Jump to content

EQ3-2 Fit for what?


Mikejh

Recommended Posts

I bought a Evostar 120 on a EQ3-2 earlier this year (new) but I have to say it is beginning to frustrate me with it's habit of wobbling at the slightest touch, breeze or whatever! (seems to cope with my MAK90 though). I was thinking about getting a small scope for imagining, but I am wondering if would be worth spending out on motors for the EQ3-2 or just get rid of it? What would be the minimum mount suitable for the 120 and a modest imaging setup? Any views please?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 25
  • Created
  • Last Reply

If you are thinking of imaging then an HEQ5 is the minimum (an EQ6 would be better). I think you would be better off buying a mount that will do the job you want it to and give yourself a bit of "future proofing". It will actually be cheaper in the long run. With imaging, a good mount is 90% of the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have an EQ3-2 and improved the stability of the the set up I use on this by filling the legs with used .22 lead pellets from target pistols. The missus is a member of a local gun club and got hold of a gallon bucket load of spent lead pellets for free which I poured into the legs and sealed in using 5 minute araldite. The effect is a significantly more stable platform, I only use this now to mount an astrotrac but if you can get hold of similar or a dense ballast for free it is worth a try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Evostar 120 is a fairly large scope for the EQ3-2, but adding ballast inside the legs and/or adding weights to the tray (I have a couple of rocks I sit in the eyepiece tray) can help, as well as checking all the screws and bolts are done up properly and where possible not using it with the legs fully extended. For imaging I try to use mine with the legs extended as little as possible, though some is necessary otherwise I can't see the polar scope.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i have used my mak180 on mine :eek: but not with the legs supplied, i used the legs from my heq5 i.it wasn't great, but not as bad as i thought it would be and i was only trying to get a image of venus low on the horizon.

i would probably look to getting a better mount and keep the eq3 for a grab and go option.mine is used to mount an ed80 on for solar work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The EV120 is a long scope and that put a lot of strain on the mount. A eq3-2 is simply not suitable for this scope. I used to have a Synta 120f8 (Bresser) on the heavier EQ4 (old EQ5 with alu legs) and that wasn't very stable either. IMHO the minimum mount for the 120f8 is an EQ5 with tubular steel legs.

If you plan on doing imaging, you will need a good mount and a HEQ5 is usually considered the minimum requirement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of good suggestions there-thanks. Funds won't stretch to a new mount so I am going to have to live with the limitations of the existing one for now and try out some of these suggestions. I guess if I put a motor on it should work with the MAK90 for lunar and planetary just about? I would like to get a 70-80mm APO and try within the limits of the equipment too. I did see some amazing photos on another thread by folks using modest equipment, often unguided equipment, although most were using better mounts I noticed. Ah well -start saving!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should have no problems weight-wise with the Mak 90 for lunar and planetary. I use my (motorised, but ancient) EQ3-2 with a 127 Mak for planetary imaging quite successfully.

Stan26 is yer man when looking into DSO imaging using the EQ3-2. Have a browse through some of his threads for more information.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really think putting a 150 Mak on it would be asking too much. I had to fit a motorised focuser to the 127 Mak to stand any chance of being able to focus it correctly for imaging. The 150 OTA alone is a good proportion of the way to the limit for the EQ3-2 (which I believe has been quoted as 8kg), and once you have all the other necessary gubbins as well I think it might just be pushing things too far.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use my EQ3-2 with an ST80 fitted with a white-light filter for solar imaging and with just a DSLR and lens for widefield shots. I have used it for basic deep sky images with a 150P and a DSLR and got some reasonable images (see album) but moving to a bigger mounter was the best move I made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember that two things besides weight have a big effect on what a mount can carry for imaging. One is physical length, because the polar moment working against the mount goes up radically with length. The other is focal length, a long focal length needing far more precision. So the Maks are physically short (good) but optically long (tricky for a mount.)

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone-learning to juggle would be easier.....but not so much fun!

Well, I reckon I could probably teach most people who aren't totally cack-handed to juggle in half an hour. With three juggling balls, at least. Four is harder and five takes a fair bit of practice. Once you get into things like juggling clubs, rings, fire, knives and juggling between people then it really gets fun.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can do three. Either juggling balls or clubs. :D A useful skill that everyone should learn ;)

I think there are certainly benefits. After I taught myself the basics I started going to a circus skills workshop and eventually began teaching others. During that time my hand-eye co-ordination became quite astonishing and catching became almost totally subconscious. I'd love to see children taught to juggle at school because as well as being fun to do it would really help with their general co-ordination. It's actually something you can do as pairs or fours and whilst it can be quite physical it doesn't discriminate against the less athletic.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had the evostar 120 on the EQ5 years ago which I thought was about right for visual, I personally don't think they should even sell scopes this big on the ali legged eq3? I think the 102 should be the maximum.

For imaging its all about the mount so another vote for the HEQ5, having said this some people manage very good results with the EQ3 and EQ5 but it usually involves putting them on a pier or filling the ali legs with sand, stripping a regreasing the mount, tuning to reduce backlash, and soldering in the ST4 port mod from shoestring astronomy for guiding, and oh yes a lot of patience. I started imaging with an EQ5 and despite spending too much time on polar alligning I only ever managed 30 second subs, as soon as a upgraded to an HEQ5 (not even the pro one) I roughly pointed it in the general direction of Polaris and instantly got 120 second subs!

You can pick up a mk1 HEQ5 for about 250-300 quid second hand, or the HEQ5 pro for about 450.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • 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.