malc-c

I don't think you can label anyone.... a decade ago I spent £2200 on building an purpose custom built ROF observatory to house my rig in... does that make me serious about astronomy, and imaging in particular? - Nope, I had the opportunity to build something to house the equipment and make my life easier as it stopped me getting it in the neck when I woke half the family up at 3am bringing in the kit after an imaging session. I go through phases... when I first built the observatory I was out every clear night for the first 6-9 months... then other things in my life happen and the interest waned.... but then comes back and I'll spend a few nights gathering photons. I was serious about the level of kit I wanted, and I've already explained the route I took to get where I am today. The thing is we've seen lots of posts where people have taken equipment that you wouldn't normally expect be capable of being guided and producing stunning results. They may have overcome lots of hurdles to get there, but they prove imaging on a low budget is possible. Someone else may have given up well before they finally got the results that they sought. Someone mentioned the HEQ5 being the Ford Transit of mounts... I think that really sums it up.... as they say, the mount is old, tried and tested and used by many which is why it is so highly recommended as being the ideal mount to use with imaging.

But that's the point... Is it more cost effective buying cheap and then have to purchase something that would have give a decent upgrade path form the start. If you buy an HEQ5 at the start, say another £600 on a 150P and an option to convert a 9 x 50 finder as a guider, and then find that its sits in the conservatory gathering dust because imaging became too frustrating or disappointing, that person would have no problems selling the HEQ5 for almost what he paid for it, especially in todays market. Equally if they find they want a large scope, or want a better guide scope, and want to add a £2000 CCD and filter wheel, then they already have a mount that will take that, rather than having to sell a low end mount and buy an HEQ5 or EQ6 I keep providing comparisons, because in all hobbies there are always extremes between either ends of the equipment used, be that fishing, paintballing or astronomy. My son spend £1500 on three carp rods (and believe me they were no where near the top end stuff) but did that make him catch more fish or bigger fish than me who was using a £50 rod and £30 reel? .... No, but when he landed a 28lb carp his rods handled the stresses that such a fish placed on the kit where mine was at it breaking point - yes it snapped with a lesser weight fish on the end...

That would really prove interesting and helpful... As mentioned above, things have come on so much since the choices we had 10 year ago

Can't say as I personally have not had experience of the G2/ Redcat combo... Would there be any difference between the Eq3 and HEQ5, possibly. Depending on the sensor in the camera, the higher precision and micro-stepping on the HEQ5 would provide tighter tracking and thus smaller and rounder stars.... in theory... and again it would be subjective to the individual. I've got an old Olympus 500 that I use for general photography, with the stock 17-45mm lens... It gives me decent enough photos for my needs. If I was looking at doing more serious photography then I would probably soon find its limitations and need to get something more suited to my needs....

Exactly my point.... it doesn't stop people having a go... but to overcome the rotation you have to make the stacking software work harder to get the end result. I agree is all down to the individuals expectations. I've seen people get really excited when they placed their mobile phone against an eyepiece and got a blurry image with little definition. Equally I've seen a good friend dissatisfied with the image taken on an RCT / EQ8 and a camera costing more than I paid for a 5 year old Volvo V70, and that wasn't cheap...!! - To me I would be totally ecstatic to get that result and it put my best image ever to shame. Regarding field rotation, if field rotation wasn't an issue then why are so many of the expensive mounts such as the EQ8 and above all GEMs 🤔

The problem is all AltAZ mounts have an inherent problem and that is field rotation. It's not so much of a problem if you are taking single "long" exposures with a camera and a wide angle lens, but if you were gathering hours of data for stacking it then becomes one more issue to deal with and whilst its still possible to correct in post processing, it's really just one more complication that ideally you would want to do with out. Also tracking with an AltAz mount is linear, ie up/down and left right, so the track is stepped, rather than and arc as in the case with an EQ mount. I agree with Vlaiv, in that you need to categorise each case. You get those that want and expect to get the same sort of images seen in magazines and books, but only have £300 to spend on a complete rig. Often people will recommend the HEQ5 to put them off getting less capable equipment and being disappointed. Others have posted here that they have £3000 worth of camera and lenses... if asked does it take better pictures than a set up costing 1/3 the amount they would argue the toss and say it does to justify the expense, when in reality to the layman there would see no difference. But in the specifications if both cameras were pushed to the limits the reason for the extra cost will be seen as finer details will be resolved. For me in its price point the HEQ5 is still a mount I would recommend as being the entry point for someone how is serious at getting into imaging. The precision it offers, the load capability, and that its just about portable if you have a car, makes it the ideal starting point.

You're welcome... I appreciate being informed of your direction you're taking this.

Interesting discussion. Matt you are correct that you can image the night sky with a basic camera and cheap lens. Some would argue you don't even need a DSLR and lens, and a modern mobile phone can get results. There are also those who have managed to get some good DSO images using moderate EQ mounts and small reflectors, but chances are whilst it worked, it was a lot of effort. I often use analogies such as two cars, one being a basic 1.1ltr hatchback and another a 4.2ltr Jaguar. Both will get you form A to B, but you will enjoy the ride and get there safer and quicker in the Jag than the hatchback. It's the same with the mounts. An EQ3 goto will do the same job as an HEQ5, but the HEQ5 has more precision, and provides a more suitable platform for carrying all the additional kit that has now been accepted as being a requirement to get guided images. of faint objects. Part of the problem is based on repeating old information. 10 year ago we had around 4 goto mounts form Skywatcher, the EQ3, EQ5, HEQ5 and EQ6. Most of the recommendations were made on these options at the time, the HEQ5 having the same precision of the EQ6 but more portable, but having better weight carrying ability and better gearing than the EQ5. These days the choice of mount is a mind field, especially if we include the star trackers designed for use with cameras, expanding the options available to anyone wanting to take pictures of the night sky. On a personal view, a decade ago I purchased a 200P on an EQ5 and soon found the limitations when I opted to try imaging with a DSLR as visual images were washed out by light pollution form my home location. I sold the mount and purchased an HEQ5 and the stability and precision of the mount gave me results that I'm more than happy with being a casual beginner.

That's a nice image.. I would be happy with that If Polaris isn't visible to you then yes plate solving is the way to get decent polar alignment or correct for any errors.

Ok... saves me the time and effort if you are going down the strip board route.

Cutting the same track between two 0.1" pitch pins may be possible, but as the cut would be small there would be a risk of jumping it with solder. The only way I can think of doing it is to lift the section of track under these two pins and use sumper wires soldered directly... messy but doable

OK there is one problem that will make using any prototype / strip board build very difficult. The above schematic uses a pin on the module PCB labelled DIAG. as shown in the top half of this image I found on the web The problem is the VREF and DIAG pins are all in line with the ENable pin and at standard 0.1" pitch, so effectively shorting them together when placed on a proto / strip board. It would also seem that the 2225 has been replaced by the 2226. I've checked the component library in DipTrace and the TMC2225 doesn't exist so I'll have to modify one of the existing driver boards to create a new component and then if I get time will design a small PCB based on the schematic and upload the gerbers. It's up to the OP if he wants to send them off to a Chinese PCB house and have them made. It won't be anything fantastic, just a crude slap together design

Strange design... grounds are not common and he uses the USB socket on the NANO to power it, meaning you have to have it plugged into a USB charger or batter bank, unless the Nano connects to a computer to receive instructions? If you are not sure about strip board, you can use protoboard like that shown in the post above, or simply mount the Nano and driver below each other in the same way , then use a 3mm drill bit between your fingers to brake all the tracks underneath the parts thus isolating all the pins. Then use solid core wire (telephone extension cable is good for this) and the connect pin to pin on the schematic, eg D8 on the nano to pin 1 of the driver, D7 to pin 2 of the driver....

Like all things in life there is seldom a single way to achieve the end goal. The same goes for imaging. The basic goal is to align the mount as close as possible to the Earths axis, with a mount / scope balanced correctly so that when guiding the guiding software has less work to do. The guiding process is such that it removes any mechanical errors inherent in the mounts construction and thus keeps the target in a fixed position within the constraints of the hardware used. Once that's covered the optics are used in conjunction with a camera to take long exposure images of the target which can late be stacked and processed to pull out as much data the image contains. Now how you go about that process is entirely down to the individual, the precision of the equipment on hand, and the budget available. Before computers were readily available guiding was done by hand, using an illuminated eyepiece on a second scope, the operator would make small manual adjustments in RA and DEC to maintain a star under the cross-hairs. These days computers are affordable and powerful, so these days 99% of imaging is done using one. This can be a normal laptop, small desktop PC, or a single board computer such as a Raspberry Pi, or now, a dedicated headless PC designed for use with telescopes. Naturally these computers all run software to handle the control of the telescope and take the pictures. There is also the operating system to consider and whilst most laptops come with Windows, Linux is also very popular. Years ago it was common to have one application to control the movement of the mount, another to chose targets and instruct the software controlling the mount where to go, then a third application to handle the guiding, and lastly one to run the sequence of exposures by controlling the main imaging camera. It's fine to work that way (It's how I've done my imaging for the past 10 years), but these days there is now a lot of overlapping between applications, and as such the application that just handled the imaging camera sequencing can now instruct the mount were to go as it has catalogues of celestial targets built in. Some applications such as NINA, can communicate directly to the mount, tell the mount where to go, and handle the sequencing of images. Placing all your eggs in one basket can also be a disadvantage as much as being an advantage. I personally found it easier to break each section down individually. Get the scope balanced and polar aligned, then ensure communications work and I can move the scope via the PC software (in my case EQMOD). I then focused on the software to direct the mount, which is an old but functional Cartes du Ciel. Once I've established I can select a target and the scope go-to's that target and its in the field of view, I then launch PHD2 and calibrate for a guiding run. With the scope now pointing at the target and tracking that target precisely I set up a sequence of 20, 30 or 40 exposures in APT and let that run taking images with my old Canon 400D. Naturally there are a few other things I do in between like confirm focus on a bright star but that is the gist of my workflow. Most others will follow the same workflow, but use different software and processes (for example they may have a mono CCD camera and need filter wheel control). Anyway, enough of my rambling... The forum is a wealth of knowledge so if you have any specific questions with whatever direction you follow, widows, linux etc then there are people here to help.

No need for a PCB - Vero strip board with a 2.54mm pitch will do the job

There could be a 101 reasons the mount has died. The fix might be a single component costing cents, or the main processor, which requires specialist desoldering stations to remove and replace. If it is the processor then it would also need programming and that isn't straight forward. I've repaired several older motor boards for SGL members, but that was on older mounts that used older generation processors. These modern mounts use ARM based processors that makes doing a home repair impossible without the correct equipment. You would need some basic test equipment and knowledge of electronics to check if the fault is something simple such as no power getting past the switch so the board is not being powered, or if power is reaching the board but not powering the processor or ancillary components. I cant see how plugging the USB cable into the mount would have blown it as the USB standard runs at 5v, so it's not like the old days where to perform an update a serial to USB adapter would have been used which could have provided the wrong voltages and blow the board. If you have have tried new batteries, and tried using a know working USB lead and on both accounts the mount won't power up or run then there isn't a lot of options left. Either send the mount to an authorised repair company, either locally where the repair is chargeable or if still under warranty back to the shop from where it was purchased to have it repaired free of charge. The alternative is to sell it as a non working mount for spares or repair and then put the money towards a new mount.

I must admit I've not used one of these mounts in person, so thought that I would watch a couple of videos to try and understand how the mount operates. Was the mount working before you tried to update the firmware ? The Manual states that if the LED doesn't light up then there is a fault with the mount. Reading the section on updating the firmware suggest that the bootloader would still reside in the processor enabling you to flash the firmware over and over again if the mount was in a functional state. The fact that you can't connect to the mount via USB and have used two cables, and different drivers, combined with the LED status would in deed suggest the mount (ie the main board) is dead, especially as you have tried fresh batteries and used 5v USB power from your laptop. Problem is that as it would seem the mount was purchased in a different country it may not be possible to have it repaired under warranty (assuming its still within a warranty period) locally unless Skywatcher offer a world wide warranty.

I remember faffing about with various photo papers to see which would transfer better to the PCB as the "official" film form Maplin was getting expensive. Unless the design required a 1.6mm thick board I used to make all my DIY boards form 0.8mm thick copper clad as it fitted running through the laminator better.... and then there was the mess and smell of ferric, and no matter how careful you were there would always be a drop that would stain the work top, sink or eat its way into your clothes. Then at the end after cleaning the board you find several parts didn't take and bodging is in the order to fix it. I now prototype any projects on solderless breadboards, then once any bugs or issues have been ironed out design a board in DipTrace and fire off the gerbers as mentioned above. Yes you have to watch out for the duty/VAT if the value of goods are above the threshold, but unless you are ordering a lot of boards or large boards most work out to just a few $$. Years ago I enquired at a local company how much a small 16cm x 10cm (Euro card sized) would be and was quoted almost £500 for a single prototype, half of that was "tooling". I then discovered PCBWay and was gobsmacked to get 5 boards for less than £35 shipped (£25 of that was DHL costs !!) I've since changed to JLCPCB which seem a fair bit cheaper these days.

To be honest its cheaper to send the gerbers to JLCPCB in china. I've had loads of boards made by them with even their standard turnaround and DHL shipping taking less than a week. - You get 5 professional standard boards without the mess of using chemicals in the kitchen, and cheaper than buying toner transfer film, chloride or a UV box and photo sensitive boards....

You will really need to provide me/us with some more details. Did you remove the existing driver and use the one I provided? If so did it report any errors or display an exclamation marks? Did the firmware application connect to the mount and read back the current firmware version? - Did you manage to update the firmware ? Is the mount not working or is it software? You say SA won't open, I'm guessing that the console software used to control the mount. If so then I believe that use wifi rather then the com port to communicate to the mount, so its a totally different problem. Reading some reviews it does seem the app is flaky, for example

Could be a gear mesh issue, missing / cracked tooth, bearing, or something else... Your choice is either to dismantle it and see what's causing it, and either re-mesh the gears, or replace any damaged part. Leave it as it is and if it still performs Ok then leave it as is, or bin it and get a new replacement.

I use the 9 x 50 straight finder that came with the Explorer 200P, with an old QHY5 camera... works well for guiding and electronic finder

The only other thing to try is a different 2303 driver - There have been some documented issues with PL2303 drivers - This one worked for me with an USB to Serial adaptor used for my camera control. You would need to uninstall the device in Device Manager, and choose the option to delete the current driver. Then install the attached driver, connect the mount and hopefully it will show up in Device manage without any yellow exclamation marks. Check for connectivity, and try the two speeds as stated. If that fails then it would indeed seem that updating the firmware isn't going to be possible. If the mount is otherwise working then just leave it as is. To be honest, unless the newer firmware addresses a particular issue that you are experiencing, then there is no real reason or need to flash the firmware. If as a result of re-flashing the firmware the mount no longer works, then the only way to resolve that is to either replace the motor board in the mount or return it to the distributor and have then reprogram the microcontroller. PL2303_64bit_Installer.zip

Open up the properties of he PL2303 com port. Check the speed settings - If its set to 9600 baud try changing it to 115200 and see the loader connects to the mount. If its set to 115200, try 9600. Also try a second usb cable just in case the one you are using is just a charging cable

You're welcome. The links worked for me when I tried them this evening, so here are the zip files. As I said I'm exclusively windows, but would presume a zip file can be opened on Max OS setup_icap_en.zip Lynkeos-Sources-3-0.zip