malc-c

Ian, that's a debug log, you need to upload the guide log file

It would appear that the only organisation that can slow down Musk's desire to pollute space with his Starlink network is the FAA.... SpaceX's Starship program has been delayed whilst the FAA conduct an impact study the complex is having on the environment in Boca Chica, and its findings won't be released until the end of this month.... I'm sure if enough governments were lobbied by astro organisations the FAA could be pressurised in reducing the proposed weekly launches of these satellites

The problem with belt drive conversions is maintaining the same reduction ratio so the handset can be used. A decade ago I was experimenting with a belt mod for an HEQ5 way before Rowan Engineering came up with their kit. There was no off the shelf pulleys that worked, so I had to opt for a 5:1 or 4:1 ratio and then use EQMOD with a custom offset (curtesy of Chris). The smaller 5:1 ratio motor pulley gave out but I ended up with a 4:1 ratio using a 15t and 60t pulley which was machined down to fit the shafts and the casing. Rowan came along later and machined a motor pulley from a solid piece of ali and a worm pulley that kept the stock ratio... the rest is history. Given the popularity of the EQ3 and EQ5 I would have thought that Rowan Engineering would have also developed a kit to upgrade them to belt drive...

This thread looks interesting... £38 for one step up form budget bearings plus washers and delivery so guestimate £55-£60 - Does make you wonder why Synta didn't do this form the off when developing the EQ3, I mean given the volume of bearings used, and trade discounts it wouldn't have put much onto the retail price.

Well done on getting results using what most would say is not really the ideal combination of equipment. With regards to the last line, that's the nub. Most of those seeking recommendations base their expectations on the images seen in books and on forums but don't have the budget to achieve those results which are often taken with equipment costing four figures, but expect to get those results without a lot of effort for £300 or so.

The EQ3 has been mentioned a lot in this thread, and we have been mentioning the HEQ5 being the centre of the topic, but how about the EQ5 pro goto. as a compromise? - Better load capability than the EQ3, so (in theory at least) a sturdier mount... EQ5 pro goto £650 ED80 DS pro £580 ZWO ASI 120MM Mini USB 2.0 Mono for a guide camera £140, plus £30 for the C ring to finderscope adapter That still leaves £100 to put towards a camera or other accessories.... No idea how well it would perform, but at around 4.5kg for the scope and camera, its within the 6.5kg imaging weight (as specified on FLO's website) and well within the 9kg limit for the mount. Decent stepper motors and similar microstepping and arc second performance as the EQ3, but for the extra £179 you get 2Kg more payload Just throwing this into the mix.... Or for £98 more than the £1500.... the ED80/HEQ5 combo From FLO 👍😁 (Edit:... this was just based on pricing alone... not looked into pixel counts / arc sec etc... just really trying to answer Matts question)

There's a few schematics for older boards like an EQ6 dotted around on old forums, but these have been reverse engineered and even x-rayed to get the inner layers (typically 4 layer boards are used) but even then they still have errors in them.

AFAIK Synta do not publish their schematics, even for their old mounts. What's the problem you are experiencing ?

Olly, that's a fair comment, but also highlights that you can't just take the mount as singularity, the whole rig has to be looked along with the individuals expectations. Throughout the thread its been mentioned that a decent camera is more suited, but then bolt that ideal camera to a scope with poor optics and you're back to square one with disappointing results, same could be said for vice-versa, but I'm in the opinion that a decent set of optics will give a better result with a less than ideal camera than the other way around. It may well be that something like an a £580 ED80 with a cooled camera such as the 314L that was mentioned above (currently around £1100) would do very nicely on a £200 EQ3 with a £140 dual motor drive. But at circa £2k that is way above what we see in a lot of the "I want to get into AP - I have £300" type post. If you compare the price of the EQ3 pro goto at circa £480 and the HEQ5 at £949, I think it's worth throwing that additional £470is at the mount and getting the HEQ5, especially if you have a grand to spend on a cooled camera. - But that's my opinion. Not based on fact, just on preference if I was shelling out two and a half grand on an "serious" (there's that word again) imaging rig

May I suggest you provide details to Steve via a PM as he has had to take court action in order to get his money back, and last reports the Bailiffs were trying to locate Graham to resolve the matter. As some customers have already been waiting 18-24 months I would be very doubtful that you'll see your April 2022 delivery date honoured

Shame he hasn't taken down the website which gives the impression they are still trading.... Or is it a case Graham has left / sold the business ?

Don't have the actual log file, but I sent this screen grab to a friend as I was pleased with the sub 1 acr sec RMS guiding I was getting the first night of using the 9 x 50 finder / QHY5 set up as a guidescope But I confess I have no idea if these figures are meaningless. From what I gather PHD2 calculates that based on the pixel scale, which for me with a 181mm focal length and a 5.2um pixel size was I believe 6 (someone will no doubt correct me ). So can you compare these RMS figures with say someone using a longer guide scope with a different camera?? Bottom line is that the images I took when guiding resulted in pin point sharp stars and as good a detail as I would get form a LP town location. Thing is I feel this thread has gone off the rails somewhat. Rather than discussing the pros and cons of the HEQ5 and why it is or is not the ideal mount for imaging, we're now discussing pixel size and is heading towards a [removed word] contest with people passionate with their views of what equipment should take priority when setting up a rig. Part of the problem is that unless we have some luck and win the lotto none of us can purchase 10 or so mounts and compare them under the same circumstances, so whilst we have opinions of why a mount on paper shouldn't be or isn't ideal, in practice people are getting some results. The effort in to getting those results is subjective to the individual. Some will want to get the images they see in magazines right out of the box with no effort, others are quite happy to spend hours balancing the rig to get the best performance as the rig is on the limit for the mount. There's a long running thread on using the EQ3 as an imaging platform, so some are managing to get it to work. Equally as it has been mentioned, look at the DSO section and most of those images are taken with gear on an HEQ5 or equivalent, or higher spec mount, so there is some reasoning to suggest that you do need to invest at this level. As I said before, we will have to respect each others viewpoints and maybe move on...

As mentioned, I'm no electronics expert, just a hobbyist, but here's my comments: With regards to the micro-USB socket, whilst this is fine for any firmware update, if you continue to apply this to any EQ Mount where the port could be used as a means of control and be permanently connected then a type B USB port would be more suitable. The only other comment is using a liner 7805 as the regulator for the 5v supply. Whilst it will do the job there are more efficient alternatives in the same package that employ a switch mode regulation. More efficient and less heat when reducing 12v to 5v

it could always be turned into a fancy bird table when you move out

Worth a read As mentioned elsewhere, whilst the cheaper options work they take a bit more fettling to get them working right

IMO that is a fair amount of backlash on both axis - It takes time to hit that sweet spot between too tight a mesh and free rotation but with no slop, just do small adjustments at a time and I'm sure you'll get there

How else are you going to see the stars.... you ideally need to take the mount outside to use it.... granted they are not designed to be permanently housed outside and exposed to the elements, but should be able to take a bit of moisture from dew forming in during an observing / imaging session

Matt it wasn't a challenge, and too may variables in sky quality (seeing I'm in a town location) wouldn't make it fair... Like I said - you're going round in circles to push home your viewpoint - I respect your opinion, which differs to mine, so lets just agree to disagree. You have basically described my rig

LOL - just entered my camera and scope details and selected poor seeing... Were we not discussing this in another thread 😉

LOL - I value your opinion, but on this one I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one

No the EQ5 head will not fit a standard photographic tripod. The securing bolt is larger and the tripod has a recessed top machined to accept the base. Also you can't buy just the mount head, it comes with the tripod which is very sturdy. What exactly do you want to image? - What do you want to image in the future? - And what is your budget? - Are you looking for something portable, or will you be using the rig form your back garden? The two mounts you have listed in that format are totally different. The tracker has the drive built in already but is more suited for use with cameras and lenses or small OTAs, but if you get an undriven EQ5 you won't be able to track at all. I would suggest the pro goto option being preferable given other posts where people have used the more basic drive option and experienced problems with guiding. The goto option for the EQ5 also gives you more options for computer control and guided exposures. But it also depends if you intend to use a telescope and camera or a camera and telephoto lens. If using a telescope, what size do you see yourself using now and in the future. Maybe getting something in the HEQ5 league would future proof any investment rather than finding you have reached the limits of the EQ5 when you want to upgrade the scope in a few years time.... (to those who know I couldn't resist )

The general thinking in the day was 1cu metre was the "normal" defacto hole when concreting in a pipe. Much better to go large and over engineer something rather than find you skimped and the base moves, due to soft soil or soil shrinkage in hot weather

I would have thought that seeing these mounts are designed to be used outside they would use internal components rated for temperatures likely experienced in most countries. OK -40c in parts of Russia might be pushing it, but -10c to +40c would be a fair range. I would therefore suspect that the problem is either condensation / dampness forming inside the mount and creating a shorting. There could be a dry joint that contracts in cold temperatures, but you would expect that to happen well below freezing rather than +4c. A cheaper option to a walk in freezer for testing would be a cooling spray, giving it a quick blast on the power port, daughter board and main board...taking care not to thermally shock the components. Top marks to FLO in offering a full refund, even though in testing no fault was found... That's customer service for you.

To be honest I think we are all going round in circles, and maybe this thread needs to be locked. This is a public forum. With such a diverse membership all with different levels of experience, expectations and knowledge there will be contradicting opinions being offered. We typically base our opinions on personal experience, and if that experience might save someone else losing money, or being possibly disappointed in some way, or having to put more work in to getting the results then they will naturally feel justified in expressing that "advice". In reality, each time we see one of these "I want to get into imaging but can only spend £xxx" we have no real understanding of their expectations, the time they are willing to put in to getting the results, or how serious they may be. I think the reason a lot of people will suggest equipment that is more than the persons budget, is so that want that person to be excited about the results and stick with the hobby rather than buy cheap and then be disappointed and walk away. For me my personal opinion to the OP question.... No, the HEQ5 is not the minimum standard for astrophotography. The reason is that there is no context to that question. Astrophotography covers such a wide range of disciplines and the equipment will vary through out these. Do I feel that the HEQ5 is the minimum standard mount for an Explorer 200P with a basic dSLR or similar to do DSO imaging... Yes. In this context the mount is the starting point.

Can I take this on another slightly tangential point having read a recent post and get some opinions on whether it could influence the reason why recommendations typically end up on an HEQ5 I remember a post along the normal lines of someone wanting to get into imagining. Now I can't recall if he already had the mount (EQ5) and was looking at upgrade options or if he was looking to buy the mount in one of the the powered options. Anyway when the Synscan goto option was suggested, with the "better" motors, more flexible connectivity options, and the ability to pulse guide through an EQDIR cable, the cost between that and the cheaper basic dual motor drive was the hurdle and the person opted for the latter which uses the ST-4 port for guiding. That person has posted recently requesting help as his guiding graphs are all over the place. The consensus is that its due to backlash in the DEC drive. Now this is where I think a lot of people recommend the HEQ5. Having suggested an EQ5 pro goto, the HEQ5 is then recommended as the next step up for its better class of motors and microstepping resolution, load capability and connectivity, often siting previous posts where others have opted for cheaper options and then find they don't perform as expected. Just a thought