AZ4

[Caldwell 14]

Are there are mods available to man up this pod a bit? It really is almost there but at 150X plus things start to get a little wobbly if the scope gets a knock or sometimes if I re-focus. Why is the giro III more stable? the AZ4 looks and feels very stable.

[Caldwell 14]

Sorry Mods, I posted in wrong section!

[RikM]

Which legs have you got it on? I have mine on the 1.75" steel pipe tripod and it seems fine. I don't often go much above 100x though. I use this mount more for widefield views.

[Caldwell 14]

Ah well you see there you go! Mines fine if I am viewing my favorite targets, i.e open clusters and splitting doubles, its only using 7mm and 5mm I start to run in to problems. I've never used an EQ Mount, would I have the same issues at high mags. Perhaps I am expecting too much, all all scopes prone to be a little more sensitive at mags? I hear alot about leg twist, there is absolutly no possiablity of legs twist on the mount which is the steel legged version. I think its the same pod as the EQ5

[RikM]

It's more to do with the long OTA. I can use a Skymax 127 with a 7mm EP and it's fine at 214x. Don't often get to use that high magnification because the seeing is rubish or the scope hasn't cooled suficiently, but at least it's stable because the OTA is little more than a foot long. Using a 5" f/9.4 you get much more shake even at lower magnification because of the turning moment associated with the physically longer tube.

This happens with EQ mounts well. I would say more in fact. I don't rate the EQ5 very highly at all. The first one I had was truly awful so perhaps that's put me off the model.

[Tyr]

It's more to do with the long OTA. I can use a Skymax 127 with a 7mm EP and it's fine at 214x.

I also regularly use this combination as well and don't really have a problem with shake or tracking.

I find that mine is a little stiffer at the moment than I would like, so I've bought some Lithium grease and degreaser to have a go at re-greasing it having been inspired by a nice EQ3-2 break down thread I saw on the DIY forums. Not got around to it yet though.

What amount of leg extension are you using? I've been using mine with the legs all the way in just because I carry the whole setup in and out of the patio doors, but I suspect with a longer tube it would be more stable with the legs out?

Tyr

[Caldwell 14]

This happens with EQ mounts well. I would say more in fact. I don't rate the EQ5 very highly at all. The first one I had was truly awful so perhaps that's put me off the model.

That is very interesting indeed, in what way was it awful?

I'm begining to think I might be making a mountain out of a mole hill here. I just want to be clear here (especially as I was just about to buy an EQ5) the pod it self is rock steady, totally steady. My scope is an fl10 4 inck refractor, my one and only scope.

Up to and including 9mm everything is very stable visually no matter how high the legs go up. at 7mm and 5mm if a tap the tube, knock the tripod and sometimes re-focus the image/view trembles for 1-2 seconds, would you expect the same to happen with an EQ5, is it just normal and what you might expect to happen with any scope.

The scope looks and feels well balanced on the mount and I have never felt that the AZ4 could not cope my TAl at all, that said I wouldn't want to put anything bigger on board.

[RikM]

I also regularly use this combination as well and don't really have a problem with shake or tracking.

I find that mine is a little stiffer at the moment than I would like, so I've bought some Lithium grease and degreaser to have a go at re-greasing it having been inspired by a nice EQ3-2 break down thread I saw on the DIY forums. Not got around to it yet though.

What amount of leg extension are you using? I've been using mine with the legs all the way in just because I carry the whole setup in and out of the patio doors, but I suspect with a longer tube it would be more stable with the legs out?

Tyr

I normally fully extend the legs becuase it brings the eyepiece to a comfortable height for me to observe when standing.

[RikM]

That is very interesting indeed, in what way was it awful?

I'm begining to think I might be making a mountain out of a mole hill here. I just want to be clear here (especially as I was just about to buy an EQ5) the pod it self is rock steady, totally steady. My scope is an fl10 4 inck refractor, my one and only scope.

Up to and including 9mm everything is very stable visually no matter how high the legs go up. at 7mm and 5mm if a tap the tube, knock the tripod and sometimes re-focus the image/view trembles for 1-2 seconds, would you expect the same to happen with an EQ5, is it just normal and what you might expect to happen with any scope.

The scope looks and feels well balanced on the mount and I have never felt that the AZ4 could not cope my TAl at all, that said I wouldn't want to put anything bigger on board.

Don't read too much into my dislike of the EQ5. It all stems from astrophotography. I was using an EQ3-2 for imaging (and getting results I was happy with) but a friend wanted me to try an EQ5 because it's bigger and better It didn't run smoothly in RA, the clutches were slippy, it wobbled a bit. I even tried switching the tripod onto my EQ3-2 head but it made no difference. Basically I could get 2min subs with the standard EQ3-2 and only 60 sec with the EQ5 so I didn't buy it but we had a bit of a disagreement about it at the time. All forgotten about now. I also have (admittedly a clone) the EQ5 that came with the 5" refractor and again this one is not as stable or smooth in action as my EQ3-2. So both those things make me..shall we say...less than a fan of the EQ5. But there are plently of people who like them and get results they are happy with using them.

I tend to think of the model as a 'not quite'. If you just want to try imaging but are not sure, get an EQ3-2. It will be rubbish but it will allow you to have a go for not much money. If you know you want to do imaging, get an HEQ5 or NEQ6 because these are designed for the job. The EQ5 is more expensive than the EQ3-2, yet still not really up to the job so it's a bit of a nowhere mount or at least a slightly beefier visual mount.

...before anyone shouts at me I know this is not reality...it is only my opinion and may therefore be wrong!

As I said, plenty of people use and enjoy the EQ5 it's just that my experience of the mount has been less than great. You may find it superb for visual use. I would prefer an altaz like an...AZ4 but if you find that a bit wobbly, then something like a giro or SkyTee II would be where I would look rather than an EQ5.

[John]

I found the Celestron CG5 a bit more stable than an EQ5 - it might be the 2" steel legs of the CG5 that make that difference and I had it driven on both axis. Anyway it was OK for visual with a 6" F/8 refractor at 250x.

The AZ-4 is quite a bit steadier on the 2" CG5 tripod. It's a taller tripod than the EQ5 / HEQ5 one as well.

[Dodge]

Having used a Tal 100RS on an EQ5, I'd wager that it won't be any different in terms of damping in comparison with an AZ4.

Perhaps something heavier-duty like a SkyTee 2 might be a better option.

[Caldwell 14]

Has anyone used Celestron anti vibration pads?