EQ8 Owners

[FLO]

I guess I have been lucky with my EQ8 as backlash doesn't seem to be a problem.  

Isn't it remarkable how many people 'got lucky'... 

Seriously, don't lose any sleep Gina. If you trace the stories to their origin you'll find the majority are centred around the same two mounts that were faulty out-of-the-box. This occasionally happens with all mounts, regardless of price and brand, but unfortunately they were publicised across multiple forums at a time when people were hungry for news.

Most EQ8 mounts are just like yours. Assuming you haven't already modified it

Steve

[Gina]

No, I haven't felt the need to modify it in any way Steve   I am well satisfied with it

I think any product at the level that Skywatcher provide will have poorer quality examples that slip through.  Like I found with the Esprit 80ED scope - I was unlucky with my first but the replacement you provided seems perfect - I can find no fault with it.  With the supplied field flattener it is providing superbly flat, clean images  

[FLO]

No, I haven't felt the need to modify it in any way Steve   I am well satisfied with it

Excellent

I think any product at the level that Skywatcher provide will have poorer quality examples that slip through.  

I see things differently (that won't surprise you )

I believe the failure rates of Skywatcher mounts are equal to or better than some brands costing considerably more. The AZ EQ6-GT is a good example, it has been very popular yet faulty ones are rare. Clearly if we look at the lower price models, like the NEQ6 and below, we can see compromises (i.e.bendy bolts!) but when you consider their price... I heard a Taiwanese manufacturer spent three years developing a mount to compete against the NEQ6, then gave up. 

Like I found with the Esprit 80ED scope - I was unlucky with my first but the replacement you provided seems perfect - I can find no fault with it.  With the supplied field flattener it is providing superbly flat, clean images

I think that had more to do with the new spacer. 

I don't normally defend the kit we sell outside of the sponsor section because I will be considered biased (and rightly so) but I have sat on my hands for a while now so felt it was okay to offer a counter-argument. Don't worry, I won't make it a habit 

HTH, 

Steve

[Zakalwe]

I think any product at the level that Skywatcher provide will have poorer quality examples that slip through. 

There was a thread on here recently about a Paramount MX mount that was dead-on-arrival. A colleague of mine, in under 2 years, had two turbos, an ECU and a gearbox replaced on a brand new Mercedes. Another acquaintance has had an engine seize on a two-month old top-end Range Rover. Anything that is mass-produced (even in low volumes) will have failures, even if it is from a "high-end" manufacturer.

[ollypenrice]

I believe the failure rates of Skywatcher mounts are equal to or better than some brands costing considerably more. The AZ EQ6-GT is a good example, it has been very popular yet faulty ones are rare. Clearly if we look at the lower price models, like the NEQ6 and below, we can see compromises (i.e.bendy bolts!) but when you consider their price... I heard a Taiwanese manufacturer spent three years developing a mount to compete against the NEQ6, then gave up. 

Steve

I think that's very true. As I've said several times on other threads the premium mount failure rate out of the box strikes me as being remarkably high. This is on an anecdotal sample of about twenty aquaintances but when more than half have seen significant problems when new then, quite honestly, I'm surprized. It's possible that I happen to know a non-representative collection of owners. 

In the car world we do seem to be seeing the faltering of some great reputations. I wonder if this arises from the sheer complexity of modern designs? This complexity is also a factor for premium mounts with their high level of electronic componentry.

I also think that the only rival for the NEQ6 is the Alt EQ6 and taking it on has, so far, defeated all comers.

Olly

[Zakalwe]

The problem with anecdotal "evidence" is that it is highly unreliable. People moan more than they praise. Bad news ALWAYS spreads higher and wider than good news. We have confirmation biases that leads us to search out the evidence that supports our internal views, and to place less weight on evidence that contradicts our internal views. Plus, as humans, we seem to be attracted to bad news more than good news.

In science, anecdotal evidence is nearly always dismissed as being the poorest form of evidence. Thats why  placebo-controlled, double-blind testing is used in medicine, with meta-data analysis of the results. This method almost completely removes bias.

[ollypenrice]

The problem with anecdotal "evidence" is that it is highly unreliable. People moan more than they praise. Bad news ALWAYS spreads higher and wider than good news. We have confirmation biases that leads us to search out the evidence that supports our internal views, and to place less weight on evidence that contradicts our internal views. Plus, as humans, we seem to be attracted to bad news more than good news.

In science, anecdotal evidence is nearly always dismissed as being the poorest form of evidence. Thats why  placebo-controlled, double-blind testing is used in medicine, with meta-data analysis of the results. This method almost completely removes bias.

Sure, but if, of the twenty top end mounts belonging to your peronal aquaintances and friends, more than half had needed to be returned or have major components sent out, and if four of them had required factory technicians to visit, are you really saying you'd be as sanguine as you suggest?

It's the anecdotal experience of the individual which decides whether or not it lives long enough to reproduce...

Olly

[Zakalwe]

Sure, but if, of the twenty top end mounts belonging to your peronal aquaintances and friends, more than half had needed to be returned or have major components sent out, and if four of them had required factory technicians to visit, are you really saying you'd be as sanguine as you suggest?

Morning Olly,

It's hard to be objective when faced with reports like that, I agree. And, in many ways, it's both easy and hard to be a buyer nowadays with so many review sites, forums, Facebook and so on. A buyer can now access tons of reports and it can lead to "analysis paralysis". Still, I'd much prefer this to no news, or just relying on reviews in monthly magazines (you only have to look at the HiFi sector to see the sort of snake-oil that the magazines pump out).

It must also be hard to be a reviewer, especially if you are a well-known reviewer. There's then an onus as that reviewers words carry more weight than Joe Blogg's. There's probably a duty of care to recognise that and to be even more aware of confirmation biases?

I can't really comment on your experiences, especially as my experience and knowledge is so limited in this field. Perhaps the people that you are in touch with are people that change their equipment regularly and thus has more exposure than the ordinary bloke in the street? how many people buy £5K mounts regularly? Perhaps they are "bleeding edge" buyers and end up as beta testers for the factories (that happens more often than it ever should- the TS pinched optics, for example).

I guess that there's no "right" answer, other than the age-old "caveat emptor"?

[FLO]

The problem with anecdotal "evidence" is that it is highly unreliable. People moan more than they praise. Bad news ALWAYS spreads higher and wider than good news. We have confirmation biases that leads us to search out the evidence that supports our internal views, and to place less weight on evidence that contradicts our internal views. Plus, as humans, we seem to be attracted to bad news more than good news.

Wise words Zakalwe 

I doubt we'll ever be truly neutral and objective when discussing astro kit. We just aren't made that way. But we should try

Sure, but if, of the twenty top end mounts belonging to your peronal aquaintances and friends, more than half had needed to be returned or have major components sent out, and if four of them had required factory technicians to visit, are you really saying you'd be as sanguine as you suggest?

I don't think things are quite as bad as your sample suggests Olly but I agree it is a myth that high-end mounts fail less than mid-range ones. For some time now I have been looking for a premium brand of astronomy mount for FLO but it isn't easy for the reasons you mention, particularly when you consider none of them have service centres here in the UK. Mesu would be a good fit for FLO but Lucas doesn't want another UK retailer. I was also impressed with Losmandy because they are very well established and make gradual incremental improvements to their designs so every Losmandy mount, whenever it was purchased, can be upgraded to the latest spec. But whilst a Losmandy mount will never become obsolete the upgrades and enhancements take place without publicity so nobody notices... As much as we like Losmandy it would be a hard sell here in the UK. We also like Avalon but their sales plan is different to ours and we like freedom to do things our way. 10micron mounts are impressive but very expensive so better suited to Ian king Imaging who has more experience marketing to the affluent. Paramount also have an excellent reputation, mostly in the US. Fortunately the EQ8 and CGE PRO continue to serve us well so we can afford to wait

Steve

[ollypenrice]

Wise words Zakalwe 

I doubt we'll ever be truly neutral and objective when discussing astro kit. We just aren't made that way. But we should try

I don't think things are quite as bad as that Olly but I agree it is a myth that high-end mounts fail less than mid-range ones. For some time now I have been looking for a premium brand of astronomy mount for FLO but it isn't easy for the reasons you mention, particularly when you consider none of them have service centres here in the UK. Mesu would be a good fit for FLO but Lucas doesn't want another UK retailer. I was also impressed with Losmandy because they are very well established and make gradual incremental improvements to their designs so every Losmandy mount, whenever it was purchased, can be upgraded to the latest spec. But whilst a Losmandy mount will never become obsolete the upgrades and enhancements take place without publicity so nobody notices... As much as we like Losmandy it would be a hard sell here in the UK. We also like Avalon but their sales plan is different to ours and we like freedom to do things our way. 10micron mounts are impressive but very expensive so better suited to Ian king Imaging who has more experience marketing to the affluent. Paramount also have an excellent reputation, mostly in the US. Fortunately the EQ8 and CGE PRO continue to serve us well so we can afford to wait

Steve

I don't for a moment imagine that the problem rate globally is the same as that which has affected the people I know. Surely my sample must be slewed. But I can't help being influenced by it, either.

I can see your dilemma. The fact is that mounts simply are a dfficult area for manufacturers, retailers and customers. I think it's worth sayng that the premium mounts do get sorted and when sorted work stunningly well. In the case of one make I'd want to say, 'Sorted eventually and for the highly skilled,' but sorted, yes.

Olly

[broadway1]

Hi Adam,

I upgraded to an EQ8 from my NEQ6 Pro last year with the intention of acquiring a C14 for planetary imaging, doing some Deep Sky with a 0.67x focal reducer, and possibly doing light curves for Exoplanets at some stage.  I have the tripod mounted version, and it is a beast - too heavy IMO for taking up and down each observing session. I have mine in a Skyshed POD,  equipped with a PZT table so I can slide the dome off for polar alignment.  I got my C14 back in the summer, and I haven't had much chance to use it for imaging, but I have found that the EQ8 seems less forgiving in terms of accuracy of the Go To (N.B. comparison using my C11 Edge).  I wanted to put a guide scope on top and hoped to use my Megrez 90 but this proved too heavy (think levers) even with an extra balancing weight added (Note I have my QSI 583ws  and focal reducer on for imaging) so I have had to revert to using my ST80 as guide scope. However, for planetary imaging the EQ8 and C14 combination seems to stay on target very well, so I am sure that it would be fine for visual use, once you have got the system balanced and aligned.

Before you take the plunge, I have seen that some amateurs have used a C14 on a NEQ6 quite happily for planetary work.  I would imagine that upgrading the NEQ6 with the new wedge that has come available (from Modern Astronomy) to avoid the bolt problem with the NEQ6 could be a viable option for you and much cheaper.

Clear skies

[Gina]

I'll take back what I said about Skywatcher, Steve   You must know the situation far better than me and I bow to your better information

Have to say I've been very satisfied with what I've bought from Skywatcher so far and particularly with your superb service   Yes, that spacer is spot on

[pete_l]

 For some time now I have been looking for a premium brand of astronomy mount for FLO but it isn't easy for the reasons you mention,

At the risk of veering (even further) off topic, have you considered the Rainbow Astro Morningcalm series?

When searching for that mythical mount, the one that combines high payloads with low tracking errors and reasonable prices, this range occasionally pops into view. I might be tempted, except I have never seen one, never met anyone who has used one and haven't found online reviews from happy (or otherwise) owners.

What I'd like is for someone to spend a few grand on an unknown mount, bought sight-unseen from a foreign manufacturer who has little reputation and less of a local sales network. And then for them to post a complete review of the product. Repeat 10 - 20 times and I might be convinced to part with some cash.

[FLO]

At the risk of veering (even further) off topic, have you considered the Rainbow Astro Morningcalm series?

For such a niche market it is surprising how many premium mounts there are. 

We have not considered them Pete but, unless they are offer something special, we would favour one of the established manufacturers. Retailing a premium brand properly (actually holding stock and providing support) is expensive so we are taking our time. We will need to have confidence in the product and the company. 

Adamw, apologies for taking your thread off-topic 

Steve 

[swag72]

That's a shame about Avalon Steve. There's a few of us with them that I know of and I've not heard any issues with them in use. I know that folks have concerns with the elasticity of the belt drive. But the results don't seem to show a problem. They've got a more heavy duty mount in the wings as well I understand.

Oh well. Their loss .....

[FLO]

That's a shame about Avalon Steve. There's a few of us with them that I know of and I've not heard any issues with them in use. I know that folks have concerns with the elasticity of the belt drive. But the results don't seem to show a problem. They've got a more heavy duty mount in the wings as well I understand.

Oh well. Their loss .....

Thank-you Sara, we like Avalon too  

We understand the belt-drive concern but don't think it is a real problem. 

[Physopto]

I've never got EQMod to find the port for my eq5 or 6 whether using prolific or FTDI chipsets.

I use device manager to find the com port & assign it manually in EQMod setup.

Are you using a 3.3v or 5v TTL level FTDI chipset?

I've got a 5v one ready to make up when I get my EQ8 ordered soon.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hi Adam,

Sorry for the delay in answering. just seen this. I have both 3.3 and 5 volt versions of FTDI leads. None work with the EQ8 that I have. I have bought from several suppliers on line and from RS Components. Wasn't sure after reading some info on line if they were copies at first. Went back to an old Hi Tec Astro one that I re terminated for the EQ8. These work fine but are not recognised in toolbox. Got two now (spare). Don't matter thought as has been said just specify its com port and all is fine. Anyway worked without failure so far at Galloway.

Regards,

Derek

[Marmite]

The problem with anecdotal "evidence" is that it is highly unreliable. People moan more than they praise. Bad news ALWAYS spreads higher and wider than good news. We have confirmation biases that leads us to search out the evidence that supports our internal views, and to place less weight on evidence that contradicts our internal views. Plus, as humans, we seem to be attracted to bad news more than good news.

In science, anecdotal evidence is nearly always dismissed as being the poorest form of evidence. Thats why  placebo-controlled, double-blind testing is used in medicine, with meta-data analysis of the results. This method almost completely removes bias.

Absolutely correct. Some people cheerlead so hard for their favourite brands that you'd be forgiven for thinking they were actually sales reps for the company. These people never miss an opportunity to bash any "rival" model, brand or manufacturer, going so far as to knowingly repeat false information about them. It's crazy.

Like that saying, "It's not enough that I win; others must lose!"

People need to understand they can be satisfied with their choice of equipment without having to make others feel dissatisfied with their own.