Are there any worthwhile mounts under US$1000

[Poita]

After a lot of research, it appears that the most inexpensive mount that is good enough for astrophotography is the EQ6.

The CG5, LXD75, EQ3 etc. all appear to be only useful for guiding something like a piggybacked DSLR up to around a 200mm lens, after that the jerkyness, tracking issues, backlash etc. seem to make those mounts useless for imaging.

Is this the case, or have I been led astray? Is the EQ6 really the 'entry level' mount for using a reasonable sized scope and camera?

[Steve 1962]

Is the EQ6 really the 'entry level' mount for using a reasonable sized scope and camera?

Hiya

I don't have any personnal experience of the CG5, LXD75, EQ3 etc. but it depends what you mean by "reasonable size" - I used to have an HEQ5 Pro mount and it worked really well with a 4 inch refractor and guide scope.

Mine didn't cope very well with imaging with a 200mm Newt and guide scope so I've just upgraded to an NEQ6 and that's fine.

So in answer to your question I'd say that something similar in size to the HEQ5 Pro would be my absolute minimum but if I had my time again I'd go straight to the NEQ6.

Both the HEQ5 Pro and NEQ6 can be used with EQMOD and that's fantastic, so I wouldn't bother with the Synscan Goto versions - save some cash by just getting a Syntrek non - GOTO version and add EQMOD

Hope this helps

Steve

[sgazer]

The EQ6 is a very heavy mount, the head alone is a beast. I had this initially (non-GOTO) before I started imaging and it was a pain to set up each night. I went to a CG5-GOTO, mainly for the GOTO, and started imaging with this setup. Very light mount, but noisy. I was fairly successful guiding with the mount, even with a C8 and ST-80 guide scope + cameras. It wasn't really ideal and the accuracy finding stuff wasn't brilliant, so I moved on to a HEQ5-pro with a 150mm reflector, ST80 guide scope+cameras and it works great. I am really pleased with it. I can carry the whole lot out in one piece (minus the weights) with both scopes, cameras mounted and all wiring connected. As said above, EQmod is awesome.

The scope is F5 and the only thing a larger scope, like 200mm would give me would be a longer focal length, so slightly more image scale (magnification). But the extra weight would be significant and it would be too bulky to carry together. If you were keen on a larger scope/more weight, then the EQ6 would be the next step. But you would have to make everything up each night ie. head on tripod, scope on head, cameras, wiring etc.

[lukebl]

Whereabouts in the world are you? That will have a bearing on what you can get for your money. What you get for $1000 in the US is different from what you'll get for $1000 elsewhere!

I'd also go for the NEQ6 if you can stretch that far, although the HEQ5 PRO is great too. I've owned both.

[steppenwolf]

I certainly wouldn't say that the (N)EQ6 was the entry level mount for astrophotography but so much depends on the size of your telescope. The comment regarding the EQ3 and using a camera lens is probably about right, an EQ5 is suitable for this and for use with a short focal length refractor. The HEQ5 is a very good mount and may even have better periodic error than an (N)EQ6 but although it is often sold with an 8" reflector, it would be challenged with this for imaging but it would work well with an 80mm to 100mm refractor and lightweight guide 'scope.

The advantage of the (N)EQ6 is the built in future-proofing for adding more/larger gear.

[ollypenrice]

I join the chorus. The HEQ5 is very competent and pleasantly portable. I get them visiting my place and doing good stuff with the popular imaging refractors.

Personally I would always prefer a handset because of PC unreliability, particularly where USB connection is involved, but that's a matter of choice.

Olly