Roland, You've got me confused with that statement. Are you staying the Eagle is more stable for a 180mm refractor than a permanent setup? Am I just reading your comment wrong? Thanks, Eric

Last I heard the person who bought that lens managed to drop it and chip the glass. I don't recall the name anymore. Roland

The Mach2 major parts have the following weights: Base - 12 lb RA axis - 13.2 lb Dec axis - 17.2 lb The mount can be separated from the base by removing 6 screws. Actually only 4 are really

I don’t yet have my AP1100 (comes soon). I’ve never used a german equatorial mount, so I’m clearly getting ahead of myself. I hope to use the APPM tracking model with APCC for photometry with

Hey Roland. Yes, you called it your "Mars Lens". I made a straight through bino-friendly (the old Celestron viewer) OTA around it with a Parks fiberglass tube (in retrospect, the fiberglass was not a

Mojo, You do realize that the Mach1 can also be divided into two pieces. As I recall you just remove 6 bolts. It only takes a minute. Woody

🤣 just a lot lighter than the Mach2

I watched all 1 hour and 16 minutes of the video. It seems like this one is geared more for the APCC users with more experience. I would be interested to see something more like a getting started with

yep, I rem,ember doing that with my Nikon camera and Tri-X film. Whatever happened to that 7"F15 lens? It was one of the first lenses we ever made. Rolando

Yes indeed, it's about the right focal length for that object to fit in my little APS sensor. 1312mm +- Rolando

That's great Roland and what a wonderful story. Yeah, looking back, the days of film seem down right barbarous today. For lunar/planetary shots, I did the old "hat trick". I'd focus the old

Great stuff Roland! 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻 I always marvel at the incredible works posted by this group but it is so fun to see the results of impromptu pix. That’s some kinda nice “telephoto”

Hi Astronuts, I uploaded a second image taken at my Hawaii observatory. While cruising around the southern skies with my 175 refractor, visually, I was struck by the brightness and beauty of this

Yeah, I'll second that. I love my Mach 1 (original issue with updates, many years old). The 1100 is actually easier to schlep because it divides into smaller pieces. I can still lift

Another great, straight forward reply Roland and thanks. Jeff

Both mounts are about the same size mechanically. The extra weight comes from the following: The Mach2 is heavier, in part, because it uses a pair of high power servo-stepper motors with belt drive

TBH, anything that involves counterweights is going to be on the heavy side by default. There's just no way around that single most important aspect when it come to weight translating into

NO on the Mach1 being little and light-weight. Got one – and as the years go on, it keeps putting on weight. It’s already at my limit to schlepp around just the mount in a rolling case. And

No I mean Mach1. The Mach2 is a great mount but on the heavy side.

You mean a Mach 2?