HEQ5 and EQ6 comparison reveals HEQ5 is a better choice, according to Sky at Night

[Dipper]

After selling my EQ5 Pro mount and before my finances allow me to grab either HEQ5 Pro or NEQ6 Pro mount I am reading all the reviews I can to make a better opinion of what mount is better suited for me. I found this curious comparison by Sky at Night Magazine which sums it up that HEQ5 is "better built, has a higher Go-To and tracking accuracy and is more stable" than EQ6. EQ6 on the other hand has "more features". It doesn't surprise me that the two mounts may differ in accuracy which may be due to different mechanisms used and different weights applied to them, but how can a smaller mount be more stable and why does the verdict say that 5's build quality is a noticable 6% higher than that of 6's?

Here are the two reviews in PDF format and this is a given verdict.

Can anyone elaborate on the subject?

[E621Keith]

I always take S@N reviews with a pinch of salt. However, there are variations between individual mounts. May be they had a good HEQ5 and a bad EQ6.

[The_PSY3NTIST]

Im nearly saved up for an eq6.. Watching with interest.

[Dipper]

Im nearly saved up for an eq6.. Watching with interest.

Exactly the same with me. That's the first review I read where the 5 got better marks than the 6.

[Bizibilder]

They are missing the most important point - ability to carry a load. The EQ6 wins hands down.

[ollypenrice]

I have two EQ sixes and they vary. I can't even say one is better than the other! They both vary. I doubt that there is any real underlying dfference in accuracy between 5 and 6 but the 6 has a significant payload advantage. If you don't need that payload then the more portable 5 has a lot going for it. You obviously can't decide between the 5 and 6 in terms of accuracy based on a sample of one of each. They are mass produced budget mounts and are bound to vary considerably. Most importantly they guide out quite well. On occasion either of mine can match the accuracy of my EM200 but the EM200 does it nearly all the time. When the EQ sixes are bad they are...quite bad. That's rare. They are good value.

Olly

[JamesF]

Wasn't there something about the periodic error being better on the 5 than the 6? I do seem to recall when I was researching it that there was definitely some issue along those lines that might make the 5 more desirable. Of course, it's a moot point if it won't carry the weight you want to put on it anyhow.

James

[The_PSY3NTIST]

Would a heq5 cope well with a 200p and guide equipment? Wonder if the heavier gearing on the eq6 is anything to do with the reviews.

[Starflyer]

The periodic error is generally slightly better on the HEQ5s than the EQ6s, the load capacity for the EQ6 is what makes it more attractive.

If all you plan to mount is an 80mm / 100mm refractor or a 150mm reflector with a light guide scope then the HEQ5 is the better choice. If you're in any doubt that you may upgrade scopes, or have a larger scope than these already then you really do need the extra load capacity of the EQ6.

[malc-c]

Would a heq5 cope well with a 200p and guide equipment? .

Yes !

There are a few set up like that - Mine included

[ollypenrice]

Malcolm, I see an observatory there. This affords great protection from the wind and implies a 'high order' polar alignment. I'd suggest that this is a big help to any setup and plays a role in your satisfaction with an 8 inch Newt on an HEQ5. In portable mode, with less wind protection, what do you think...? Genuine question, by the way. I don't know. I haven't tried an 8 inch Newt on an HEQ5.

Olly

[malc-c]

Olly,

I took the 200P (no guidescope - just stock) to SGL6 last year, and in an exposed field the wind buffering the scope (it was fairly windy) was very noticeable. I've not tried the HEQ5 in similar circumstances to be honest, but Im guessing it would be a lot more stable, but still noticable. In the Obsy, the south wall drops, but I do have the house / hedge and other sides of the obsy to offer protection from the wind. I was able to guide with the wind blowing to 27mph a few weeks back !

[Dipper]

I've seen many astroshops where the 8" Newtonians are sold on HEQ5 mounts which says it's a safe choice in general.

[pete_l]

A ... I found this curious comparison by Sky at Night Magazine

...

Can anyone elaborate on the subject?

<takes a deep breath>Both of those articles seem to be written with a view to not saying anything bad about the mounts in question. As such (and lacking any test-lab/workshop measurements of performance) it makes them a nice, entertaining piece of journalism but practically useless for informing a potential buyer regarding which is most suitable for them.

And how you assess one mount having a GOTO accuracy of 91% and the other an accuracy of 92% is beyond me. If the magazine had any way of measuring the performance of GOTOs to within 1% I'm certain the mount makers, from Astro-Physics, Takahashi, Bisque and all the others would be on the first plane over!

So far as reviews are concerned, in general. My opinion has always been that they're nice when they review (and measure, and aren't afraid to be honest) new equipment that's just hit the market. However, when it's mainstream kit that is "in the field", then nothing beats the opinions of people who have actually bought it, with their own money.

[ollypenrice]

I've seen many astroshops where the 8" Newtonians are sold on HEQ5 mounts which says it's a safe choice in general.

There are lots of mount-scope packages out there which could never in a million years take a long exposure astrophoto. I don't say that of the HEQ5/8 inch Newt but the fact that someone offers to sell you something does not, alas, mean that they know it will work.

Be sure to talk to people who use the gear before you talk to those who sell it, unless you know they are reputable and have taken a picture or two.

While I agree with Pete, above, I have done a mount review for Astronomy Now and it's harder than you might think. Because I do so much imaging I know that the same mount, literally untouched since last night, can give totally different guide values from last night. That's autoguiding. Is it the seeing? The FWHM can be exactly the same but the guiding isn't. Cor blimey, if you know what's going on please tell me cos I never do!!

Olly

[ItIsOnlyMe]

Typical!! Spend weeks deciding whether to buy a HEQ5 or a NEQ6, ten minutes after I splash out on the NEQ6 I read for the very first time that the HEQ5 is "better".

And who, if anybody is paying these prices? NEQ6 can be had for £927 and the HEQ5 circa £740-750.

Down side for the HEQ is that it is "power hungry" - really? Who would ever notice that in use unless they are using an underspecified (<2A) power supply. The NEQ6 isn't portable yet most people are carrying them in and out all the time, surely if I can make it to the garden I can also make it to the car and out to a dark site. I wouldn't want to get on the bus with either of them.

[Dipper]

I wouldn't want to get on the bus with either of them.

Unless you own a bus.

[ArmyAirForce]

What's the carrying capacity of both mounts?

I'm looking to buy an Explorer 200 and either the HEQ5 or EQ6, and will be using the scope in conjunction with a DSLR. I've read a great deal of reviews online, and posts on the forum about these two mounts and mounts in general, but I'm still no closer to knowing what is the best option!

[dph1nm]

Down side for the HEQ is that it is "power hungry"

Although if you read the reviews they actually say that the EQ6 is worse - they just don't put this in the AGAINST column. Which is a bit misleading if you are comparing the two.

NigelM

[dph1nm]

I have an 11kg 8.5" Newtonian on an HEQ5 in an observatory. Seems to work OK, but PE limits me to about 60secs at 1" pixel resolution (or 2mins at 2" with my 4" SLT). I can't tell you how well it guides because I can't get my synguider to work!

NigelM

[themos]

The S@N tests are a bad joke, they're like something from the 50s. If you want to see proper tests you'll have to learn German or French and buy one of the magazines over there.

[Bukko]

Back in the November 2011 issue of S@N, they reviewed the Celestron CGEM DX1400 HD.

This must be see as something most people would aspire to; the high resolution optics, the extremely capable mount, with the All-Star polar alignment making setting up a cinch.

Valued at nearly 9 Grand, I am sure it is brilliant.

S@N gave it 91%, losing out badly to Build and Design, Ease of Use and Features.

In the same edition was a review of beginners scopes.

The little £400 Celestron NexStar 102SLT with Alt-Az mount and Achromatic optics also scored 91%.

So, on the face of it, there is no point in spending the extra £8.6k for the same score...

Now, I KNOW they are totally different categories, but I also remember a letter from a reader about a disparity in scores, where one item was clearly in a different league to the others, in terms of price and performance.

The response was that they do not include for value for money and this is up to the readers to discern.

So, if that is the case, then we should also deduce that the above examples are comparable?

In the Aug 2010 issue, they also reviewed solar telescopes. I had recently purchased the 60mm Lunt and was excited to see how it copared.

They had the small low cost 35mm Lunt, a 40mm Coronado PST and 2 Solarmax 40's, onedouble stacked. No Solarscopes on the list and it is easy to guess the winner.

Sorry, S@N, I don't even take the reviews with a pinch of salt, as I allowed my subscription to lapse.

Oh, yes, and back to the mount discussion !!

I have the NEQ6, loaded with a 12" OO Newtonian, autoguides with a SX OAG brilliantly. Scores highly on load capacity.

Even if the HEQ5 can carry your proposed payload, what if you want to add guide scope, or second refractor? This will probably put you over the recommended payload.

If you can carry the extra cost and weight of the NEQ6, then that would be my recommendation.

Good luck with your mount choice.

Gordon

[themos]

I am being unfair to Astromomy Now which may have much better tests, I don't know.

[ollypenrice]

I am being unfair to Astromomy Now which may have much better tests, I don't know.

I did my best in reviewing the iOptron IEQ45 for AN!! I quoted the guide values I obtained and discussed all the oddities and negatives of the mount. I didn't agree that the quoted payload was an adequate way of saying what it would carry so I estimated which scope sizes/types would meet its limits. I discussed it with another owner as well and confirmed that he could guide sub pixel with a 1.6 metre FL 8 inch RC. The review included images taken on the mount. I think there was a fair amount of hard fact in there and no punches pulled. You don't have a great word count given all that needs to be covered.

What I like about reviewing for AN is that I'm not obliged to follow a set formula. It seems to me that each product needs addressing in a particular way. If a scope is primarily an imaging instrument then you must image with it and present the images...etc. The iOptron mount is notably portable so I made that a key part of the review and spent longer on that than I would've spent on another model.

Scope reviews in the French Astronomie are excellent but they have access to an optician with an optical bench.

EQ5 or 6? So what if the 5 has a lower PE? Does it matter? If you are at all serious about imaging you'll be guiding and the key question is, How does it respond to the guider? For about a year my Takahashi EM200 sat there happily ticking away unguided at 5 arcsecs of error, a quarter of the PE of the EQs. But once wired up to the guider it was awful, till we found out what the faults were. The fact that there were two of them didn't help! Without the EQ5 and 6 imaging would be far more elitist because the next option is considerably more expensive and then you are soon in the £5K area.

Olly

[steppenwolf]

access to an optician with an optical bench.

I gotta get me one of them!