S@N review of the AZEQ6

[dawson]

My mount was reviewed in the september 2013 edition of the S@N magazine (also the 100th edition of the mag); [tibbz, i'll post it once Leigh has read it too].

It was an ok review but fairly superficial. No mention of the belted system, the periodic error correction or how long they could get it to track without star trailing (unguided).

They did talk briefly about the encoders, and interestingly identified the mount needs to be turned off after polar aligning because rotating around the RA stimulates the encoders and subsequently upsets the alignment.... Very interesting.

As with nearly everything which gets reviewed, it got at least 80% in all domains.

James

[Guest devil74]

So having read that J will you be doing anything different aligning wise once your cone error is sorted?

[dawson]

I'll defo power off once i've polar aligned, which is a pain as lately i've been using the handset to tell me the settings for the polarscope, but i might start using an app i've got on my phone and then quickly power up once polar aligned.

James

[Guest devil74]

One day when you set up J I'd like to be there so I have a better understanding generally...might understand this other language then too.

[philjay]

It was an ok review but fairly superficial. No mention of the belted system, the periodic error correction or how long they could get it to track without star trailing (unguided).

James

This is why I don't bother with UK based mag reviews they are very superficial. Dumbed down considerably with lots of glossy pictures taking up column space, saves on the written word I spose.

There is ANother UK mag which is slightly betterthan S@N IMHO but I still despair of their reviews especially the quick reviews, Typically the columnist has a 1/4 column to review each item so what does he do? Spends 2/3 of that column rambling on about nothing related to the actual item itself. Not very helpful.

 

I have never bought anything based on UK mag reviews because of this.

 

I find Sky and Telescope reviews to be the most useful, accurate and reasonably unbiased.

[dawson]

I don't read S@N or Astronomy Now for the equipment reviews, but I do find lots of the other stuff quite interesting, largely because I have limited knowledge about things; I suspect someone who has been around for some time in astronomy might find them less useful.

 

The forums are the best places for reviews I've found as this is the cutting face and seeing what good and bad features new kit has.

 

James

[dawson]

 Damian, you are welcome to watch, but I'm not slick. If you want to watch someone setting up an equatorial mount then I'd go for someone like Mike, of Martyn.

 

JD
 

[dawson]

A much better review of the kit itself here:

 

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/blog/skywatcher-az-eq6-gt-review-part-1.html

 

I'm hoping part two of his review in time will focus on using the mount and what it can achieve.

 

James

[Guest ollypenrice]

As a reviewer I'll admit that we are given a limited word count but, within that, I personally do what I can to keep the waffle to a minimum in Astronomy Now. My last review (of the Atik 11000) looked honestly at the issues behind using a full frame camera like this; the need for a clean 46mm image circle, highly orthognal telescope mechanical parts, expensive 2 inch filters, and I also discussed an issue I had with the first test camera and how that was resolved. I didn't fill up the review with numbers available from Atik's website but, rather, tried to descibe how it was to use in the field. I also included two images taken with it (surely this is essential?) to show how deep it could go in moderate exposure time and what the uncropped FOV looked like at a certain focal length. Plus one of the camera. (I'm incredibly good looking and frightfully well dressed but I didn't include one of myself...  ) Now this isn't 'advertorial' reviewing where one might say, 'This is a perfect camera for any imager to use in their Seben 3 inch Newt on alt az mount...' I spoke to two other owners before submitting the copy and my contact details were in there so I'm available for private communication/further questions/grilling/roundly abusing!!!

 

Anyone reading my reviews will find that they tend to be at least moderately favourable. There is a reason for this. I decline to review kit that I know (or suspect) to be junk. Reviewing kit disrupts the work of the observatory considerably and I have, on occasion, spent over 20 hours on a test which proved to be of erroniously specified equipment. This is quite a blow, to be honest, especially in the high season, and I do my best to make sure it doesn't happen.

 

I have never been under editorial pressure to write more favourably (you have my absolute word on this) and, were I ever to be so pressured, would be out of there like a shot. I depend on reputation and wouldn't compromise that for a few bob earned on the side by writing. I'd have to be mad.*  Besides, I'm acutely aware of the fact that someone might, if I were corrupt or careless, waste their cash on bad gear. (I know nobody here is accusing reviewers of this, by the way.)

 

Olly

 

*OK, this is a weak argument since all astrophotographers are mad...

Edited October 7, 2013 by ollypenrice