Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

Upgrade to Skywatcher EQ5 PRO Synscan GOTO?

Stargazer Jack

By Stargazer Jack
in Discussions - Mounts

Recommended Posts

Stargazer Jack

Stargazer Jack

Posted
Posted

Hi,

I am considering upgrading my mount to the one in the title however would like to hear some thoughts of people on here first. I won't be getting it straight away but could someone write some differences between my EQ2 (R.A Motor) and the EQ5 GOTO. I know that it is a completely different mount but would my 130M also fit on the mount as I probably wouldn't be upgrading the 'scope yet.

Thanks in advance :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 27
  • Created
  • Last Reply
steelfixer

steelfixer

Posted
Posted

The EQ5 is a lot bigger and can support a lot more weight.

You scope will fit on the EQ5 but you may have to adapt the dovetail bar to suit the fixing holes on the EQ5.

Unfortunately I am at work at the moment so I cannot do a direct comparison as I have both mounts at home.

Obviously the benifit of the goto is self explanitary.

The other advantage is you can run the mount from a computer either direct or through EQMOD.

I personally run mine through EQMOD.

As an upgrade I can assure you it is well worth it and you will wonder how you ever managed with the EQ2 after you have done it.

Hope this helps.

Graham

Link to comment
Share on other sites
spaceboy

spaceboy

Posted
Posted

Synscan goto uses stepper motors which are more accurate but the overall accuracy of the GOTO is down to the user setting it up correctly, time, location, correct alignment stars ETC. Even so you cannot expect every object to land dead centre in the eyepiece but most will be with in the view of the finder scope. Although a 5" scope will show plenty of night sky objects you may find the syscan data base far exceeds the capabilities of the scope. This said the EQ5 mount will offer a sturdy foundation for the 5" newt to sit on and vibrations will be kept to a minimum. The newt should also fit straight to the mount but you may want to consider OTA rings and a larger dovetail bar at some point to ease balancing. The only issue you might come up against is the 5.1kg counterweights that come with EQ5's may be too heavy for the OTA and you will have to source lighter ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
brantuk

brantuk

Posted
Posted

The EQ5 Pro Synscan Goto will track better cos it has both RA and Dec motors. The accuracy of the goto depends on how well you polar align the mount and wether you get the setup parameters correct or not. It won't depend on the mount wich, when set up correctly, will goto and track absolutely fine :)

The star alignment can be made more accurate using the "Pointing Accuracy Enhancement" (PAE) feature as the session goes on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
steelfixer

steelfixer

Posted
Posted

Hi again.

There is no comparison between the two mounts as far as tracking is concerned.

If you consider your EQ2 as a mini and the EQ6 range as a Rolls Royce then the EQ5 will be somewhere around a Merc or a BMW.

With the EQ5 you can run PHD guiding which will allow you to do DSO photography.

The other advantage of running it through a computer is the fact you can use a programe like Stellairium where you can select a target from the screen and the scope points to it.

I am going to have a problem to post you a photo as my EQ5 is pier mounted in an obs.

It is carrying an 8 inch reflector plus a guide scope plus cameras.

I will attach a photo I took with my set up using a phillips 900 web cam.

This photo is unguided and is just using the mount's tracking.

It should give you some idea of just how good the mount will track.

Thanks

Graham

post-26845-133877720547_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
malc-c

malc-c

Posted
Posted

The analogy of the cars is a good one. The EQ5 is in a different league to the EQ2, both in build quality and performance. Personally if you intend to go down the imaging road I would suggest no more than a 150P on the EQ5, plus use a 9 x 50 finder as a guidescope. I have an HEQ5, 200P, ST80, QHY5 camera, and a Canon D400 and it's on the edge of the HEQ5's limit for an imaging rig, so wouldn't recommend putting that lot on an EQ5 !

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jiggy 67

Jiggy 67

Posted
Posted
Thanks for that, could I use the counterweights from my EQ2 or does it not work like that?

I have got both and no, you can't use one set of weights on the other, the bars are different sizes, but, you maybe alright just using one of the weights that comes with the EQ5

Link to comment
Share on other sites
spaceboy

spaceboy

Posted
Posted

I may be wrong but I'm almost certain the EQ5 5.1kg weight will be too much. I know it was when I used my 127 skmax on my EQ5. As for using the EQ2 weight on the EQ5 it may be possible if you drill the centre to a larger diameter to fit the EQ5 counter weight bar ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites
malc-c

malc-c

Posted
Posted
I may be wrong but I'm almost certain the EQ5 5.1kg weight will be too much. I know it was when I used my 127 skmax on my EQ5. As for using the EQ2 weight on the EQ5 it may be possible if you drill the centre to a larger diameter to fit the EQ5 counter weight bar ???

Yup. Balancing the Mak127 on an EQ5 is problematical. I have mine all the way up and it's still not perfect.

127mak.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
malc-c

malc-c

Posted
Posted
Bit of a silly question but what is the box on the leg?

Not a silly question at all.

That's the synscan unit. It contains the motor control board and the ST4 socket for use with any guide camera that uses that protocol.

The handset contains all the databases.

hope that helps

Link to comment
Share on other sites
malc-c

malc-c

Posted
Posted

If it's in the back garden or where mains is available then I use a 13.8v 3A bench power supply, which is kept in the shed (observatory).

If you use any mains ext lead in the outside then make sure it is protected with RCD etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 years later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.