I tend to agree with you re: the aluminum tripod being a really weak link. I had an EQ3-2 mount once that was fitted with an HEQ5 tripod (1.75" steel tubed) and it was like a different mount altogether. It carried a 120mm F/8.3 refractor well for visual observing whereas it was jelly-like with the alu tripod.

A nice hardwood tripod is even better but I guess it's too much to expect mass-production mounts to be supplied with those !

i totally agree with you Neil, its nearer a EQ5 once you change the legs. clear skys charl.

Thanks. I sometimes think people are scared off when they cost up an 'imaging' setup, so I think it's important they realise what can be done with basic gear.

I use to work from an EQ3-2 that I bought with scope bout 3yrs back the alli legs were ok if that, problem I had with it was the plastic parts that go into the top of the legs that were then screwed from outside of leg to hold in place then attached to plate at top where mount sat, the screws just kept working loose which then caused it to not tighten up an also the plastic parts snapped on 2 of the legs so had to find replacements as gluing wasn't gunna help. upgraded to EQ5 legs an was almost a different mount so much sturdier was just getting into AP then think I was upto 60 sec subs unguided before I came across the HEQ5 recently, The mount also benefited from a stripdown & regrease from a walk throu that someone had posted on a website.

Yes, I agree, I'm getting 80 second subs from my EQ3 with the new style polarscope, and I reckon I can easily get up to 2 minutes, I just haven't tried yet.

Some people have tried filling the EQ3 tripod with sand to make them more stable. There is also this thread on stripping down and tuning up the EQ3 which could be useful.

Thanks. I sometimes think people are scared off when they cost up an 'imaging' setup, so I think it's important they realise what can be done with basic gear.

Yes, I also think unguided imaging at short-focal length is a good and relatively inexpensive route into imaging.

Thanks, I already found the strip down thread. I do plan to do that.

My EQ3 tripod is partly sand filled, braced with bits of studding and one leg aluminium welded solid!

I replaced the top with the top of a Bresser EQ1 type tripod/mount and have a pretty good mount for small scopes.

I also agree, I had an EQ5 and an EQ3 at the same time a few years back.

I thought from a "Mount" point of view the EQ3 was better.

Here's a rather belated update.

I've discovered two issues with my current setup:

• When pointing high I get double and mis-shapen stars. i think this is a combination of backlash in DEC and the fact that the out-of balance I use to combat this becomes negligible. I will try and reduce the backlash and try using a bungee or some other way of 'preloading' the DEC axis.
• My RA stepper had a jerky movement. this has been solved.

As a test of the improved stepping I made a single 2-minute sub after focusing on Arcturus the other evening as an experiment. This was with a relatively light setup, but subs taken later with the 150PL at 60 seconds were clearly much 'tighter'. Obviously this sub was over-exposed and it has only been stretched and colour corrected, but I think it shows that the EQ3-2 can do reasonable sub lengths given my LP-cursed skies.

I started a thread for people to show what they are doing with EQ3 mounts.

I've just posted an image of M27 using 68 minutes of 120-second subs using the 130P-DS in the thread. Looking at the subs, a few are 'eggy' but not enough to worry about.

Just did an experiment comparing two images 224 minutes apart, aligned using my polarscope, the drift over 224 minutes was 102 pixels in one direction, 56 in the other. A bit of Pythagorus shows the drift was ~0.5 pixels per minute or 1 pixel during each exposure.

Obviously this doesn't include any allowance for drift caused by periodic error, the mount sticking or waving in the wind, but it shows the basic tracking is accurate enough for 2 minute subs as long as other issues are minor (which it is). It also suggests that if I want to go beyond 2 minutes I might start thinking of guiding or improving my PA.