I've not owned a Giro, but I've heard many good things about those mounts as well. I just chose the DM because 1) stability, 2) integrated encoders (yes, I'm lazy when it comes to star hopping) and 3) did I mention stability yet? :-) My mount happens to be reasonably close to orthogonal (no, this is not quantitative), but I agree that that has nothing to do with the design and everything to do with the machining. Another potential advantage of the DM is that you don't have to rebalance the scope once you've done the preliminiary setup (unless you change the scope you are putting on the mount).
Cheers!
Mark
----- Original Message ----
From: Charlie Wicks <cwicks1@earthlink.net>
To: The Astronomy Connection <sf-bay-tac@seds.org>
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 12:59:07 PM
Subject: Re: [TAC] Re: kind of a cool mount
Don't assume that this mount will absolutely orthogonal. That's totally
dependent on the quality of the machining. I don't see any advantages
to this design which would make it inherently easier to machine it
orthogonal, and in reality, it's precision is probably no better than a
Giro-2. However, attaching encoders to the Giro, might be a bit
difficult.
Charlie
On Mar 31, 2006, at 11:34 AM, Mark Buxbaum wrote:
> I am pondering a DM-4 versus a Giro-2 for a 4.5" refractor.
> The DM-4 with encoders will absolutely be orthogonal for DSC's.
> OTOH the Giro-2 allows adding counterweights, allowing for a larger
> scope down the line.
> (I've heard a rumor that the DM may be looking at adding counterweight
> support.)
> The Giro is 1/2 the cost.
> Decisions, decisions.
> Mark
>
Received on Fri Mar 31 13:57:50 2006