Re: [APML] G11 Tracking problem (double star)

["Bert Katzung" <katzung1@attbi.com>]

Hi Jon:
Very well said. When you have time (and if you want to wade through the
thread) you'll see that quite a large number of us strongly supported the
G-11---some with no modifications, some with a few, but Greg ignored these
or refused to believe them. Apparently he had some very traumatic experience
with Losmandy, but he never said what. The one time I needed a replacement
(due entirely to my own stupidity resulting in a smashed motor connector),
Scott over-night shipped a replacement. So, not only has  the mount been a
good product for me, my experience with the service from Losmandy was also
excellent.
Bert

Bert Katzung
katzung1@attbi.com
www.astronomy-images.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Kolb" <jkolb@datawest.net>
To: <astro-photo@seds.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 9:09 PM
Subject: RE: [APML] G11 Tracking problem (double star)


> Greg,
>
> I guess I missed most of this thread, so some of my following comments
> may be a bit out of context as the discussion has progressed.
> Nevertheless, let me weigh-in as a five-year G-11 user, for
> astrophotography only.  And let me aplogize in advance for a long
> response.
>
> I'm an engineer, so I'm bound by profession to always consider a
> potentially better solution to any particluar problem than the one I
> have in mind at any moment.  For most astrophotography applications, in
> my view, the G-11 is more than adequate.  There are always better mounts
> (and thus better solutions) available, but for the money involved, it's
> incredibly difficult to make a case against the G-11 for what it does
> for the cost.  If anybody can suggest a mount of near equal cost that
> can track as well as the G-11 for MOST amateur astrophotography
> applications, please share it with us immediately.
>
> In my case, the G-11 served me very well, actually exceptionally well,
> until such time as I acquired a long, heavy refractor with a moment arm
> that was just a tad out of the G-11's reach for precision guiding.  This
> was no average refractor, but a TMB152, which is a handful for any mount
> you may be considering.  The G-11 was damn near close to handling it, by
> the way, and I haven't parted with mine because it's going to find other
> uses in the future.
>
> Greg, you wrote the following statements:
>
> "Nobody tells them about the new gears or motors or tinkering or
> rebuilding or large amounts of money that can equal the purchase cost,
> that they must invest to get it to work. It's only after they get it
> home and the reality of the situation sets in, that they realize all
> these things. I really don't consider it "bashing" to explain that that
> $1900ish dollars is only the down payment on the mount and it won't be
> until after another spendy investment of time and/or money that it will
> work properly."
>
> I won't tell you about all that stuff either, because there's no story
> to tell for most of the folks who buy this mount.  There is no reason to
> think that the G-11 is in any way substandard to other mounts, provided
> that you keep the weight of your instruments within the published
> tolerances that Losmandy specifies.  The only caveat to this statement
> is that if your instrument is long AND heavy, then you MIGHT, but are
> not destined to have small guiding errors due to the moment arm.  I take
> great exception to your comments (not personally, Greg), because I know
> from real-world field work that the G-11 is up the task on every
> instrument I have put upon it except for this one remarkable long and
> heavy refractor.  I'll put my photos up as collateral - if there's
> something you don't like about my shots, I'll wager big coin that it's
> more due to my inferior processing techniques than could ever be
> attributed to the mount.
>
> Being the poor bastard (it's true, I'm adopted, so lump that into your
> invectives next time) enigineer that I am, I must also take exception
> the following statements:
>
> "If the truth was told by all the supporters of the G11 each would have
> a list of modifications attached to the "great mount" statement. And
> these ares not isolated incidents. Every time someone says to me "it's a
> great mount" I ask them what they have done to it and it always winds up
> that it involves new gears or motors or bearings or all of the above.
> One guy had to put in new gears twice (but it's a great mount NOW).
> Another guy who raved about it admitted later that "well yes I have to
> take a tool kit with me to keep it working. You get used to doing
> repairs"."
>
> Here's some real truth for you (again, this isn't meant personally,
> Greg, but you have me going now):  I have no such list.  All of my work
> up until my most recent shots posted on Sunday just passed were done on
> a totally factory-stock, unmodified G-11.  Almost five years worth of
> field work in dusty, windy, high-altitude conditions. OK, you may not
> think much of my work, and I know that others don't think it's the best
> that can be seen, but there is no shred of evidence that any of the
> shortcomings of my photos are due in any way due to the quality of the
> mount.  If there are flaws in my images (and there are many), it's
> because of my shortcomings, not the G-11.
>
> About "Bashing" - you are entitled to your opinion, and I'll be the
> first on board to shoot the guy who says you're not.  For what it's
> worth, I'm a pretty good shot. You say:
>
> "This might be considered "bashing" but I consider it truth in
> advertising and I really hope that this "bashing" I'm doing will help
> open someone's eye to the fact that when you lay your hard earned money
> down for the "great" G11 mount, it's only the beginning. I wish someone
> would have posted this letter before I spent my money on one."
>
> Fine.  If the G-11 didn't work for you, then I'm sorry to hear that.
> But if you are trying to steer other folks away from it based on your
> single data point of experience, then you are treading a difficult line.
> You cite lots of other folks who have had to, by your assessment of the
> available information, almost totally rebuild their mounts.  Like most
> people attempting to make a big splash in "revealing" something to the
> general public, you have failed to take into account the large number of
> users who have had none of the issues you've mentioned - me among them.
> Perhaps I was lucky, but it's awfully broad-brush of you to denigrate
> the product based on a non-scientific canvass of the users.
>
> For what it's worth to you, I've taken my mount on many adventures, more
> than perhaps you will ever venture to do. In all of my travels, I've
> never encountered a flaw in the device, and for me (and perhaps I'm
> alone in this as you seem to suggest) it's been money well spent by all
> reasonable measure.  Perhaps you would be so kind as to suggest an
> alternative that is both equal in cost and readily available.  I will
> wager that you cannot.  Is it the "perfect" or "best" mount for
> astrophtography - well, that's up the user, I guess.  For many folks,
> it's the only really good mount that they'll ever see, so take that into
> account while you're blasting it.
>
> If you really don't like the mount, just say so - this list is a perfect
> place to do just  that.  But don't excoriate the manufacturer for claims
> he doesn't make (I'm not aware that Losmandy claims his mount is the
> perfect device for astrophotography - do you think he claims this?).
> And by all means please don't attempt to include me, a happy customer,
> in your attempts to discredit the manufacturer of something we all need
> and can actually afford.  The G-11 is an outstanding mount for the money
> - if you think you can get a better mount, have the money to spend, and
> most importantly have the time to wait to get it while the rest of are
> learning something interesting about astrophotography with our
> apparently pitiful G-11, then by all means do it.  When you are happy
> with your gear, post your shots, and I'm sure the members of this list
> will be happy to congratulate you on your wisdom in selecting your
> equipment.
>
> Greg, the bottom line is this: If you've got a better solution for the
> money, then pony it up.  Otherwise, lay off the G-11 - it does the job
> better than most of us are capable of, and it certainly has a long lead
> on anything in it's price range.  Try to keep this mount in perspective
> and recognize it for what it does for its price.
>
> And now I see as I prepare to post this missive to the list and add to
> the discussion, that you have unsubscribed.  What a shortsighted
> decision in light of what could have been learned from the total body of
> responses.  A pity.
>
> Sincerely,
> Jon Kolb
> Adventures in Astrophotography
> http://home.datawest.net/jkolb/
> jkolb@datawest.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>