Ok...I was able to do a very unscientific experiment tonight.
I took several shots, and I'm posting what amounts to the same results.
First...
Here is my setup. I am shooting the silver flashlights. I want to know if my ballhead is in any way "creeping" with the slightest movement due to the downward torque of my camera when sitting on more of side position.
This picture is from my cell phone and is only used to show how i have my setup. The setup is nearly identical when I mount the iOptron to my tripod, only the tripod is positioned more normal. I had to position my tripod in the picture below, so I can try to simulate how my ball head would be sitting on the iOptron; hence, the funky looking setup.
1/20 • f/2 • ISO 1250
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/22VHCJb
20171228_192913
by
Ryan
, on Flickr
Without the iOptron, here is the result....
70mm, ISO 100, F/14, 4 mins
As you can see, a 100% crop shows the image tack sharp with no motion blur from ball head movement.
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/21TMSw5
_MG_0944
by
Ryan
, on Flickr
Here is the typical results I got with the ball head mounted to the iOptron and camera sitting on the side in nearly the same position. YES, THE iOptron WAS OFF.
70mm ISO 100, F/14, 2 mins only
As you can see, there is a noticeable blur. You cannot see the "duracell" logo, because I slightly moved the flashlight and accidentally turned it away from the camera.
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/21TMSub
_MG_0941
by
Ryan
, on Flickr
So...here is my conclusion. If the camera is sitting on more of a side position, the weight is too much on the iOptron drive and will "pull" the motor causing the blur; thus, the need for the counterweight. I have not used the iOptron in real world situations enough to know if I need to position my camera like that. When I have my camera at more of straight on top position, i can get 6+ min exposures with no blur because the weight is not pulling the motor.