Re: [APML] Re: G-11

["Joseph/Leslie Schaefer" <schaefer@htva.net>]

Gene and Bert, thanks for the reply
  Although I was curious why Bert would move to the AP900 I know the two
mounts are worlds apart concerning quality and payload. I think its
statements like Berts, implying the quality of the two mounts are almost
equal, that lead some someone new to high end equipment to assume that they
are equal. Thus the expectations are higher than they should be. There are
reasons that one mount can cost $3k more then another. With that said, I
also think it's up to the buyer to read all the reviews they can to
determine what mount is best for them. Hopefully the person reviewing the
equipment will have a more subjective view point.
  I think the more important issue is how well does the company service its
product.
Joe.

----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Horr <genehorr@texas.net>
To: <astro-photo@seds.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: [APML] Re: G-11


> Joseph/Leslie Schaefer wrote:
>
> > Why move to an AP900 if the G-11 works fine? They both handle
approximately
> > the same load. (60 for the G11 and 70 for the AP900)
>
> The G-11 is nowhere near as stable at 60# than an AP900 is at the same
> weight.  Nor will it track near as well.  The G-11 IMO is really
engineered
> more for a 35# - 40# payload photographically.  The 60# rating is
advertising.
> Yes, it will carry that load without anything breaking, but you aren't
going
> to get a high percentage of good images.
>
> Gene Horr
> genehorr@texas.net
>
> --  APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/>  ---
>              Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>


--  APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/>  ---
             Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>