EQ6 to IEQ45 ? Anyone upgraded

[jnc71106]

Looking to find out if any members have upgraded from an EQ6 to a IEQ45

What are your thoughts ? Happy with your choice ? What's better ? What's worse ?

I'm looking to maybe go down this route as due to health reasons the weight of the EQ6 is a problem for me but I want something that can take a biggish payload

So the IEQ45 fits that description just want to know how people are getting on with it

Many thanks

[Jessun]

Hi, I went from the HEQ5-Pro to the iEQ45 for imaging, and apart from a few minor details I find it a joy to use. It's very light as you say, and the overall design is pretty much an Astro Physics stolen blue print - just not that precision, quality or overall finish. But the ideas are there - and a few more.

You get a beefier tripod, a better adjustment system for lat, a bubble level built in to the mount, GPS that makes alignment quick and easy, better hand controller software, a nice polar alignment routine, more solid counterweight shaft, future possibility to focus via the hand controller, what seems to me as better pointing accuracy, enhanced parking position possibilities, clever meridian treatment options, and a good losmandy saddle.

Bad bits: some friction remains after you release the clutches still (v2) so balancing is not as easy. (There's a software routine for it though), the polar scope is a bit flimsy, the handset buttons a bit too stiff, and it seems as it wobbles a bit in RA if your balance is too good. Guiding is trickier to nail. No setting circles - if you like these.

I love it for its portability and the pointing accuracy and the handset software. Looking at the end product - an image - I can't tell them apart.

[Davey-T]

Never had EQ6 but chose iOptron iEQ45 purely on the weight issue as I wanted a portable setup.

Only had a couple of try outs so far due to weather but as Jesper says once a few teething troubles got over it seems to do what it says on the box.

Quick to set up and guides and tracks 10mins ok.

Davey-T

[ollypenrice]

I use an iEQ45 and a couple of EQ sixes amongst other mounts. For me the iOptron positives are fast polar alignment and light weight relative to payload. However, the iOptron payload claim is a bit optimistic in the case of long OTAs. The design of the spring loaded drives means that a heavy polar inertia from a long tube leads to wobbles. If you use a short tube (forgetting total weight, which is always only one deciding factor) then the iOptron is better than with a longer one. The NEQ6 can image with our TEC 140 aboard. The iOptron cannot. But if you are mobile then you'll be imaging a lot sooner than with an NEQ6.

Olly

[Jessun]

Olly I know I spent quite some time fiddling with guiding settings for the iEQ45 at Les Granges, but tweaking things around in PHD - basically making it hold the iOptron by the ear, combined with shorter guide interval and a generous offset in the balancing, I do think it's doing the business now. I used it for the image below at 1.6m, 10 minute subs and I believe that most errors present in the image are due to poor sky quality and poor processing rather than mount oddities. (This is my current city remake of the M101 I did at yours).

So at the TEC's 980mm native FL, the iOptron should be able to stay on target. It really ought to. Does the NEQ6 do it better? I'd trust your answer to that, since you have used both extensively - and even my HEQ5 does a splendid job still with my setup - similar to the iOptron.

My experience is limited still in using the mount and I do need to test it further. When it stops raining...