope (I suspect, I dont have direct experience) and total load 5-7kg on both side, I suspect this mount would be doing ok with guiding for photography. For this (fuzzy) max conditions, in my assestment, it is a good value.
Let me know, if you have more questions.
I have used Skywatcher GTIX for a while. I can give you some feedback. The internet is sparse on the subject.
Tech spec says 6kg one side loaded and 11kg two sides loaded. That looks to me like a slight upgrade over Skywatcher GTI, replacing a counterweight with a second saddle. I find that configuration usefull.
Payload wise, I have not tested this at the max payload capability. Other problems will impede performance sooner (propably, as below)
My typical use would be 200-300mm refrector on one side, with total weight somehow around 3kg and larger guide scope with some other accessories acting as a counter balance. Propbaly next 2kg. So that is about 5kg total, which is about 40% of declared payload in such a config. I use the mount on Skywatcher EQ Wedge. With such a setup, IF conditions are favourable, little wind, good balance on the mount, no cable dragging etc., I can get consistently guding (PHD2) within range of 0.6-1.0 arc second. I loaded an exemplary photo of Dragons of Ara to my gallery as an example. Small resolution though, just to show what is possible with this mount. I dont have any intention to upload full resolution, so you cannot looks at stars at 1:1. But I can tell you, this setup works well.
In other scenario I use longer scope, +1000mm and somehow heavier, but not pushing the maximum payload either. Results here are much more random. Parcially, because much longer focal lenght. Parcially because extra lenght and torgue needed to keep guiding precision high. Parcially, because much more sensitivity with a larger scope for wind.
I have not done unguided photography with this mount for a quite while. From memory, it did not perform well in such a situation. Of course depending on a focal lenght, aligment etc., but I would say, unguided performance would be limited to 5-10s exposure, with some significiant drift over time, lets say +1h. That setup could work well for EAA, but for more ambitious, long integration astrophotography, doable, but somehow troublesome.
With guiding, given decent enviromental conditions, I can do several minutes exposures without significinat issues. The longest one I tried was 1200s. Typicly I will do 30-300s. Doing projects several hours per session is not an issue.
In az-alt mode it feels more stable, maybe parcially due to Skywatchers EQ Wedge being not the best quality - it need a lot of tightening, it did some mods. But with this mode, of course one faces significiant field rotation. It can be overcame with manual cam rotator (a lot of pain) or auto rotator (money + some pain). Or just use the wedge .
Putting this in perspective, this mount is about 4-5x cheaper than proverbial ZWO AM5 and not counting ZWQ tripod, which would surely work better. But at what cost?
In short, I would say, if used with max 400-500mm scope (I suspect, I dont have direct experience) and total load 5-7kg on both side, I suspect this mount would be doing ok with guiding for photography. For this (fuzzy) max conditions, in my assestment, it is a good value.
Let me know, if you have more questions.
Helpful
Many thanks for the wealth of details! Currently I own a Lightrack II tracker that does wonders unguided but no goto, no dec adjustment I thought I could go in the more comfortable direction. The AZ-GTi's appeared to be a simple, cheap solution but not 100% sure if it is a clear step forward.
Gtom,
I looked at the spec of LighTrack II. The spec says:
- supporting 1000 mm focal length
- only ±1 arc sec periodic error
- and not much more (strange)
Plus I looked at it's physical appearance. It looks very small and flimsy.
I dont see anything specific about internals. Maybe with some decent step motor and/or harmonic drive these specs would be achievable. But then, marketing team would be screeming about it at the first paragraph. They dont say anything about drivers. On the other hand, they mention 7075 aluminium, like it matters (not).
I dont see any exemplary, longer focal lenght photos taken with this mount, except very wide field Milky way. That is easy with anything.
There is "science" page, which features proffesional observatory building. Marketing teams will use these mental hooks to create quality association in customer's mind.
Price for the set: mount, tripod and counterweight: 1500 Euros.
I may be wrong, but capabilities claims for this mount looks to me way too optimistic. I am not sure. Just my experience is whispering, there is something wrong with these spec claims.
Consider this, ZWO AM5, well known by now, high capability harmonic drive. ZWO recommends for AMZ5 up to 900mm focal lenght. People push it with more, obviously, but that is what ZWO recommends as the max focal lenght. Check in the link below, point 16. Does, for me, LighTrack II looks remotly engineering wise close to AM5? I dont think so. Just saying. I would be carefull with expectations for LighTrack II.
https://www.zwoastro.com/2022/01/13/am5-faq-35-things-you-want-to-know-about-zwo-am5-mount/
Have you tried longer lens / telescope on LighTrack II? Something in 200-300 range?
PS: I hope my post does not come as too harsh critisism of your gear!
I looked at the spec of LighTrack II. The spec says:
- supporting 1000 mm focal length
- only ±1 arc sec periodic error
- and not much more (strange)
Plus I looked at it's physical appearance. It looks very small and flimsy.
I dont see anything specific about internals. Maybe with some decent step motor and/or harmonic drive these specs would be achievable. But then, marketing team would be screeming about it at the first paragraph. They dont say anything about drivers. On the other hand, they mention 7075 aluminium, like it matters (not).
I dont see any exemplary, longer focal lenght photos taken with this mount, except very wide field Milky way. That is easy with anything.
There is "science" page, which features proffesional observatory building. Marketing teams will use these mental hooks to create quality association in customer's mind.
Price for the set: mount, tripod and counterweight: 1500 Euros.
I may be wrong, but capabilities claims for this mount looks to me way too optimistic. I am not sure. Just my experience is whispering, there is something wrong with these spec claims.
Consider this, ZWO AM5, well known by now, high capability harmonic drive. ZWO recommends for AMZ5 up to 900mm focal lenght. People push it with more, obviously, but that is what ZWO recommends as the max focal lenght. Check in the link below, point 16. Does, for me, LighTrack II looks remotly engineering wise close to AM5? I dont think so. Just saying. I would be carefull with expectations for LighTrack II.
https://www.zwoastro.com/2022/01/13/am5-faq-35-things-you-want-to-know-about-zwo-am5-mount/
Have you tried longer lens / telescope on LighTrack II? Something in 200-300 range?
PS: I hope my post does not come as too harsh critisism of your gear!
Helpful Insightful Engaging
The last thing I'd be complaining about the lightrack being weak and flimsy. Yesterday I've put my sigma 150-600 s telephoto (weighs 3kg and adds about 3" to the moment arm) on it pointing Zenith (worst case scenario re balancing) without counterweight: no slipping. That shiny arm you see on the pictures is a 10" long, 3/8" thick alloy, the rest is also built like a tank. The wedge is not easy to set but once done, it is rock stable, wider base than the Skywatcher wedge.
Do not compare apples to oranges: the AM5 is a harmonic drive, erratic periodic error is a known issue, people are guiding it with 0.5-1sec frequency. The Lightrack is on a completely different working principle. Here you can see an absolutely worse case scenario mounting example with a heavy lens (same as mine), extended multisection tripod, gimbal head: he got wost case 7" peak to peak.
BTW my own experience so far with a canon 2.8/200L + 6d: zero trailing with 6-7min subs out of the box, unguided.
Do not compare apples to oranges: the AM5 is a harmonic drive, erratic periodic error is a known issue, people are guiding it with 0.5-1sec frequency. The Lightrack is on a completely different working principle. Here you can see an absolutely worse case scenario mounting example with a heavy lens (same as mine), extended multisection tripod, gimbal head: he got wost case 7" peak to peak.
BTW my own experience so far with a canon 2.8/200L + 6d: zero trailing with 6-7min subs out of the box, unguided.
Helpful
GTom,
if Lightrack II performs well with 200-600mm lenses for photography, than Skywatcher GTiX will be a side step at best, not upgrade..
if Lightrack II performs well with 200-600mm lenses for photography, than Skywatcher GTiX will be a side step at best, not upgrade..
Mine was tested with resultes in a PE of 2" peak to peak range, average central period. And the period is pretty long in these ones, around 6 min, if I recall right. I think they tested it with a 600mm lens and no issues at all. The main issue with Lightrack II is that is, well, a tracker. So no goto nor dec guiding.
Andrea,
in that case would not GoTo with Nina or AsiAir or alike solve the issue anyway? The same with guding, PHD2 helps. If one uses the mount for astrophotography on budget, these two would be used anyway.
I use with GTiX and utilising their SyncApp effectively as an interface between the mount and other soft. Although SyncApp itself can do some work, like aligment and tracking.
Maybe @GTom 's problem is not hardware issue, but software and workflow?
in that case would not GoTo with Nina or AsiAir or alike solve the issue anyway? The same with guding, PHD2 helps. If one uses the mount for astrophotography on budget, these two would be used anyway.
I use with GTiX and utilising their SyncApp effectively as an interface between the mount and other soft. Although SyncApp itself can do some work, like aligment and tracking.
Maybe @GTom 's problem is not hardware issue, but software and workflow?
There are no ASCOM or native drivers to speak of to my knowledge so, no, NINA wouldn't do anyhting except for plate solving but you can do that with ASTAP anyway, besides Dec adjustments are going to be made by hand and I can't see that being either easy or precise. Potentially you can mount a rotator on the CW arm so you have a degree of control in Dec but the max speed is twice sideral (I think) so either you are close to the subject or it isn't going to be much of a help.
GTom,
if Lightrack II performs well with 200-600mm lenses for photography, than Skywatcher GTiX will be a side step at best, not upgrade..
Yeah, pluses and minuses certainly! The Lightrack is badly missing anything "modern": no ascom/any kind of PC connection, no goto, not even dec control. Otherwise it indeed does what the label says: it is a very decent motorized+strong barndoor tracker. And one more thing: simple and reliable: you won't bump into a show stopper issue/missing/broken bits or bobs after landing in Namibia
.
The GTi(X) is neither that strong nor that precise but has all those conveniences that are part of modern day framing and shooting. So true, side step indeed, different set of problems.
Helpful Concise
Yeah, navigation, framing is a plate solving exercise. Haven't done it yet, one thing is sure: the old ball head must go. But even with a low profile gimbal head or pano adapters I suspect a pain coming, wasting precious time under the stars. That was the primary reason I considered trading a bit of the simplicity, reliability and low weight of the Lightrack setup for something more modern.
BTW you can slew quite quickly in RA with the buttons. But here comes the other limitation: the "mount" only works in a small section, once you reach the limit, you have to move the whole thing. Going after a new object almost certainly means moving your camera mounting gear (photo head, brackets, whatever)
BTW you can slew quite quickly in RA with the buttons. But here comes the other limitation: the "mount" only works in a small section, once you reach the limit, you have to move the whole thing. Going after a new object almost certainly means moving your camera mounting gear (photo head, brackets, whatever)
There are no ASCOM or native drivers to speak of to my knowledge so, no, NINA wouldn't do anyhting except for plate solving but you can do that with ASTAP anyway, besides Dec adjustments are going to be made by hand and I can't see that being either easy or precise. Potentially you can mount a rotator on the CW arm so you have a degree of control in Dec but the max speed is twice sideral (I think) so either you are close to the subject or it isn't going to be much of a help.
Yeah, navigation, framing is a plate solving exercise...
GTom,
if your main scope / lens is Sigma 150-600mm (3kg) or Canon 200mm, the GTiX with guiding should hold it ok. That weight is about my typical setup. Alltough I dont have any empirical experience with 600m. With bigger scopes, going somewhere to a remote desert location, I would not realy on GTiX's capabilities.
I did try long time ago Canon 200mm, I think F4. It was not particularly heavy or big. It was tracking ok. Although it had seagulls all over the view. But that was the lens, not the mount.
Helpful
Yeah, navigation, framing is a plate solving exercise...
GTom,
if your main scope / lens is Sigma 150-600mm (3kg) or Canon 200mm, the GTiX with guiding should hold it ok. That weight is about my typical setup. Alltough I dont have any empirical experience with 600m. With bigger scopes, going somewhere to a remote desert location, I would not realy on GTiX's capabilities.
I did try long time ago Canon 200mm, I think F4. It was not particularly heavy or big. It was tracking ok. Although it had seagulls all over the view. But that was the lens, not the mount.
I am currently upgrading to the nikon 2.8/300. It still ticks the boxes regarding specs (full gear right on the payload limit of the GTi, more relaxed with the X especially that the guidescope can simply go on the other side.
...
Maybe @GTom 's problem is not hardware issue, but software and workflow?
Exactly!
I am currently upgrading to the nikon 2.8/300. It still ticks the boxes regarding specs (full gear right on the payload limit of the GTi, more relaxed with the X especially that the guidescope can simply go on the other side.
GTom,
Nikon 2.8/300 being 3kg, should be ok weigh wise and focal lenght with GTiX.
I do mount a guidescope on the other side. AND added to the guidescope about extra 1kg. So it acts as a counter balance, with differencial from sides being 1kg, given or take.
Is it possible to load the Equatorial mode firmware on the AZ-GTIX?
Filipe Veríssimo:
Is it possible to load the Equatorial mode firmware on the AZ-GTIX?
*100% valid question! I do not know...
GTom, I used the lightrack ii for about a year and loved it for what it was. I used it on a williams optics wedge. Polar aligned with the ASIAIR mini. Star hopped to get close and then plate solved with annotation feature to locate the target. I manually dithered. Used with F4 300mm and f2.8 200mm lenses as well as Astrotech AT60 ED and counterweight. I found ball heads and gimbals to not work at all for me at those focal lengths. It is a great tracker. When I decided I wanted to start guiding and use larger scpoes I upgraded to the AM3 and I have the optional counterweight to increase the payload, but still very portable. It was a great improvement in fun factor and I highly recommend it. CS, Bob
Helpful
Filipe Veríssimo:
Is it possible to load the Equatorial mode firmware on the AZ-GTIX?
Yes, it is possible, it works well. I dont remember the version right now, one of the newers.
Filipe Veríssimo:
Is it possible to load the Equatorial mode firmware on the AZ-GTIX?
Yes, it is possible, it works well. I dont remember the version right now, one of the newers.
Sounds like good news! I only need to decide now if I want to chase "bargain" deals on the SA GTi (if they exist...) or hop on the significantly cheaper AZ GTIX.
Well Written
Sounds like good news! I only need to decide now if I want to chase "bargain" deals on the SA GTi (if they exist...) or hop on the significantly cheaper AZ GTIX.
GTom,
one more potencial consideration:
1. SA GTI: 2.7kg for the mount + 2.5kg for the counterweight = 5.2kg (+ tripod and all other gear)
2. AZ GTiX: 2kg + ~0.3kg wedge = 2.3kg (+ tripod and all other gear) + (slighly better spec)
+3kg difference may or may not matter for traveling far away.
Helpful Concise
Sounds like good news! I only need to decide now if I want to chase "bargain" deals on the SA GTi (if they exist...) or hop on the significantly cheaper AZ GTIX.
GTom,
one more potencial consideration:
1. SA GTI: 2.7kg for the mount + 2.5kg for the counterweight = 5.2kg (+ tripod and all other gear)
2. AZ GTiX: 2kg + ~0.3kg wedge = 2.3kg (+ tripod and all other gear) + (slighly better spec)
+3kg difference may or may not matter for traveling far away.
Guess I need CW for the AZ GTI as well for working on a wedge? (Goal is dso with a 5kg heavy rig)
Guess I need CW for the AZ GTI as well for working on a wedge? (Goal is dso with a 5kg heavy rig)
GTom,
My point was that with SA GTI you will have to use counterweigh, which make the the mount +5kg (plus other gear).
With AZ GTiX, you can put the guidescope (which in either scenario you will be using, because you want to guide) on the second handle, acting as a counterweight. All other gear, accesories etc being equal in both scenarios.
So, overall with AZ GTiX you save about 3kg in weight. It may matter or not.
Theoretically yes, however: things mounted on the secondary saddle have maybe one THIRD the moment arm compared to something sitting at the end of a counterweight shaft. Also, I don't have too much gear: mini guidescope, ultralight pancake guidecam: definitely not enough to balance a 5kg rig. Adding anything bulky but unnecessary: more windage. I think I'll steer back to either the full EQ SA GTi or make my peace with the shortcomings of my Lightrack (this is working fine with approx 3kg worth of imbalance)
Helpful Insightful
CEM120EC real-world review with actual guiding metrics
CEM120EC — Real-World Review (With Actual Guiding Metrics) I realised something: there is almost no modern, accurate, real-world information on the CEM120EC. Most people only post when something breaks. So let’s correct the record because this mount ...
Real-world guiding metrics directly address payload and guided performance questions.
Astrophotography on a Budget: My €341.12 ($399) DIY Harmonic Mount Review & PHD2 Test
V3 Mini Performance: My Results After Two Months of Testing (Solar & Deep-Sky) Hello everyone, Lately, my inbox has been flooded with questions about the performance of my V3 Mini mount. After more than two months of rigorous testing, I wanted to...
Mount payload capacity and guiding performance testing relevant to author's inquiry.
Experience with Juwei-14 from Aliexpress
Hi all! the reason behind this post is to make avaliable some real world experience with the Juwei-14 mount, as there is so little info online, so i hope its usefull for few of you looking for an alternative to more expensive mounts. So, i got my Juw...
Real-world mount experience data useful for comparing payload and performance differences.