EQ1 or EQ2 w/motors--ok for SLR photography?

[canadave]

Hello,

I'm looking to get into some dSLR astrophotography without a telescope. I'm aware of all the various options out there (stationary tripod, Astrotrac, GEM mount, etc), and I know that "the mount is everything" when it comes to astrophotography, etc.

I'm just wondering if motorized EQ1 or EQ2 mounts (and their tripods of course) would be sufficiently stable/accurate enough for dSLR astrophotography of large bright DSO's (M31, M51, M42, etc), at focal lengths no more than 300mm. I'd be using stacking, so I don't anticipate extremely long exposures (no more than a minute or so, tops?).

I know these mounts are nowhere near good enough for serious astrophotography with a scope...but I'm just wondering if I can get away with them for my limited purposes. Ideally I'd get an Astrotrac instead, but those are just way too expensive!

[brantuk]

Hi Dave - One of my mates uses one of those little table top eq mounts with an RA motor and just a camera to produce some stunning wide fields of the Milky Way. He's a bit good mind you. So I'm sure you'd get away with it on EQ1 or EQ2 with a motor.

Yeah the Astrotracs are silly money for what they are I agree - it's just a giant pair of scisors with a long screw and a motor, on a tripod - could probably knock one up myself for under £100 if I had the inclination and tools,

[ollypenrice]

I'm going to say, 300mm, no. 300mm is quite long. My Takahshi FSQ comes down to 328mm so that is a telescopic focal length.

For widefeild, though, everything gets much more forgiving. If you could move just a little further up the EQ mount food chain you'd be in a better position. However, there is lots to image at shorter FLs. I have a Samyang 85 lens which did a good job of Orion over 6 panels and captured the Rho Ophichus region in one. Widefield gets interesting when you go deep and catch the larger nebulae overlooked by telescopic imagers. I would shoot longer subs at shorter FLs myself. Short subs won't go deep however many you take.

It's easy to call the Astrotrac expensive until you see images like Mel's on here and then you think, 'Maybe it isn't!'

Olly

[steppenwolf]

I have a motorised EQ1 and from personal experience, would agree with Olly - 300mm, not a chance! During a recent trip to NZ, I used my EQ1 and a 50mm lens and found that with exposures of over 45 seconds in length, star trailing became intrusive - now, I am a fussy kinda guy but I just know that you would be disappointed when using the same mount with a telephoto lens. I have no experience of the EQ2 but I doubt that there would be too much improvement.

Widefield with a short focal length lens and lots of subframes would yield some nice results with these two mounts. See 30 second ISO800 images below taken of the southern skies and an image of the mount itself (EQ1 with my polar alignment red dot finder mod.):-

[ollypenrice]

Lovely images from Steve there.

Olly

[canadave]

Thanks folks for the helpful replies!

Okay, I'm getting the picture here (no pun intended)--short focal lengths/widefield is probably okay, but longer lengths are out.

Fair enough...how about if I went with an EQ3 instead? Would 300mm be a more realistic possibility there?

In thinking about it, I guess what I'm really asking is this: what's the minimum recommended "level of mount" that would suffice for 300mm dSLR tracked photography?

[steppenwolf]

An EQ3 would be more like it and IMHO is the minimum mount for this kind of work although I'd put 300mm at the end of its operational envelope - 200mm would be more like it.

The following is an image of 200 seconds taken with a 200mm telephoto lens mounted on an old driven EQ3-2 mount to give an indication of the depth you might expect with a CCD camera:-

[canadave]

Thanks...it looks like an EQ3 for me

I actually see that there's someone who might be able to ship a like-new Omni CG-4 mount and tripod to me for fairly cheap. Is that a decent mount as well? From what I read, it's an EQ3 clone. Is there any particular advantage of, say, an Orion EQ3 in comparison to the CG-4, or is it basically "same-same"?

[canadave]

Okay...I have another option just available to me. Someone is selling their LXD75 mount, plus tripod, motors, and polar scope, for $350 Canadian shipped (that's probably around £200-£210). If I'm going to get something, it's going to be either this, or the Omni CG-4 mount I mentioned in my last post (although I'd also have to get motors for that CG-4, as the seller doesn't have any). Figure it'd be close to the same amount of money.

I'm really torn, and not sure what to do, for a variety of reasons. First off, assuming I do want to get one, I'm not sure which one of those two mounts would be better--not just for the purpose I want to get it for now (camera photography without a telescope), but also for "down the road" if I decide I *do* want to get an OTA and try some real astrophotography.

Second, my understanding from what I've read is that the LXD75 and tripod and counterweights is 50 pounds or so. This is a problem. I live in a three-floor condo, and I'd have to store it on the ground floor, then get it through the front doorway somehow (would it even fit?), then move it along the gravel driveway about 30-50 meters to a clearing where I could do observing. I have zero idea how I'd do that at 50 pounds

Third, I'm not even sure if £200 is a good price for either of those mounts.

Fourth, I'm not really all that handy (I grew up in downtown Manhattan and never learned basic tools and such), so if something went wrong with the mount, I'd have very little recourse to fix it. I'm really in quite a rural area with very sparse population...the nearest big city, Halifax, is a full 90 minutes away. I mean I can use a hammer and a screwdriver, but that's about it! At this stage of my life, I don't really want to be incessantly tinkering with things...I want things that will (mostly) work without too much hassle.

On the other hand....£200 *is* pretty much within my budget for what I wanted to do. If I bought either of these, I guess I'd just need to get some sort of mounting adapter for the camera? I wouldn't need any kind of ball head to mount the camera on, right?

So torn............soooooooo tornnnnn........

[steppenwolf]

Fourth, I'm not really all that handy (I grew up in downtown Manhattan and never learned basic tools and such), so if something went wrong with the mount, I'd have very little recourse to fix it. I'm really in quite a rural area with very sparse population...the nearest big city, Halifax, is a full 90 minutes away. I mean I can use a hammer and a screwdriver, but that's about it! At this stage of my life, I don't really want to be incessantly tinkering with things...I want things that will (mostly) work without too much hassle.

Hmmm, at the risk of upset, the LXD75 mount can be a bit 'high maintenance' to keep in good order. My experience of them is that they require constant tinkering. Do you like the sound of fresh coffee being ground? This could be an advantage with the LXD75, they do a great imitation ......

All joking aside, the LXD75 would do what you wanted with the advantage of GoTo but there are much better mounts out there that don't require constant fettling although £200 is a low price, I have to say.

[canadave]

Hmmm, at the risk of upset, the LXD75 mount can be a bit 'high maintenance' to keep in good order. My experience of them is that they require constant tinkering. Do you like the sound of fresh coffee being ground? This could be an advantage with the LXD75, they do a great imitation ......

All joking aside, the LXD75 would do what you wanted with the advantage of GoTo but there are much better mounts out there that don't require constant fettling although £200 is a low price, I have to say.

This version for sale doesn't even have the GoTo At least I don't think it does...he says it doesn't come with AutoStar. That's the Meade flavour of GoTo, yes?

Hmmmm. The last thing I want to do is spend money to have something that I get frustrated having to try to (likely unsuccessfully) keep in working order. What would be the cheapest mount that usually does not require "constant fettling"?