NEQ6 V CGEM

[symesie04]

Hi looking for a little impartial feedback really. I am in need of a EQ mount of reasonable quality for astrophotography and sadly cant stretch to the realms of CGE pro's etc. So I have been looking at both the above as possible options. Now the NEQ6 pro synscan is £300 cheaper than the Celestron but is the Celestron £300 better. I know the CGEM GoTo is more advanced but then i think the 13,000 objects of the NEQ6 is going to keep me busy for a while. Both seem to have good reviews and there doesn't appear to be a huge amount of difference in terms of tracking accuracy. Was wondering if anyone out there has had experience of both mounts and can shed some light on real term performance and value for money?.

Thanks in advance.

[Ant]

The number of objects in the GOTO database is of no matter really. As soon as you get into imaging, you chuck the handset away and use SN or Stellarium to move the scope around with a laptop.

Personally I'd go for the EQ6 - but I like SW stuff!

Cheers

Ant

[Tinker1947]

As already said the database don't really matter i use a NEQ6 Pro and very happy with it, tracks ok and never bother with the GoTo as finding stuff by eye gets easier the more you do it, with the £300 saving that would go a long way toward the stuff required for autoguiding, can't comment on the Celestron gear.

[r3i]

Having a NEQ6 I'm naturally going to be a bit biased but I had the same dilemna as you when I got my mount. My main reasons for selecting the NEQ6 over the CGEM were:

• Mature product - most of the gremlins sorted out, and those that haven't (e.g. altitude bolts) are easily addressed.
  
• Built like a tank. Uses stepper motors rather than servo motors, which whilst technically inferior are more resilient.
  
• A wealth of online support from other users.
  
• Plenty of options for upgrading, e.g. hypertuning, ADM dual saddle, Telescope Drive Master
  
• Can use the excellent EQMOD software.
  
• There were quality control issues with the CGEM when I bought my NEQ6 (Early 2010) - not sure if Celestron have now got things sorted or not.
  

As I was getting the mount for imaging and therefore would always be using it with a laptop, I bought the SynTrek version (basic non-goto handset) to save a few quid. The Syntrek handset was replaced with an EqDir interface. Therefore the superiority of the CGEM handset over the SynScan was irrelevant in my case.

One downside of the NEQ6 mount is its weight, which may be an issue for some. Not sure how heavy the CGEM is but another competitor is the IEQ45 which is significantly lighter.

The CGEM has built-in PEC, but PEC is available for the NEQ via EQMOD.

[Dixie]

I'd also go for the NEQ6 - as someone has already said, it's a mature product and there seems issues with some CGEMs judging by the forums (spotty GOTO, random slews, exactly the same thing happened with the CGE a few years ago). EQMOD is also much more fullly featured than Nexstar if you get into imaging - and it's free. I've been really pleased with my NEQ6.

Dixie

[symesie04]

Thanks Gents

r3i thats interesting i thought the NEQ6 pro had built in PEC but guess it doesnt matter if it can be attained via EQMOD which i would certainly be using. Regards the IEQ45 that does look a good bit of kit and yes is much lighter. As i will be needing to travel to dark sites that could be a big benefit. Do you find the NEQ6 is quite manageable by your self?. The IEQ45 is still £300 more expensive and to be honest i know very little of Ioptron so still the dilema

[x6gas]

Thanks Gents

r3i thats interesting i thought the NEQ6 pro had built in PEC but guess it doesnt matter if it can be attained via EQMOD which i would certainly be using. Regards the IEQ45 that does look a good bit of kit and yes is much lighter. As i will be needing to travel to dark sites that could be a big benefit. Do you find the NEQ6 is quite manageable by your self?. The IEQ45 is still £300 more expensive and to be honest i know very little of Ioptron so still the dilema

I have a CGEM DX and absolutely love it, but never owned a NEQ6 (don't expect many people will have actually owned both...).

Can't compare performance but I do like the internal wiring which makes things much tidier - not sure that's worth £300 though - build quality is very high (and it looks amazing)!

The CGEM is very heavy too, so I don't think weight would be something that would split the mounts...

The upgrade options are basically the same for both mounts and both can use EQMOD.

PEC is really only useful if you have a permanent, pier mounted set-up as it relies on the mount being parked in exactly the same spot.

HTH, Ian

[r3i]

Thanks Gents

r3i thats interesting i thought the NEQ6 pro had built in PEC but guess it doesnt matter if it can be attained via EQMOD which i would certainly be using. Regards the IEQ45 that does look a good bit of kit and yes is much lighter. As i will be needing to travel to dark sites that could be a big benefit. Do you find the NEQ6 is quite manageable by your self?. The IEQ45 is still £300 more expensive and to be honest i know very little of Ioptron so still the dilema

Ah my bad: it does have PEC with the SynScan version - I think the PEC in the CGEM though is more advanced due to encoders on the servos. With the NEQ6 you have to ensure you park the mount in between sessions.

As for the weight, I don't lug mine far as I only take it out into the back garden onto a pier so it's no big deal for me.

I think the IEQ45 has been taken up more in the USA than over here so far - there's quite a few lengthy threads on the Cloudy Nights forum about it.

[chrisshillito]

PEC is really only useful if you have a permanent, pier mounted set-up as it relies on the mount being parked in exactly the same spot.

As far as PEC is concerned parking and unparking simply retains the synschronisation between stepper motor and worm position. Parking moves to a known axis position - not an astronomical position and so will not vary with setup. Given that on a NEQ6 the worm position will not change if manually move the mount with the clutch slackened, there is no reason you can't use PEC with a mobile setup. Also with EQMOD, even if you forget to park there are strategies available to resynch the worm/motor position.

Chris.

[x6gas]

I have a CGEM DX and absolutely love it, but never owned a NEQ6 (don't expect many people will have actually owned both...).

Can't compare performance but I do like the internal wiring which makes things much tidier - not sure that's worth £300 though - build quality is very high (and it looks amazing)!

The CGEM is very heavy too, so I don't think weight would be something that would split the mounts...

The upgrade options are basically the same for both mounts and both can use EQMOD.

PEC is really only useful if you have a permanent, pier mounted set-up as it relies on the mount being parked in exactly the same spot.

HTH, Ian

Looks like I am 0 from 2! EQMOD will NOT work with Celestron mounts it appears... and maybe I had misunderstood the PEC thing too - although that is something that I researched after I got my mount and satisfied myself that I couldn't take advantage of it (but given the above perhaps I need to double check).

Apologies for the duff info - broke my own rule of only talking about what I have direct experience of...

Ian (eating humble pie)

[Beyond_Vision]

I have a HEQ5 mount and a CGEM. I bought the CGEM instead of the EQ6Pro down to the fact that it has better adjusters for the Altitude and Azimuth. Out of the box the EQ6 adjusters are very weak. They can be replaced by 3rd party adjusters but the mechanism is still not very smooth. I also liked the idea of the built in polar alignment routine when in the field. I do miss the ease of use of EQMOD but at the end of the day it is really only there to replace the inadequacy of the hand controller. You can still control the CGEM with a planetarium program and use Ascom to interface to other programs.

It's a tough call to make as both mounts are very capable.

[LDUNN1]

......interesting. I have not seen anyone ask you what load you are needing the mount to cope with......maybe that is because there is already an assumption that you have selected the NEQ6 & CGEM based upon your load capacity needs.

I have an NEQ6.

I have a long-ish refractor & the OTA weighs 11kg. But once I add tube rings, mounting plate, diagonal, guide system, cameras etc etc, it starts to add up - I am not where near the 25kg max capacity, BUT because my scope is long, the moment that the mount has to cope with is greater than a shorter scope of similar weight.

That 25kg max load I suspect is for visual use too, for imaging, you want a decent margin to that max capacity.

I think I am 'marginal' for imaging on this mount due to the length of my scope, & I would estimate that I put around 15-17kg total on the mount.

Think about your own requirements in this weight & moment issue.

I'd also recommend the syntrek version (very simple handset), save the money (£110) vs the Synscan (full goto handset) & go the EQMOD & laptop route. I got the Synscan version thinking that the handset might come in handy. This was my first astro mount so the initial 3 or 4 sessions I used the handset, but as soon as I got it all working satisfactory, I ditched the handset in favour of the laptop, got that working, then added a guide system. Basically, I started simple & as soon as I got something working ok, I added another layer of complexity to master. I was just using a DSLR & camera lens for the first 6 months too.

Spend some of your saved money immediately on 3rd party upgraded alt/az adjustment bolts. I knew about the soft alt/azm adjustment bolts & thought 'oh, I'll be ok because I know about the issue I'll just be very careful'......& I still bent one & had a bit of a job subsequently removing it to replace it with a stronger 3rd party item!

I can't comment on how the EQ6 performs vs the CGEM as I have not played with the CGEM, but there are many happy EQ6 owners out there & excellent user support as a result.

To be honest, the EQ6 is not particularly nicely made, rough castings, counter balance weights that rust as soon as you taken them outside etc etc. It's functional, as long as you do not overload it, but its no art piece, but for the money, it is still excellent vs the other options.

If you current & future loading requirements permit, you could save more by going for the HEQ5 Pro, which shares much with the EQ6, but just has less load capacity. Sadly Skywatcher seemed to have stopped offering the HEQ5 syntrek, so there is only about £50 between the HEQ5 Synscan & the EQ6 Syntrek.