Basic HEQ5 not worth it?

[ianpwilliams]

I'm considering buying an HEQ5. I don't want the PRO version because I don't want a GOTO, which leaves the Syntrek for £635 on FLO. But the basic HEQ5 (now discontinued on FLO) is as low as £480 elsewhere.

But FLO say it's meant for visual (I will want to do photography too), and I hear the motors are inferior.

So is the basic HEQ5 not worth getting?

[Bizibilder]

If you buy the basic model you would have to replace the motors if you wanted to go to Synscan or Syntrek specification - more or less essential if you want to venture into Astrophotography.  The cost of the new motors and handset is far greater than the difference in price between the basic and Synscan mount  £325 for this:  http://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-mounts/synscan-pro-goto-version-3-upgrade-kit-for-heq5.html  (They don't do an upgeade from basic to Syntrek)

I have an HEQ5 and bought the Syntrek version, to upgrade to a full guideable goto system (for photography) I used EQMOD (freeware) and an EQDIR cable  http://www.firstlightoptics.com/astronomy-cables-leads-accessories/hitecastro-eqdir-adapter.html  The only downside is that you need a laptop to run the software - if you already have one then this is effectively "free".  The lappy can be used to control both the mount and your camera.

[ianpwilliams]

I see, so it is worth investing the extra money in the Syntrek. Thanks for that.

As for laptops, that'll have to come later, but I'm assured that photography is possible without a laptop.

[ronin]

For astrophotography you need motors at least, the mount has to follow the object across the sky.

Motors can be simple dual motors RA/Dec. they will probably allow 30-60 second tracking before trailing starts to be visible.

A goto system on it's own is much the same as dual motors.

To add guiding you need the goto system for the guide scope/camera to provide feedback to the goto system, that should enable longer exposures of up to several minutes.

So it depends on where and how far you intend to go with the imaging side.

[Bizibilder]

The motors in the basic mount and the Syntrek/Synscan are completely different.  If you want to go the photography route you will need the proper stepper motors and therefore will save money in the long run by buying the mount with them already fitted.

[ianpwilliams]

For astrophotography you need motors at least, the mount has to follow the object across the sky.

Motors can be simple dual motors RA/Dec. they will probably allow 30-60 second tracking before trailing starts to be visible.

A goto system on it's own is much the same as dual motors.

To add guiding you need the goto system for the guide scope/camera to provide feedback to the goto system, that should enable longer exposures of up to several minutes.

So it depends on where and how far you intend to go with the imaging side.

So for photography, a GOTO system would allow longer exposures? I didn't know that. I wasn't bothered about GOTO because I want to find objects myself, but maybe I could go PRO and just use the GOTO when doing photography.

[malc-c]

Again, like the advantage of buying the syntrek saves a few bob over buying the basic and the motor upgrade kit, buying the pro goto with the handset saves a few bob over buying the syntrek version and later adding the handset.  The advantage of the handset means you don't need a laptop running EQmod and a planetarium program to control the scope. 

The motors and control board in the syntrek and synscan versions are identical, the difference is in the handset.  Most people with a laptop / PC opt for the syntrek version and use EQmod as it also permits the running of software for controlling a camera and guiding software, so have no need for the handset with it's database of stars. 

[chrisshillito]

So for photography, a GOTO system would allow longer exposures? I didn't know that. I wasn't bothered about GOTO because I want to find objects myself, but maybe I could go PRO and just use the GOTO when doing photography.

No, you don't need goto for long exposure imaging - you just need some form of guiding control. Most goto mounts will also come with guiding inputs but that doesn't mean to say you can't guide without goto.

To guide all you need is the ability to change the tracking rate of your mount. There are kits around that provide a rudimentary ST-4 guiding interface by modifying the mounts hand paddle.

Also guiding can be done manually by pressing the hand paddle buttons to keep a guide star on a cross hair - that how folks used to do it before computerisation took over.

However, whilst the above options are possible they aren't the easiest to implement and achieve consistent results with and in this regard the integrated guiding capabilities that come with goto mounts tend to make for a more reliable and capable system for most folks.

Chris.

[malc-c]

So for photography, a GOTO system would allow longer exposures? I didn't know that. I wasn't bothered about GOTO because I want to find objects myself, but maybe I could go PRO and just use the GOTO when doing photography.

The goto function plays little part in the exposure process.  A typical setup would be a syntrek HEQ5 / EQ6 mount, connected to a pc/laptop via an eq direct cable.  On the laptop you would be running EQMod and a planetarium application such as CdC.  By clicking on a target in the software and selecting slew, EQMod moves the scope to the targets position. Now to get  long exposures the scope needs to track the target precisely, so you need a second smaller telescope with a camera fitted, and software running that monitors when the star is moving off target and sends small correction pulses to the mount.  Alternatively you can use an of axis guider and manually correct the tracking using the handset if you want.  If you have the synscan mount you can also connect the handset to the PC and do much of the above.  If you want to locate targets yourself rather than have the scope point them out then opt for the syntrek version.

Whilst the scope is being guided you then want to take multiple exposures of between 3 and 10 minutes depending on how good your skies are.  Again the laptop / pc can do this for you by connecting the camera to the computer and running suitable software.

[Grotemobile]

I'm considering buying an HEQ5. I don't want the PRO version because I don't want a GOTO, which leaves the Syntrek for £635 on FLO. But the basic HEQ5 (now discontinued on FLO) is as low as £480 elsewhere.

But FLO say it's meant for visual (I will want to do photography too), and I hear the motors are inferior.

So is the basic HEQ5 not worth getting?

 

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/celestron-mounts/celestron-cg-5-gt-goto.html

This is the mount I use.Better than a

HEQ-5.I use it on a C11 scope.

[Tinker1947]

If your going to do AP then GoTo is a must, you won't find DSO's through a view finder, you will need to focus the camera on a bright star then slew to the DSO, trying this with out GoTo will leave you spending all night try to find a object that you may not beable to see...

[ianpwilliams]

That Celestron looks good, but it doesn't look like it would take the weight of a 150PDS or the 200PDS that i was considering getting.

As for laptops, I haven't got one at the moment, and I wouldn't be buying one anytime soon, what with expense of the mount; scope, camera etc. So that being the case, it sounds like the PRO would be the only option.

[davefrance]

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/celestron-mounts/celestron-cg-5-gt-goto.html

This is the mount I use.Better than a

HEQ-5.I use it on a C11 scope.

In what respect is it better?

Certainly not payload looks more like EQ5

CG-5 GT: Payload Capacity is approx 7kg for imaging and 10kg for visual

HEQ5: Payload capacity: 11kg for imaging, 15kg for visual

[ollypenrice]

So for photography, a GOTO system would allow longer exposures? I didn't know that. I wasn't bothered about GOTO because I want to find objects myself, but maybe I could go PRO and just use the GOTO when doing photography.

No, a GoTo has nothing to do with the tracking accuracy. The stepper motors on the higher models can respond more precisely to guide commands and reduce guiding errors, but that is a separate issue from GoTo.

I would strongly advise you to use GoTo for astrophotography for reasons unconnected with guiding. 1) It saves you time, of which you never have enough. 2) You will be imaging things that cannot be seen in the telescope (or in any telescope) and your DSLR will need long exposures even to tell you if you have them in the field of view. 3) finding critical focus is a tricky business. You  don't want to be redoing it after having taken out the camera to put in an eyepiece. Terrible waste of time. You have to orientate the camera perfectly each time as well.

Olly

Edit; Aplogies to Tinker1947 who beat me to it.

[ollypenrice]

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/celestron-mounts/celestron-cg-5-gt-goto.html

This is the mount I use.Better than a

HEQ-5.I use it on a C11 scope.

I doubt that you do deep sky imaging with a C11 on a small mount like that, though?

Olly

[GuillermoBarrancos]

That Celestron looks good, but it doesn't look like it would take the weight of a 150PDS or the 200PDS that i was considering getting.

As for laptops, I haven't got one at the moment, and I wouldn't be buying one anytime soon, what with expense of the mount; scope, camera etc. So that being the case, it sounds like the PRO would be the only option.

Do not go for the CG5! Listen to what others say. Especially if you have a 200P you want to Mount on it!

A HEQ5 Pro or the New Celestron Advanced VX Mount is the minimum to go for.

The CG5 is not a bad Mount, but it doesn´t have as much payload capacity. 5-6 kg for photography and 10kg max for Visual. A C11 SCT is going way over the max recommended load capacity of a CG5, even for Visual!

The HEQ5 Pro and Advanced VX have about 9-10kg load capacity for photography and 15kg for Visual.

[Grotemobile]

In what respect is it better?

 

Certainly not payload looks more like EQ5

 

CG-5 GT: Payload Capacity is approx 7kg for imaging and 10kg for visual

HEQ5: Payload capacity: 11kg for imaging, 15kg for visual

 

Your right.It is sold with the C11 which weighs

28lbs.The Celestron has a easier set up with the

hand set.I have put a new saddle on mine.I use

it for imaging with no problems

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-mounts/skywatcher-eq5-pro-synscan-goto.html

This is the mount I was thinking of

Steve

[ollypenrice]

Your right.It is sold with the C11 which weighs

28lbs.The Celestron has a easier set up with the

hand set.I have put a new saddle on mine.I use

it for imaging with no problems

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-mounts/skywatcher-eq5-pro-synscan-goto.html

This is the mount I was thinking of

Steve

You do deep sky imaging with a C11 on that mount? Or fast frame planetary?

Olly

[GuillermoBarrancos]

You do deep sky imaging with a C11 on that mount? Or fast frame planetary?

Olly

Yeah I find that very hard to believe. As a barebones C11 OTA alone already weights 13,1 kg. Then we have to add guiding Equipment, filterwheel, camera to it. Which would bring the total weight easily on 15kg.

That would be close to 280% the recommended weight for Astrophotography on the CG-5.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

That Celestron looks good, but it doesn't look like it would take the weight of a 150PDS or the 200PDS that i was considering getting.

As for laptops, I haven't got one at the moment, and I wouldn't be buying one anytime soon, what with expense of the mount; scope, camera etc. So that being the case, it sounds like the PRO would be the only option.

Weight is not the whole story. Vixen rate my Great Polaris mount (the CG-5 and EQ5 are clones of the GP) as suitable for an 8" SCT, 6" Newtonian or 4" refractor. The reason for this is that the length of the tube has a profound influence on the moment of inertia. It is much easier to control a compact little tube of a C8 compared to the long 200 PDS, even if they weighed the same. 

[ollypenrice]

Weight wasn't the only reason for my question. It also concerned the accuracy needed to DS image at C11 focal lengths.

Olly

[Grotemobile]

This is the scope & a couple of picts

Done with a 132 IMG camera

Steve

moon.tif

Mars.tif

Saturn-0(2)(2).tif

[ollypenrice]

This is the scope & a couple of picts

Done with a 132 IMG camera

Steve

Right, so this is fast frame imaging in which the wobbles of the mount and the atmosphere are removed by aligning frames on the object. Since the OP is not wanting to use a laptop I'm assuming he is talking about deep sky imaging and this is a totally different matter. Being undermounted is not an option for DS though you can and do get away with it for fast frame imaging.

Olly

[Grotemobile]

Weight wasn't the only reason for my question. It also concerned the accuracy needed to DS image at C11 focal lengths.

Olly

I dont do DSOs.Not with my setup.

I would not know where to start.

A C11 would be the last scope i

would use for that.If i had a

obsey,it might be different.

I am happy what i am doing.

Steve

[Grotemobile]

This is the set up i use.

Steve