Wellcome to "Montidatenbank.de"
This website shall give an overview of mounts and their load capacity to aspiring and ambitious, but also to experienced amateur astronomers. For that, voluntary information’s and experiences - given by users - have been entered into a database. This information’s are viewed in a table. So if you looking for a new mount you can go here to see the experiences of other amateur astronomers who have used the mount you looking for already or have the mount still in use.
In this database are two tables: one for photographically and one for visually used mount-optic-combinations. Everyone, who could already gain experience, can participate in the increase of the volume of the data - without coercion and without registration.
If you want to enter data, please click on the corresponding button and fill out the form that opens, and then submit:
You can view the tables with the existing entries by using the next two buttons. There you can also search for mounts:
If something does not work or entries should be changed etc., please send me an e-mail: Email
The contents of the created tables are based -as mentioned at the outset- on data given from amateur astronomers, who have the listed instruments and equipment, or had once owned / used. Some missing information on the weight of the setup ("telescope weight") were partially researched by the author and then added (at the beginning of the data collection). All information should be understood as indications and are given expressly without guarantee.
The data that have been made to the beginning of the data collection (10th November 2008), can be viewed in detail at Astronomie.de or Astrotreff.de (both sites in German, you can translate the sites with any online-translater). Other information’s, which are not listed there, received the author via email or as PM on forums. Since 24th March 2009, almost all further entries were entered by visitors of this website with help of the above linked forms.
The stated "rates" of mount-telescope-combinations may not be absolutely valid statements, because the perception and the expectation on a mount are to be classified as subjective. This is especially true for visually used combinations.
The mount including base (tripod / pier) is the basis for the telescope + Accessories (fastening devices, eyepieces and / or zenith prisms and mirrors, cameras, etc.). The information provided by the manufacturer / seller of mounts almost ALWAYS refers to the load by the telescope weight WITHOUT counterweight (!). A pier instead of a tripod offers a lot of more stability. I expressly ask you to note this!
The "maximum load capacity" of a mount is always a bit tricky. Because the ACTING WEIGHT to the mount (actually "force", "overturning moment" or "leverage") is certainly also depending on the WEIGHT - but much more on the DESIGN (diameter and length) of the telescope. The larger a telescope is, the more shall take effect of the leverage - what will have an adverse influence on the stability. Also, the susceptibility in wind increases with the size of the telescope.
So e.g. a Maksutov SKM127/1540 (ca. 3,4 kg without accessories) can be carried "easily" by an EQ3, while the same mount with a refractor ED100/900 (just ca. 3 kg!) can literally go in the knee. The reason for this is the construction length of the refractor (ca. 920 mm) compared to the Maksutov (330 mm!). So here, with the refractor, the leverage is enormously. This is important to note! The same applies of course to the diameter of a telescope.
The so called "dampening time" is in general the time, which the complete combination (tripod/pier, the mount with counterweight and telescope + accessories etc.) requires to reach a non-vibration status after focusing (the observed object "trembles" no longer in the eyepiece). Stable combinations have a little to no dampening time. Overloaded mounts, however, require > 2-3 seconds - the focusing is almost impossible. Therefore, such combination is quite often rated as "not ok" - also for visual observation.
There are two tables, one for "visually" and one for "photographically" used combinations.
Generally applies to the tables, that the combinations which were rated photographically as "ok" are also visually rated as "ok". Therefore, these combinations of the table "photographically" are not again entered in the table "visually". On the other hand it is however possible, a combination, that has been rated only in the table for "visually" as "ok", can be also "ok" for photographically use.
