EQ3 PRO or EQ5? - SynScan EQ Mount

[Martyn_Bannister]

Hi there,

I am looking to invest in a driven equatorial mount for astro photography and I am currently thinking of the Skywatcher EQ3 Pro (around £400) or the EQ5 (around £490) SynScan mounts. I appreciate that the EQ5 has a greater payload capability but I am unclear on whether either mount includes a polar scope as part of the package and how easy it is to polar align either mount.

Anyone got any experience or an opinion that they would care to share to help me in my dilemma ??

Many thanks in advance.

[Psychobilly]

I have an EQ3-Pro and a HEQ-5...

The EQ3-pro is used in the field with a single DSLR setup and its realtively compact and light so easy to carry....

I do have a problem with my EQ3-pro in that the guideport doest work properly... I have had a couple with the same fault Skywatcher are aware of it and are supposed to be working on a fix but it will likely involve a swap out of the MC as the firmware cant be upgraded... don't know if they have a working fix yet... and thats 12 months later...

I used the EQ3-pro at FL up to 200mm unguided and can get reliable 2 min subs after polar aligning with the supplied polarscope... at 50mm i take 4 min subs... last wekeend I shot 3min subs at 105mm...

The larger mount is used for a Multi DSLR guided setup...

Heres a couple of pics taken with the EQ3-pro setup...

Canon 1000D (baader BCF modified) with Canon 24-105 f4L at 105mm f4... unguided mix of 48 subs of 60,120 and 180s total 1h 16m

Cygnus Nebs 2 1/2 hours Total Exposure Modified 1000D Canon 50mm f1.8 @ f4 with AstronomiK CLS-CCD clip in on EQ3 Pro Unguided (24x240s)

Summer Milkway Sag - Oph Mosaic Modified 1000D Canon 50mm F1.8 @ f4 on EQ3 Pro unguided...

Peter...

[Martyn_Bannister]

Hi Peter, thanks for your help.

The HEQ5 is a bit too much money for me (I was looking at the plain vanilla EQ5 SynScan e.g. HERE ) but from what you say, you appear to recommend the EQ3 Pro. I have never had a "proper" motorised mount before but I read your post to indicate that at 105mm the EQ3 Pro has sufficient precision to show "pinpoint" stars in exposures up to 3 minutes when tracking at sidereal speed. After that point I would need some form of guided setup (with a seperate guide scope and software?) which I am fairly sure, the synscan isn't designed to achieve.

I also read your post to state that a polarscope is usually included with the EQ3 Pro. Is that correct?

EXCELLENT IMAGES Thanks again.

[chrisshillito]

I do have a problem with my EQ3-pro in that the guideport doest work properly... I have had a couple with the same fault Skywatcher are aware of it and are supposed to be working on a fix but it will likely involve a swap out of the MC as the firmware cant be upgraded... don't know if they have a working fix yet... and thats 12 months later.

You could use EQMOD and pulse guide.

Chris.

[FairviewSteve]

I recently purchased an EQ5 without SynScan and got the bigger 2" leg tripod and a polarscope built right into the mount which I was very surprised about. I'd been watching polarscopes on eBay to get one as soon as I got the mount but then didn't need one. I'm not saying they do come with these things but that's what I got in my package.

The EQ5 is currently holding my 9kg newt with 10kg of counterweight, no motors yet though, they're in the post. I talked to John from Orion Optics UK (my chief supplier) and he said that the EQ5 was fine for my scope, plus because the motors were an upgrade when they break or have too much backlash they can be easily removed and replaced.

Steve

[Psychobilly]

Indeed Chris I could use EQAscom and pulse guide...

But my field setup is computer free the DSLR's are run from timer remotes.... and was based around using a synguider as the guiding cam/controller..

This is the kit that gets "lugged" to the remoter sites so I try to keep it minimal...

Skywatcher should just fix it... Their first attempt just made things worse apparently...

The EQ3 Pro comes with the polarscope.. it's not illuminated but there are led solutions out there to provide the illumination that makes viewing the reticule easier against a dark sky..

I spent a while making sure the polarscope was accurately aligned to the mount and use a polar finder app on my android smartphone to set it...

Peter...

[Martyn_Bannister]

Or...............................

Since I only really want the tracking (as opposed to the full GOTO) capability, would I be better off getting the EQ5 Mount and a basic motor drive e.g. HERE and HERE ??????

Decisions, decisions, decisions......

[FairviewSteve]

Yes you could that is a much more frugal alternative to the full go-to kit which retails around £290. I would still recommend the EQ5 though as it's a bit heavier duty so will allow for any future upgrades you may want.

[FairviewSteve]

The EQ3 Pro comes with the polarscope.. it's not illuminated but there are led solutions out there to provide the illumination that makes viewing the reticule easier against a dark sky.....

Do you know of any examples of this, sounds like something I would be interested in.

Steve

[Psychobilly]

AWR Technology - Polarscope ILLUMINATOR

or easy enough to make...

[Martyn_Bannister]

OK, this is what I ended up with.........

[RikM]

OK, this is what I ended up with.........

I would be very keen to see some images off that set up.

[Martyn_Bannister]

I would be very keen to see some images off that set up.

HERE are some. Unfortunately, they are not currently living up to my expectations.

I put this down to 1) Inexperience, 2) light pollution, 3) Unfamiliarity with DSS.

As far as the mount and tripod goes, I am very pleased. The tripod is the most rigid I have ever used (and pretty much the cheapest ) and the mount and drive are enabling me to get 4 minute subs at 500mm and I am only throwing < 25% away due to periodic error. i.e. one in four or less will have elongated stars in the centre of the frame, the rest will have nice circles.

To address the points above, I need more practice, I have a light pollution filter in the post, I need more practice

PS - just seen the images in your sig - WOW - nice stuff! What rig are you using? Is the DSLR prime focus/eyepiece projection? Are you using filters?

[RikM]

I think your images are pretty good for just starting out. A light polution filter with IR-cut will help. As will increasing the number of subs, darks, flats and bias will help to smooth out the images but it is tough in the summer to keep to noise under control.

Most of my images were at prime focus on my 150P. Some were taken with a 2" SkyWatcher light pollution filter, but not all of them. I generally have about a 40-50% scrap rate with subs.

My 'constellation' images (only Leo in the albumn) are just the 1000D on my EQ3 with the 18-55mm kit lens at about 35mm. I typically take 3min subs because that's when the light pollution gets too much to deal with. My Pleiadese shot was a Tamron 70-300mm at 200mm. I am not sure if the stars are bloated because of the lens or my poor focus (probably my fault) but it was just a quick play with a new dovetail bar and I didn't expect to get an image really.

[Martyn_Bannister]

What I am hoping to achieve in the end is something like your album shot of M42 M43 NGC1977. I am assuming that the subs for this pretty much looked something like the final result?

I am thinking that either you have MUCH darker skies and can get the longer exposures, or I am doing something basically worng. My 4 minute subs are just a sea of yellow!

[RikM]

I am thinking that either you have MUCH darker skies and can get the longer exposures, or I am doing something basically worng. My 4 minute subs are just a sea of yellow!

Have a look at this thread #7 about half way down.

[Martyn_Bannister]

Have a look at this thread #7 about half way down.

Hi Rik, thanks a bunch, I think that proves my case, my subs are truly pants. No wonder they don't turn out the way I expect. You can't make something out of nothing

I think I have to get less LP, either by moving site (not really feasible with my 10 yr old daughter in bed) or a light pollution filter. Also I think I need to decrease the ISO and close the aperture slightly.

Many thanks for your input.