Quality control in astrophotography?

Topic starter

Aug 21, 2022 · Edited: Aug 21, 2022

I'm currently using a tracker and plan to migrate to a mount mid of next year. Since I need something compact and lightweight to carry into the field I'm currently watching with great interest the introduction of various harmonic drive mounts and other lightweight options. However, looking at the reports in various fora I'm shocked about what seems to be a severe lack of quality control. Skywatcher seems to have messed up their enthusiastically expected SkyAdventurer GTI launch and it looks like iOptron did even worse with its SkyHunter which seems to need a main board replacement. Users who opened the mount report from cables touching the worm gear …
One may argue that these are cheap mounts but to be honest if I buy something for 600+ EUR I expect at least a basic quality assurance.

Reports about the iOptron HEM 27 provide a fairly mixed impression too. Some users are experiencing issues with the dovetail saddle which can be changed between Vixen and Losmandy style and for some users only works in one setting but not the other and it seems some people have issues with the gear meshing of the declination axis which needs to be adjusted. Is it asking for too much to expect that a 2000+ EUR mount just works out of the box?

As a former IT project manager I have some sympathy that the introduction of a new product may not work out totally flawless. But to protect the end user from obvious glitches like the ones mentioned above should be part of any company's work ethic in my opinion.

I like my iOptron SkyGuider very much therefore the HEM 27 was one of my favorites on the list. Now I'm asking myself whether I was just lucky in the "mount lottery". Am I just falling victim to a negative selection in the fora where users report their issues while those who are happy with their new mounts just don't care and take images? (So far I can see 4 users of StarAdventurer GTI and 1 user of HEM 27 in the equipment explorer) Or is there really an issue with quality control in the astrophotography business? What were your positive or negative experiences with new mounts or other gear?

On the positive side it seems ZWO did a good job with their AM 5 mount. They seem to have messed up the ASCOM drivers but corrected them on short notice. While not brilliant given that their natural main target group were the ZWO ASIAir users this is sort of understandable.

Clear skies
Wolfgang

Helpful Insightful Engaging

Andy Wray

Aug 21, 2022

I've only spent about £4,000 on astrophotography kit so far: HEQ5 Pro, Skywatcher 200PDS, Skywatcher Coma Corrector, ZWO filter wheel, ZWO EAF V2, ZWO ASI1600MM, ZWO filters, ZWO OAG ZWO ASI290MM mini.

Out of all of those, the only issue was a non-functioning filter wheel that was replaced by the supplier once they confimed it was a product fault.

Admittedly, the mount and OTA are budget items which has meant a lot of fiddling and tweaking to get them working as I would like.

So, in general I would say my experience has been OK.

Well Written Concise

Chris White- Overcast Observatory

Aug 21, 2022

I've been really disappointed with ZWO and to a lesser extend QHY for their quality control when it comes to the image train, and iOptron when it comes to mounts. ZWO cameras have so many QC issues, and their lackluster support has turned me off from the brand entirely. QHY is making good cameras but their other accessories are garbage IMO and their responsiveness is also pretty poor. If I was to start over on the camera hunt, I'd go with Moravian in hindsight.

iOptron seems to have a fair bit of quality variation, but I will give them credit for being very responsive and eager to fix issues, at least here in the USA. For the budget class their CEM mounts are tough to beat.

Astro-Physics and Optec are standouts to me for providing exceptional products and service.

Well Written Insightful Concise Engaging Supportive

Bray Falls

Aug 21, 2022

For me, I have personally had a lot of problems with paramount MyTs. Gears are very poorly tuned out of the factory, and have very bad guiding. I've had this happen with two brand new MyT mounts, and helped a third person with the same problem. Even with premium gear you have to be careful

Aygen

Aug 21, 2022 · Edited: Aug 21, 2022

My biggest issues were with ZWO camera sensor (tilt issue). Next time I will most probably get a Moravian camera - I have stumbled upon quite a lot of very positive feedbacks (quality material, excellent customer service, etc).

Lynn K

Aug 21, 2022 · Edited: Aug 21, 2022

I used Celestron mounts from 2000 to 2010. Started with the old fork mounts. Numerous issues. Moved to the CGE. Very bad back lash. One thing I have learned is that lower end to mid level mounts compensate for cheaper machining with software corrections, such as cone error and non-othoganality of the mount construction. Such multi star alignments routines and various aids are examples of this. The higher end mounts use less software correction and rely more on better machining.

In 2010 I bought an Astro Physics Mack1. Only needs one star for alignment and worked flawlessly out of the box and still does. As Astro Physics upgrades the control hardware/software the older mounts can be upgraded as well. No need to buy a new mount such as Celestron and iOpton does. I bought a used 600E GTO made in 1998 and ungraded the contro box, works flawlessly. I did the same with 400GTO made in 2000. I would put those two older Astro Physics up against any new Chinese made mount of equal weight capacity.

Yes, quality controll and high quality machining cost money. All Chinese (Senta Inc./iOptron) mount manufactures know that, and can make a mount equal to Astro Physics or Paramount, but they choose not to. There market strategy is different. The first thing they will determine with the manufacture of a new mount is the price break. They will try to design/manufacture the best mount they can within the price limitations. Astro Physis and otherr high end mount manufactures do the same thing. They just use a higher price break and aim at a higher priced market. They too, have their limitations.

So, one who says "You Get What you Pay For" is not being a erogant jurk, buy stating an obveious manufacturing strategy. As a consumer, you must choose products based on the amount you are willing to spend, and except the quality limitations.

I love my Astro Physics mounts and scope. Also My Tak FSQ106ED, but I love as well My Celestron Evolution Edge8. They serve different needs and do that well. I also have a SkyWatcher Star Sdaventure for wide field Milky Way imaging, but not much else.

Often, it not so much the equipment tollerance, but the imager's tollerence of how much tweaking and error he/she is willing to put up with.

Lynn K.

Helpful Insightful Engaging

Matthew Proulx

Aug 21, 2022 · Edited: Aug 21, 2022

You do get what you pay for a lot of times, but most times it is QC that is the issue and then sometimes really bad engineering. No matter HOW MUCH you spend, you will have QC issues and poor design with something at somepoint. So yea it's flipping arrogant to throw around that phrase. No matter how much you pay, it should work as it was intended to work. I've had issues with brand new $100k diesel trucks and had none with a old 15yr old beater. I've bought $35k timken bearings at work only to have them siezed because the manufacturer didn't grease the sealed bearings. I guarantee these astro companies get away with what they do because of the bad mindset that you get what you pay for. You should always get what you bought regardless of the cost. Noone wanted to buy a sensor with tilt or a mount that doesnt track worth a damn.

Arun H

Frequent contributor

Aug 21, 2022 · Edited: Aug 21, 2022

My Astro-Physics gear puts a smile on my face every time I use it. Yes, you’ll pay for it, but you deal with a company run by people who truly care about this hobby, and more than anything, would like for you to succeed. Just recently, they replaced a chip free of charge, well after its warranty period, sending it to me by one day FedEx so I could get on with imaging. I’ll never buy a mount made by another company. I realize that mass produced gear has made the hobby accessible to many but there is something to be said for being able to pick up the phone and talk to someone in the same country - in my case less than 100 miles away - and supporting companies that put quality and your success above anything else.

Well Written Insightful Respectful Engaging Supportive

andrea tasselli

Frequent contributor

Aug 21, 2022

While I'm quite disappointed on a number of issues from a number of companies I found most galling the attitude of "you get what you pay for", which is frankly nonsense (and this isn't the word I would use in private, mind you). If whatever device is sold to perform a function it needs to do it right there out of the box. In any other consumer market the idea that you have to tune or modify something to make it work as expected would have people rioting in the streets.

On specifics I'd say my say294MC Pro ain't much of a pro with constant fighting with dewing on the sensor and no amount of replacement of dessicants is helping despite they swearing the opposite.

As for mounts just don't get me started on far east production. Makes one contemplating building its own with better chances of success.

kuechlew

Topic starter

Aug 21, 2022

My Astro-Physics gear puts a smile on my face every time I use it. Yes, you’ll pay for it, but you deal with a company run by people who truly care about this hobby, and more than anything, would like for you to succeed. Just recently, they replaced a chip free of charge, well after its warranty period, sending it to me by one day FedEx so I could get on with imaging. I’ll never buy a mount made by another company. I realize that mass produced gear has made the hobby accessible to many but there is something to be said for being able to pick up the phone and talk to someone in the same country - in my case less than 100 miles away - and supporting companies that put quality and your success above anything else.

If there was a portable Astrophysics mount you can carry in a backpack into the field I would buy it straight away no matter its cost.
I assume there is a reason why these high quality companies stay away from lightweight mounts. Maybe lightweight, portable and high quality just don't go together?

Clear skies
Wolfgang

Well Written Engaging

Andy Wray

Aug 21, 2022

andrea tasselli:
While I'm quite disappointed on a number of issues from a number of companies I found most galling the attitude of "you get what you pay for", which is frankly nonsense (and this isn't the word I would use in private, mind you). If whatever device is sold to perform a function it needs to do it right there out of the box. In any other consumer market the idea that you have to tune or modify something to make it work as expected would have people rioting in the streets.

On specifics I'd say my say294MC Pro ain't much of a pro with constant fighting with dewing on the sensor and no amount of replacement of dessicants is helping despite they swearing the opposite.

As for mounts just don't get me started on far east production. Makes one contemplating building its own with better chances of success.

I sort of agree with you and again I don't. If you are like me and you are buying at the budget end of the market, then you expect to make some allowances. I wasn't expecting my HEQ5 Pro mount to perform miracles when I bought it, but in fact it is now achieving 0.5 arc secs RMS guiding with a payload at its limits. I have had to work on it to get it there, but it is now performing beyond the expectations of the buyer.

Also, my OTA, a Skywatcher 200PDS, which costs about £400 constantly surprises me with what it can actually capture. It's not the highest quality piece of kit and wasn't delivered perfectly set up, but can deliver more than my expectations. I still need to work on my collimation skills, but I am sure that it is better than me right now.

In general, I would say that my budget kit has delivered what I would expect for what I/my wife paid for it. With tweaking, it has far exceeded my expectations

Helpful Engaging Supportive

kuechlew

Topic starter

Aug 21, 2022

Andy Wray:
andrea tasselli:
While I'm quite disappointed on a number of issues from a number of companies I found most galling the attitude of "you get what you pay for", which is frankly nonsense (and this isn't the word I would use in private, mind you). If whatever device is sold to perform a function it needs to do it right there out of the box. In any other consumer market the idea that you have to tune or modify something to make it work as expected would have people rioting in the streets.

On specifics I'd say my say294MC Pro ain't much of a pro with constant fighting with dewing on the sensor and no amount of replacement of dessicants is helping despite they swearing the opposite.

As for mounts just don't get me started on far east production. Makes one contemplating building its own with better chances of success.

I sort of agree with you and again I don't. If you are like me and you are buying at the budget end of the market, then you expect to make some allowances. I wasn't expecting my HEQ5 Pro mount to perform miracles when I bought it, but in fact it is now achieving 0.5 arc secs RMS guiding with a payload at its limits. I have had to work on it to get it there, but it is now performing beyond the expectations of the buyer.

Also, my OTA, a Skywatcher 200PDS, which costs about £400 constantly surprises me with what it can actually capture. It's not the highest quality piece of kit and wasn't delivered perfectly set up, but can deliver more than my expectations. I still need to work on my collimation skills, but I am sure that it is better than me right now.

In general, I would say that my budget kit has delivered what I would expect for what I/my wife paid for it. With tweaking, it has far exceeded my expectations

I believe there are two sides of the coin. To tune a mount to make it perform better than you can expect from its price category is one side. To have to fiddle with a new mount to get it to work at all is a totally different story and I believe this is what Andrea is referring to. Whatever price category you are choosing you should get a reasonably well operating product out of the box. If you look at the current reports on the new mounts I mentioned above the early adopters seem to be the beta testers for those companies. I find this shocking.

Clear skies
Wolfgang

Well Written Insightful Respectful Engaging

Lynn K

Aug 22, 2022

I would like to elaborate on the phase "You Get What You Pay For". It is often used as a criticism of cheaply manufactured products. But if you think about in a different way such as the cost of quality control, Its takes on another meaning. QUALITY CONTROL COST. If a manufacturer raises the tolerance of what will be allowed to go out the door, that requires extra staffing and a rejection of percentage of products. That's going to cost and raise the price of what is allowed to go out the door. Raising the tolerance of machining will raise the cost exponentially. Design is one thing, manufacturing to a certain specification is another.
Designing a product and stating the design will perform at a certain level (as Advertising does) is not the same a requiring that the manufacturing process maintain the tolerance to allow the design to achieve it's goal. When a company lowers it tolerance to achieve a designated price break and profit, a tolerable amount of products will not perform well or up to the design. Manufacturers know this and accept it. How long did it take ZWO to finally acknowledge the oil leak issue with certain cameras. The Answer, about a year, or until it started to cut into there customer base/sales. But one has to realize that prior to ZWO CMOS cameras you would not be able touch a quality CCD of 12mm diagonal for less than 2 -5K. Did they have oil leaks or moisture control problems? NO But you couldn't get one for $1000 or less either.

Newer imagers may not realize that ZWO is a fairly new comer. They have dominated the market with the CMOS revolution, and provide a lower priced product. At the volume and cost level that they produce at, I am not at all surprised that some products will fall below specs. I only own one small ZWO un-cooled planetary camera ( bought for all sky viewing). I'm an older CCD imager and have relied on Starlight Xpress cameras costing twice ZWO models. When I moved to CMOS I waited till the CMOS specification matched or bettered CCD ( with the Sony IMX571 & 455) and went with QHY. So far, so good.

Watching the ZWO/QHY and other lower cost CMOS camera's popularity, I have noticed that some camera manufacturers have moved out of the lower chip/design price range and now seem to be marketing to high end amateurs, professional and education institutions. They or NOT putting resources into competing with lower cost CMOS Chinese manufactures. I am referring to Finger Lakes and SBIG (now owned by Maxim/Defraction Limited of Canada) Others such as Starlight Xpress (of Great Britain) seem reluctant to jump into competition with Chinese manufactures. The Portuguese Atik company has some CMOS models and some imagers claim they are of higher quality.

If one is disappointed with the quality of a particular affordable product and unable to purchase higher quality, THE ALTERNITIVE IS BUY USED. I often do.

Lynn K.

Wei-Hao Wang

Aug 22, 2022

At the end, the price reflects the quality. You do get what you pay for. When something is incredibly cheap, you should know there will be problems.

That being said, there is one thing that's quite different nowadays. Twenty years ago when the market was dominated by products from US, Japan, Europe, you could easily identify something that's incredibly cheap. If you are brave enough to buy it, you are prepared for what's coming. Nowadays the market if full of products that are way too cheap for their classes. "Reasonably priced" products are much less popular. So you don't realize that the dominating products are actually unreasonably cheap. You buy it, expect it to work, and then get disappointed.

Don't get me wrong, I also buy those low-priced products you guys mentioned in this thread. Most of the time I am lucky and things work OK. But I did get my share of bad luck and had troubles from time to time. I know that't the consequence of choosing low-price products and I live with it.

kuechlew

Topic starter

Aug 22, 2022

Interesting thoughts, so maybe we newbies just have a different and potentially wrong perspective what "low-priced" and "reasonably-priced" means in a niche market.

Clear skies
Wolfgang

Chris White- Overcast Observatory

Aug 22, 2022

Interesting thoughts, so maybe we newbies just have a different and potentially wrong perspective what "low-priced" and "reasonably-priced" means in a niche market.

Clear skies
Wolfgang

On the flip side while poor QC is inexcusable in my opinion, we also have access to pretty incredible gear at low prices. When I started mono cmos didn't exist. I thought I would never be able to go mono as the cheapest option was north of $4000. Now you can buy a mono camera for under a grand.

The only way to get companies to up their QC game is to hold them accountable. That, unfortunately is not what the broader community does. Good for ZWO/QHY, bad for the consumer.

Wei-Hao Wang

Aug 22, 2022

Interesting thoughts, so maybe we newbies just have a different and potentially wrong perspective what "low-priced" and "reasonably-priced" means in a niche market.

Clear skies
Wolfgang

That's one way to look at it. I don't think it's a bad thing. Overall, the low-priced products greatly expand this hobby. If the market remains like 20 years ago, we won't be here and there will still be only small groups of people doing astrophotography. As I said, I also buy them, so I do believe they are useful. We just need to manage (or recalibrate) our expectation.

Matthew Proulx

Aug 22, 2022 · Edited: Aug 22, 2022

Interesting thoughts, so maybe we newbies just have a different and potentially wrong perspective what "low-priced" and "reasonably-priced" means in a niche market.

Clear skies
Wolfgang

On the flip side while poor QC is inexcusable in my opinion, we also have access to pretty incredible gear at low prices. When I started mono cmos didn't exist. I thought I would never be able to go mono as the cheapest option was north of $4000. Now you can buy a mono camera for under a grand.

The only way to get companies to up their QC game is to hold them accountable. That, unfortunately is not what the broader community does. Good for ZWO/QHY, bad for the consumer.

Good example is ZWO facebook page. Make any comment about QC or any kind of defect and you get a whole bunch of fan bois after you saying "mInE iS fInE" "wOrKs FoR mE". Thats great and for a majority of the people, their products work. But to dismiss the small amount that don't isnt acceptable IMO.

kuechlew

Topic starter

Aug 22, 2022

I assume this is a version of the Stockholm syndrome (Stockholm syndrome - Wikipedia)

Clear skies
Wolfgang

andrea tasselli

Frequent contributor

Aug 22, 2022

It would be alright to buy a crappy mount that sell with the health warning "I'm a piece of dung but if you really put the effort into it you can get a half-decent mount out of me" because you know exactly what you're buying into. Point is with some manufacturer you won't even be able to expect that if you pay more you'll get a better quality product. Truth is they take their customers as beta-testers and QCers all rolled into one.

John Hayes

Frequent contributor

Aug 22, 2022 · Edited: Aug 22, 2022

I've bought a lot of stuff and in my view, Astro-Physics is at the top of heap in terms of quality. Their products are beautifully built, with excellent performance, perfect fit and finish, and their customer service is superb. The weakest part of any AP mount is the software but even that isn't all that bad.

I love the folks at Planewave and I really like my CDK20 and L500 mount but I had to spend nearly a year fixing all of the problems that came with it. The folks at Planewave were really good about it but IMHO, they have a way to go in the "quality" department. Just some of the stuff that I had to deal with: The scope was not properly baffled, the dust shroud was mounted to cut into the optical beam, the dovetail support was so bad that I returned it and bought one from AP, the inside of the mount where you run wires was filthy, and the covers on the L500 mount basically don't fit. I had to file open all of the screw holes just to get the covers back on after I removed them to run the wiring and even then they only go on one way. You cannot rotate, interchange, or flip a cover. They are all matched just one way to their respective access port. That's the kind of fit you get when you hand drill the holes! Really?? I absolutely love the performance of the L500 and I'd buy another one in a heartbeat, but they really need to clean up their act in manufacturing! And yes, I've told Rick all about this stuff so this shouldn't be any surprise to my friends at PW. I wish that they hadn't delivered equipment with so many problems because I think that the folks at PW are doing some really innovative things.

The biggest problem with astro-gear quality (in my opinion) is that we are still using USB! USB can be a total headache--particularly when you have to incorporate a hub! There has to be a better way! At the very least, I wish that we had USB with screw-together connector on all astro-gear and hubs that worked reliably at high speed. USB has the ability to make anything look flaky.

- John

Helpful Engaging

Arun H

Frequent contributor

Aug 22, 2022

The funny thing is I recall that some years ago, ZWO was known for its support. That was when they had just come out with the ASI1600 which truly brought cooled deep sky cameras to the masses. Their growth, success, and lack of an alternative that’s quality conscious even if a bit more expensive has changed them. Why focus on tight manufacturing tolerances and quality control if you can make money without?

Well Written Insightful

SemiPro

IOTD Staff

Aug 22, 2022

The funny thing is I recall that some years ago, ZWO was known for its support. That was when they had just come out with the ASI1600 which truly brought cooled deep sky cameras to the masses. Their growth, success, and lack of an alternative that’s quality conscious even if a bit more expensive has changed them. Why focus on tight manufacturing tolerances and quality control if you can make money without?

Everyone loves to rag on ZWO (myself included from time to time) but they do offer decent customer support. At the end of the day that is one of the important things to me. Even a company like Takahashi is gonna make mistakes. The question then becomes what are they willing to do to make it right?

I never had this issue on my 2600MC but I was glad to see they addressed it:https://astronomy-imaging-camera.com/news/oil-leak-issue-on-asi2600mc-pro-and-other-cameras.html

Well Written

Arun H

Frequent contributor

Aug 22, 2022

Lynn had a nice post on the oil leak issue specifically. It took them until it cut into profits to address it. A counterpoint- I bought a Tak E130D that gave me triangular stars regardless of what I did. Tak took it back after 4 months. They could have claimed it was well after the evaluation period which was 14 days. They made it clear my satisfaction and confidence was important. I doubt ZWO will do that. The oil leak is one issue. The other is the general fit these cameras are made to. If you want to make the best use of your optics, you pretty much have to budget for some type of tilt correction.

Ed Dixon

Aug 22, 2022 · Edited: Aug 22, 2022

I started with Celestron gear and the 8SE and ALT-AZ mount. That was followed by their AVX mount, WO scopes, assorted ZWO astro cams, and then later the smaller iOptron Sky Guider Pro package. I do a combo of astro things including DSO, planetary, lunar, solar, and wide field things with a Nikon D780 and 14mm lens on a SGP. I recently added an iOptron HEM27, which has really worked out well! I have had few issues with QC.

did have a problem with an iOptron tripod that had the wrong bolt, but they quickly fixed that issue with a replacement. I have had very good luck dealing with them on gear, tech questions, and products. It's been the same great support with the HEM27, which was one of the first out the door on their initial shipment.

My AVX actually worked quite well, but as the years have ticked by, the weight (at 47 lb) was giving my back problems. The HEM27 is 13 lb. It's also easier to set up, as there are fewer items to configure. The polar scope is already there, and the power supply can do both mount and ZWO camera cooler. Their cable management options also help with fewer steps.

Helpful

Does astrophotography gear suffer from a lack of quality control?