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

[Luke]

We have both mounts, and use them both for visual and for imaging.

With my limited experience I couldn't say one is much better than the other.

From my point of view the key differences are:

- HEQ5 is cheaper and lighter

- NEQ6 has a higher load capacity

If I didn't need the higher load capacity, I would personally go for the HEQ5, being cheaper and lighter.

[Parus major]

The issue is they're reviews for two mounts in slightly different classes. For instance, you can go to the magazine site and find that the Sky-Watcher Explorer-150P (EQ3-2) is 2% better than the Sky-Watcher EQ5 PRO Goto.

Is that right, eh?

[sirmetin]

There can be a lot of difference between individual mounts on mass produced units and there is often also a price vs quality issue within the reviews, same quality but higher price may result in lower score depending on reviewer.

Just some things to think about.

[kookoo_gr]

I own an HEq5 Pro and when i started imaging i used the OTA of the Skywatcher dob8''. I had mixed results when it comes at imaging and they varied form very good frames to hair pulling situations.You can see photos i took at my webpage. The conclusions i had are the following.

Cons

Payload capacity: If you use an 8'' newton with a refractor for guiding setup the mount is at its payload capacity. This doesn't necessarily means that the mount will collapse under its weight (you will feel a bit uneasy though) but guiding will be difficult. You will have better results with a piggybacked 9x50 finderguider. with a finderscope i managed to get 15 mins of subs whereas with a refractor i was limited to 5 min subs.

Vibrations: Due to the length of a long newton OTA if you combine it with an HEQ5Pro (and even an EQ6) you will have vibrations even at a small breeze and as a result bad frames. almost half of the frames i captured with this combinations were scraped. The best way to deal with this problem is to change the dovetail puck to an ADM saddle since the long saddle will be steadier than the shorter one that the HEQ5 Pro/EQ6 mount has.

Pros

It is lighter than the eq6 and i can carry it easy under my arm. It is smaller than the eq6 which is very good for transport and storage. That difference though is not very big.

The image resolution of an heq5 pro/eq6 they can reach is the same according to eqmod's web page, so it's a choice of weight capacity and transportation.

The goto is very accurate if you are properly polar aligned. But this is the same at all mounts. If you have bad polar alignment then the goto will be off at any mount

the heq5 pro is very easy to service. See Astrobaby's web site. You can have immediate access to the motors and their gears by unscrewing the side cap of the mount, at the eq6 it is trickier to access the motors and the motor gears.

When it comes to features both these mounts have an ST4 autoguider port the only difference is the contolrer plug. the eq6 uses a serial port plug whereas the heq5 pro has an rj45 plug. the controller functions are the same. Also at the eq6 you plug them at the side of the mount whereas at the heq5 pro at the rear of the mount and it is easier to manage the cables.

If you use shorter length OTAs then you can have very good guiding results with the heq5 pro. I changed my setup from a newton to an 8'' GSO RC scope. Even though i have a longer FL, now i guide with an OAG and i have managed to capture 30 min subs during my initial tests, my standard frame times now are 15 mins. Of course i have serviced my mount and i have very good polar alignment not to mention the shorter OTA length and weight. I have not measured my PE since i am happy with 15 min subs.

From posts and photos from users i have seen with both of these mounts my conclusion is that both these mounts are almost the same and the choice comes down to weight capacity and ease of transportation

[Dipper]

What's the carrying capacity of both mounts?

The same review says the HEQ5 can carry 16 kilos and (N?)EQ6 24 kilos.

[dmahon]

OVL quote the HEQ5 as 15kg and 18kg in different places.

The NEQ6 is 25kg.

[E621Keith]

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

AN reviews are much more informative. They're what you would expect from a traditional astronomy magazine. If you haven't read AN, a few of their reviews can be found posted on various dealers and importers' websites.

Altair Astro

iOptron IEQ45

Altair Astro 115mm f805 EDT APO

Skywatchers

SkyWatcher Telescope Magazine Reviews

Vixen UK

Vixen - Reviews and Ads

IMHO, with weather like ours, it's simply not possible to have a good group test every month. For a group test to be valid, it has to carried out on the same night, side by side. Comparing the same telescope in different nights will give you wildly different results, so comparing different models in different night will not work.

That's why I feel S@N's group reviews should be read for entertainment only. If you want good information about equipments,read AN, S&T or even here on SGL.

[steppenwolf]

IMHO, with weather like ours, it's simply not possible to have a good group test every month. For a group test to be valid, it has to carried out on the same night, side by side. Comparing the same telescope in different nights will give you wildly different results, so comparing different models in different night will not work.

That's why I feel S@N's group reviews should be read for entertainment only. If you want good information about equipments,read AN, S&T or even here on SGL.

There is some validity in this comment and for what it is worth, if I am involved in a telescope review I do have all four instruments lined up in the observatory cooling down together for the photographic star test that I do and I carry out this test on each telescope one after the other during the same session having previously checked collimation. Obviously for the rest of the group review, I am a little more at the mercy of the skies as it is important to spend a good amount of time actually looking at the sky and using the equipment and here I have to limit myself to one or perhaps two instruments at most per session.

Personally, I do prefer writing the 'First Light' reviews carried out by Sky at Night as it is nice to concentrate purely on a single instrument or other piece kit but as recent events have shown, any review in any magazine will tend to please and displease readers 'in the know' in equal measure - magazine reviews with limited word counts are really intended to give a flavour of what a piece of kit is about. I'd love to have the opportunity to use an optical bench and carry out Ronchi tests and Strehl ratio analysis tests and throw in focuser shift measurements and spring balance weight carrying tests at the Zenith and so on but word counts put a stop on these!

[Parus major]

I think the contentious thing is the scores being measured in % - or rather out of 100, Steve. I know a difficult thing to convey is how to indicate one thing is slightly better than another. When you think it like that then saying 92 for this one and 94 for that makes sense but when you look at it without thinking that it's all a bit fuzzy and abstract.

I don't know if any of you buy it but Bird Watching magazine do a very odd thing for their reviews, they give you pretty much the same idea as S@N and AN but don't score, what they do is present the specs next to the text and then have a satisfaction vs time graph. Still a smidge woolly but it lets you see what the reviewer's thinking process was.

[steppenwolf]

I think the contentious thing is the scores being measured in % - or rather out of 100, Steve. I know a difficult thing to convey is how to indicate one thing is slightly better than another. When you think it like that then saying 92 for this one and 94 for that makes sense but when you look at it without thinking that it's all a bit fuzzy and abstract.

Scoring these things in a group test is a nightmare for the reviewer but the % scores have to be seen within the context of that particular group and it is, as you say, one way of trying to convey that one piece of kit is slightly better than another in a particular category.

An anomaly of a scoring system like this though is that, for example, a mount may perform the very best quality tracking of the group by some margin but fall short on 'features' and 'design' so that its total score takes it below another product in the group that doesn't track as well. This is why I always say that people should read the whole review, not just look at the scores!

Unfortunately, if I were to ask ten people exactly what they would like to see in a review and how they'd like the final summary presented, I reckon I'd get ten different answers!

My own perspective on reviews (and remember, I am a freelance writer) is that they do have an important place in magazines like AN and S @ N as they bring products to the attention of readers in a manner that no advertisement can, i.e. without bias but they should be used in conjunction with other research especially on the internet and on forums like this one BUT with regard to the reality that people who post in forums will have spent their own money on the gear and will, therefore, have a tendency to bias.

The one advantage that a freelance magazine reviewer has when making an assessment of a piece of kit is that he or she doesn't actually care one way of the other how good or bad a piece of kit may be - it's not theirs!

[Parus major]

I suppose the only way round it is to rank them 1st, 2nd and 3rd in each area but then you can't take the review into consideration with other bits of kit not in the group test.

[MikeWilson]

I haven't tried an 8 inch Newt on an HEQ5.

Olly

I have..

A 6" Newt is much better. 8" is too much of a sail and obviously affected by wind (no need to pixel peep to see this).

Mike

[Steve 1962]

I haven't tried an 8 inch Newt on an HEQ5.

Olly

I have too .. and I soon upgraded to an NEQ6 which handled a 200P a lot better than the 5. My first 6 was a dog, so FLO replaced it. I have to say that I wouldn't be able to express any difference between the performance of my old 5 and the second 6 - just that the 6 can obviously handle more load and is more stable in the wind.

[MikeWilson]

The HEQ5 and (N)EQ6 are effectively the same, bar stability and payload on the plus side and sheer weight and more expense on the negative.

However the HEQ5 is limiting when you want more aperture or focal length... I'd love to put an MN190 on mine but it's not going to happen.. It can manage a Quattro 8" CF Newt (or 200P.. f/5 Newt) though it's susceptible to the wind.

[RikM]

I have a 150P on my NEQ6 and it doesn't even notice the scope is there.

[Parus major]

I have a 150P on my NEQ6 and it doesn't even notice the scope is there.

Same. Not a wobble or vibration when I focus by hand.

[MikeWilson]

Same. Not a wobble or vibration when I focus by hand.

I had a 150P on my lower-payload HEQ5 and likewise no wobble, not even with moderate wind.

[Parus major]

There's a lot to be said for over mounting a telescope.

[Reggie]

Just to chip in, I used my heq5 pro with a 6" celestron SCT and a WO zs66 on a dual mount bar, + dslr and borg 2" filter holder, it guides just fine, haven't pushed it past 7 mins per shot but if you count not disturbing it between shots it'll guide for hours if asked. As will the 6 If you're guiding, PEC is pretty irrelevant and you *will* be guiding on either mount if you're planning on non-permanent mount based astrophotography.

[Robertt]

As an ex subscriber to S/N I find thier reviews allways refer to an earlier edition, the same goes for any query that is asked , sometimes going back several months even years so the query is shunted back to the questioner with the reference to the old copy of the magazine, If you do not have the copy reffered to your lost!! also as a subscriber I was Never offered the reductions or special which meant I was paying full price whilst was paying loads less

[ollypenrice]

I have just reviewed a telescope for Astronomy Now. I was not told anything at all about what form the review should take. I therefore thought about the telescope, what it was for, who might be interested in it, what it was good at, where it stood in the market, and I structured my piece around that. A central theme emerged from these thoughts. You can make a very good apo these days with stunning optics but something has to give at this price point. The something was F ratio. It was only moderately fast. So I chose an imaging target that would be slow and challenge that F ratio. How did it do on this target? Look at the image and decide for yourself. You really don't need me to comment. Personally I only want to review in this way.

Olly