Celestron XLT 150 / Skywatcher 150p - Mount weight limits and drive accuracy?

[NeilFawcett]

If we were to look at these two similar units:-

http://www.365astron...ian-p-2056.html

http://www.celestron...ni-xlt-150.html with http://www.celestron...g-4-mounts.html

Two questions:-

1) Will the mount/motors be able to support another 1kg being attached. eg: A DSLR?

2) Will the motors then be able to allow exposures for a minute to two accurately?

Ignoring the GOTO, is there any realworld difference between them? eg: Are the drives the same? Is one mount better?

From reading it appears people are using these units with DSLR's attached for X minutes, but I'd like to know I'm not overlooking something.

[valleyman]

The EQ3 in the first picture is not really suitable for doing AP The base is not solid enough and adding more weight to it will not help.

As for the 2nd option I may be mistaken but it looks like a eq5. Again it would need motors but although it is a lot more solid than the EQ3 again would be pushing it for AP.

If doing AP is your prime object then you have to go for the best mount you can afford and the HEQ5 Pro synscan would be the minimum required IMHO.

As for the pictures in Links, I would be very suprised if they were taken using the mounts shown.

Pat

[Cornelius Varley]

In both cases the mount is an Eq3-2. The CG4 is Celestron's Eq3-2

Peter

[NeilFawcett]

The EQ3 in the first picture is not really suitable for doing AP The base is not solid enough and adding more weight to it will not help.

As for the 2nd option I may be mistaken but it looks like a eq5. Again it would need motors but although it is a lot more solid than the EQ3 again would be pushing it for AP.

If doing AP is your prime object then you have to go for the best mount you can afford and the HEQ5 Pro synscan would be the minimum required IMHO.

As for the pictures in Links, I would be very suprised if they were taken using the mounts shown.

Pat

OK...

As for DS photos with that combination, look at the first one here - http://www.pocketrub...com/ap/?paged=6

Basically the setup I'm considering, except I'd be on a D90 instead of D60.

[Cornelius Varley]

The mount used in most of those photographs is a Celestron CG5 GT, which is similar to the Skywatcher EQ5 Pro. The mount used in the first photograph is a Celestron CG4 (EQ3-2) which appears to be autoguided using an Orion Starshoot autoguider, which suggest the mount may also be equiped with the Synscan upgrade.

Peter

[NeilFawcett]

The mount used in most of those photographs is a Celestron CG5 GT, which is similar to the Skywatcher EQ5 Pro. The mount used in the first photograph is a Celestron CG4 (EQ3-2) which appears to be autoguided using an Orion Starshoot autoguider, which suggest the mount may also be equiped with the Synscan upgrade.

Peter

OK... So we're talking about one of these in order to guarentee solid DS tracking - http://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-mounts/skywatcher-eq5-pro-synscan-goto.html

eg: 5-10 min exposures?

[RikM]

I took this with a Canon 1000D on a Skywatcher 150P and standard EQ3-2 with the motor kit. The EQ3-2 / CG4 mounts are the same, the legs are better on the CG4 but the autoguider port on the EQ3 pro (assuming it works) is a big plus. I think the OMni XLT only has a 1.25" focuser, where the 150P is a 2". This makes it more stable to hang a camera on. The EQ5 Pro would be better again and a fair match for a 150mm scope.

[Cornelius Varley]

OK... So we're talking about one of these in order to guarentee solid DS tracking - http://www.firstligh...nscan-goto.html

eg: 5-10 min exposures?

To get exposures of that length you will also need a guide camera and accurate polar alignment. You would probably also get problems with periodic error in the mount with the longer exposures.

Peter

[NeilFawcett]

I took this with a Canon 1000D on a Skywatcher 150P and standard EQ3-2 with the motor kit. The EQ3-2 / CG4 mounts are the same, the legs are better on the CG4 but the autoguider port on the EQ3 pro (assuming it works) is a big plus. I think the OMni XLT only has a 1.25" focuser, where the 150P is a 2". This makes it more stable to hang a camera on. The EQ5 Pro would be better again and a fair match for a 150mm scope.

Thanks for the feedback. So would the motor you used be comparible to (or the same as) the Goto motor available for the EQ3 Pro goto? eg - http://www.firstligh...150p-eq3-2.html

If the answer is yes, out of interest to give a rough idea of the behaviour of that scope, mount and motor, how many exposures and more importantly how long were they for the above image?

As regards the EQ5 Pro, well, when combining that mount with a 150P, we may as well then enter this territory for the difference of only a hundred pound odd of - http://www.optical-s...#38;language=gb or http://www.f1telescopes.co.uk/shop.php?id=753

But I'd rather stay around £500 if possible!

[RikM]

The Pro GoTo motor is better than what I used. It has finer steps and better control but guiding is the key to long exposures. Unless you are handy with technical DIY, you can't autoguide the standard motors, only the Pro GoTo versions. For quality deep sky astrophotography the stability and quality of the mount is the most important thing. The EQ3 mounts aren't really man enough for a 150mm Newt for imaging. If the EQ5 Pro or even better the HEQ5 pro are in budget, you would be better served long term with one of those.

M31 is very bright so this was only something like 40x 90sec exposures plus a full set of calibration frames, stacked with Deep Sky Stacker and then all post processing done with Photoshop CS3. Without a guider I could get 2 min tops, more often only 60-90sec and with such a large scope on such a small mount I lost about 30-40% of exposures to wind shear

Things really start to get interesting when you can take guided subs of 3 min or more and you get to keep them all.

If you trawl through my deep sky gallery the image comments should give details of which equipment I used fr each. Older naff ones are with the EQ3-2, newer ones are with the same scope on an NEQ6, but it would be same with an HEQ5.

[NeilFawcett]

The Pro GoTo motor is better than what I used. It has finer steps and better control but guiding is the key to long exposures. Unless you are handy with technical DIY, you can't autoguide the standard motors, only the Pro GoTo versions. For quality deep sky astrophotography the stability and quality of the mount is the most important thing. The EQ3 mounts aren't really man enough for a 150mm Newt for imaging. If the EQ5 Pro or even better the HEQ5 pro are in budget, you would be better served long term with one of those.

M31 is very bright so this was only something like 40x 90sec exposures plus a full set of calibration frames, stacked with Deep Sky Stacker and then all post processing done with Photoshop CS3. Without a guider I could get 2 min tops, more often only 60-90sec and with such a large scope on such a small mount I lost about 30-40% of exposures to wind shear

Things really start to get interesting when you can take guided subs of 3 min or more and you get to keep them all.

If you trawl through my deep sky gallery the image comments should give details of which equipment I used fr each. Older naff ones are with the EQ3-2, newer ones are with the same scope on an NEQ6, but it would be same with an HEQ5.

Thanks... So, to get adequate guidance/quality, seems to be a question of:-

On the cheaper end - £600

Skywatcher Explorer 150PDS EQ3 Pro SynScan GoTo

http://www.bristolca...ynscan-goto.htm

(But with question of stability with a 1kg camera?)

On the more expensive end - £700

SkyWatcher Explorer 200PDS/1000 EQ5 PRO GoTo

http://www.optical-s...#38;language=gb

Crazy thing is, it actually seems to be cheaper to buy the 200P with an EQ5 Pro than with a 150P? Huh!?

[RikM]

On the face of it, yes. Trouble is the 200P is even more unstable on the EQ5 than the 150P is on the EQ3, so unless you just want to play at imaging and mainly want to observe through it, then the best compromise is the 150PDS on the EQ5 mount but they don't offer that as an kit option

Lots of people assume the 200P EQ5 combo as the best value for money because...well it's bigger right. Actually, unless you have a mount that will cope with it (the EQ5 won't) then bigger (longer focal length) makes things worse rather than better for imaging. Counter-intuitive I know, but a quick search through the imaging forum looking at the kit people use to produce the best images will generally throw up a 3-4" refractor (ED80) on an HEQ5 or NEQ6. Small fast scope + big accurate mount = better results.

If you really want the lowdown on which kit to use for deep sky imaging, and more importantly why, then your best first purchase would be the book Making Every Photon Count by Steve Richards (SGL's very own Steppenwolf)

[NeilFawcett]

On the face of it, yes. Trouble is the 200P is even more unstable on the EQ5 than the 150P is on the EQ3, so unless you just want to play at imaging and mainly want to observe through it, then the best compromise is the 150PDS on the EQ5 mount but they don't offer that as an kit option

Lots of people assume the 200P EQ5 combo as the best value for money because...well it's bigger right. Actually, unless you have a mount that will cope with it (the EQ5 won't) then bigger (longer focal length) makes things worse rather than better for imaging. Counter-intuitive I know, but a quick search through the imaging forum looking at the kit people use to produce the best images will generally throw up a 3-4" refractor (ED80) on an HEQ5 or NEQ6. Small fast scope + big accurate mount = better results.

If you really want the lowdown on which kit to use for deep sky imaging, and more importantly why, then your best first purchase would be the book Making Every Photon Count by Steve Richards (SGL's very own Steppenwolf)

All fabulous advise. Thanks!

So, if I try and do one last 'reality check'? This is my first visit back into astronomy since I was a kid. I undoubtably will visually look at what ever I can. I imagine also, I'd love to try and take photographs of the moon, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn, and some of the major deep sky objects. I do not intend trying to image incredibly hard to image objects, just the simpler easier to grab ones.

With this in mind, regarding:-

1 - Observations: I'd hope the 150p would allow a reasonable attempt at seeing the objects I've mentioned. And I understand deep sky objects (eg: nebula) at best will just be a fuzz visually - I remember Clearly the mount isn't that important so even an EQ3 Pro Goto might suffice?

2 - Photographing planets: Now although a DSLR might be able to have an attempt at this, eg: taking 100 images ASAP, a webcam will most likely be better. But at least I can start with the DSLR to get my feet wet. And again, the mount I imagine won't be too important here, as long as it can just follow an object for a couple of minute at a time, as I could always manually correct etc. So even an EQ3 Pro Goto might suffice?

3 - Photographing major deep sky objects: Now here the DSLR would come into its own I'd image due to the ability to have extended exposures. But with these extended exposures comes the importants of the mount being able to smoothly/accurately follow the objects for several minutes. So is this where we're saying an EQ3 Pro Goto would cause problems, and an EQ4 Goto would allow the smooth accurate movement required?

Now if I were to put these into importance, it would be 1 & 2, with 3 last, mainly because I'm a little dubious about the light polution in my area. Although I'm on the edge of a smallish village 30+ miles west of London, there are a towns around all of which produce obvious polution. I would fear, unless I took the scope elsewhere, extended exposures would suffer from light polution. So it may even be the case I couldn't do any extended exposures unless I set up the scope elsewhere.

So with these three requirements, is a 150P on an EQ4 Pro still the best option. OR am I missing another (better?) alternative that I could consider?

[RikM]

With visual observation and webcamming solar system objects as the main priority and a bit of a dabble at deep sky photography as a secondary interest, the 200P EQ5 Pro combo would be my choice of the scopes discussed so far. Like everything, it's a compromise. For visual use aperture wins; for solar system webcam imaging, focal length wins; for deep sky imaging, the mount wins. Given your priority list, the 200P EQ5 Pro takes it 2 to 1. Visually, there is big jump between 6" and 8".

Someone will be along in a minute to say get a tracking dobsonian now and save up for an HEQ5/ED80 imaging rig later...just to get that out of the way Probably the better option but much more expensive.

[NeilFawcett]

With visual observation and webcamming solar system objects as the main priority and a bit of a dabble at deep sky photography as a secondary interest, the 200P EQ5 Pro combo would be my choice of the scopes discussed so far. Like everything, it's a compromise. For visual use aperture wins; for solar system webcam imaging, focal length wins; for deep sky imaging, the mount wins. Given your priority list, the 200P EQ5 Pro takes it 2 to 1. Visually, there is big jump between 6" and 8".

Someone will be along in a minute to say get a tracking dobsonian now and save up for an HEQ5/ED80 imaging rig later...just to get that out of the way Probably the better option but much more expensive.

Well, apart from the even bigger size of the 200p scaring me even more (this things needs to be stored and moved in/out of house etc - so smaller the better really), there were concerns that simply wouldn't behave as well as the 150pds? See post #12

[RikM]

For DSO imaging, it probably won't behave as well as the smaller lighter scope. That's where the compromise comes in; there is no one scope that will do everything. For visual use and for webcam imaging the 200P will be the better scope and with a bit of effort you should be able to get some nice images of the brighter deep sky objects as well.

See if you can get along to a local astro society and have a look at some scopes to get a feel for how big these things are. The 200P is a good bit bigger than the 150. The last thing you want is a scope so big that you don't have the will to use it.

[metronome]

Hey guys! First post here

NeilFawcett; I've been using a Celestron Omni XLT 150 + CG4 mount for almost two years now. Purchased as a great beginners scope with observation mainly in mind. Despite the fact that the mount is fairly inprecise, the tube has produced some nice views. I upgraded it with a motor drive to get rid of the annoying fact that objects disappears quite rapidly, but one thing led to another and I made up my mind when it comes to photography.

It's been interesting learning to do this the hard way, but I have faced the following facts about this setup:

1. The CG4 mount is way too weak carrying all that extra weight. DSLR camera, heavy Baader eyepieces and what not. Let me add to the equation that all pictures taken so far has been unguided (good way of mastering those polar alignment skills). Adding a guide scope to this setup would make me afraid of tipping the rig over...

2. As mentioned before, the precision of the mount drive gears are not very good. Even though the object stays fairly centered in the view, quite alot of tracking errors will occur. I guess this applies to EQ3/4 as well.

3. The focuser on the Omni 150 tube is not very sufficient either. All that extra weight I've been putting on has stressed the focusing tube to it's max and now it's wobbly and suffers from severe backlash. The conclusion here is that the 2" focuser on the 150P would be a much better choice.

The list can be made even longer, unfortunately. Bottom line, when it's time to upgrade my setup (which will be fairly soon), I'll go for a NEQ6 mount and a 200PDS tube on top of that. Since astrophotography has become one of my top interests, I won't settle for less.

Summary: Having a setup that gives you headache and lack hi-tech features is a very good way of learning and when you actually produce some good results it's darn rewarding! But at the end of the day, having proper gear *will* increase your success rate.

Finally, I attached a picture of Orion Nebula which I took with this setup last winter (in Sweden). 13x90s exposures (90s is _the_ longest time I've ever been able to expose with this setup).

*Edit: Nope, that one needs to be corrected. The attached picture is actually 12x3 mins, I forgot that was a one time only. Lucky night I guess...

[NeilFawcett]

Hey guys! First post here

NeilFawcett; I've been using a Celestron Omni XLT 150 + CG4 mount for almost two years now. Purchased as a great beginners scope with observation mainly in mind. Despite the fact that the mount is fairly inprecise, the tube has produced some nice views. I upgraded it with a motor drive to get rid of the annoying fact that objects disappears quite rapidly, but one thing led to another and I made up my mind when it comes to photography.

It's been interesting learning to do this the hard way, but I have faced the following facts about this setup:

1. The CG4 mount is way too weak carrying all that extra weight. DSLR camera, heavy Baader eyepieces and what not. Let me add to the equation that all pictures taken so far has been unguided (good way of mastering those polar alignment skills). Adding a guide scope to this setup would make me afraid of tipping the rig over...

2. As mentioned before, the precision of the mount drive gears are not very good. Even though the object stays fairly centered in the view, quite alot of tracking errors will occur. I guess this applies to EQ3/4 as well.

3. The focuser on the Omni 150 tube is not very sufficient either. All that extra weight I've been putting on has stressed the focusing tube to it's max and now it's wobbly and suffers from severe backlash. The conclusion here is that the 2" focuser on the 150P would be a much better choice.

The list can be made even longer, unfortunately. Bottom line, when it's time to upgrade my setup (which will be fairly soon), I'll go for a NEQ6 mount and a 200PDS tube on top of that. Since astrophotography has become one of my top interests, I won't settle for less.

Summary: Having a setup that gives you headache and lack hi-tech features is a very good way of learning and when you actually produce some good results it's darn rewarding! But at the end of the day, having proper gear *will* increase your success rate.

Finally, I attached a picture of Orion Nebula which I took with this setup last winter (in Sweden). 13x90s exposures (90s is _the_ longest time I've ever been able to expose with this setup).

*Edit: Nope, that one needs to be corrected. The attached picture is actually 12x3 mins, I forgot that was a one time only. Lucky night I guess...

Thanks for the great feedback/advice.

So it seems you're agreeing with other comments that the Starwatcher EQ3/ Celesteron CG4 mounts are not really upto a 150P/Celestron Omni XLT 150, especially with a 1kg DSLR attached.

So three questions:-

1) With what you've experienced would you also say an EQ5 Pro with a Skywatcher 150P would be the ideal starter combination?

2) Would you agree the motors on the EQ5 Pro would be sufficient for such hardware and allow for a couple of minute exposures?

3) Your fabulous shot of the Orion nebula, that was on your motorised CG4 mount, Celestron 150 and DSLR? Out of interest what else did you use? eg: Barlow? Any other examples of what you've managed with that hardware/combination?

[metronome]

Thanks for the great feedback/advice.

So it seems you're agreeing with other comments that the Starwatcher EQ3/ Celesteron CG4 mounts are not really upto a 150P/Celestron Omni XLT 150, especially with a 1kg DSLR attached.

So three questions:-

1) With what you've experienced would you also say an EQ5 Pro with a Skywatcher 150P would be the ideal starter combination?

2) Would you agree the motors on the EQ5 Pro would be sufficient for such hardware and allow for a couple of minute exposures?

3) Your fabulous shot of the Orion nebula, that was on your motorised CG4 mount, Celestron 150 and DSLR? Out of interest what else did you use? eg: Barlow? Any other examples of what you've managed with that hardware/combination?

1. Based on what I've read so far about the more expensive EQ mounts - yes. But I bet the actual owners of that equipment will have more to say about it. Since SW 150P is a smaller tube than for example 200P (alot of people gear towards NEQ6 when using 200P) , I think it's a good combination. Lesson learned is that cheaper mounts are not sufficient enough for AP - EQ5 Pro sure is when using smaller tubes.

2. I'm sure the motors will be fine, but you'll need autoguiding equipment if you want longer exposure times. Without, It's all about polar alignment and balancing the mount (not to say it's needless WITH autoguiding, just less critical). That one time I reached 3 mins (Orion Nebula) was really a lucky strike, most of my subs are 90 secs or less. It can be done for sure, but it takes ALOT of patience and know-how. The EQ5 motors will for sure perform better than the CG4's, but the difference in exposure times without autoguiding is not dramatical.

3. First, thanks for the compliment And yes, it was with my current setup (CG4 + 150 XLT + Canon 1100D, unmodded). It was shot in prime focus, without any eye pieces and barlows. M42 is large enough to be shot without extra magnification. I've taken alot of images, but this one is the only one I'm actually pleased with

[NeilFawcett]

1. Based on what I've read so far about the more expensive EQ mounts - yes. But I bet the actual owners of that equipment will have more to say about it. Since SW 150P is a smaller tube than for example 200P (alot of people gear towards NEQ6 when using 200P) , I think it's a good combination. Lesson learned is that cheaper mounts are not sufficient enough for AP - EQ5 Pro sure is when using smaller tubes.

2. I'm sure the motors will be fine, but you'll need autoguiding equipment if you want longer exposure times. Without, It's all about polar alignment and balancing the mount (not to say it's needless WITH autoguiding, just less critical). That one time I reached 3 mins (Orion Nebula) was really a lucky strike, most of my subs are 90 secs or less. It can be done for sure, but it takes ALOT of patience and know-how. The EQ5 motors will for sure perform better than the CG4's, but the difference in exposure times without autoguiding is not dramatical.

3. First, thanks for the compliment And yes, it was with my current setup (CG4 + 150 XLT + Canon 1100D, unmodded). It was shot in prime focus, without any eye pieces and barlows. M42 is large enough to be shot without extra magnification. I've taken alot of images, but this one is the only one I'm actually pleased with

1 & 2 - So without autoguide I a minute or two's good tracking could be achieved with the EQ5 Pro, if lucky etc. But to get longer exposures you'd need an auotguide and you're then on about something like an Orion autoguide system comprising of scope with sensor running into your PC? Obviously that's another £300-400 gone, so another day

3 - Yes, it's a lovely shot

[metronome]

1 & 2 - So without autoguide I a minute or two's good tracking could be achieved with the EQ5 Pro, if lucky etc. But to get longer exposures you'd need an auotguide and you're then on about something like an Orion autoguide system comprising of scope with sensor running into your PC? Obviously that's another £300-400 gone, so another day

3 - Yes, it's a lovely shot

Well, it's either autoguiding (Orion is a good example, yes) or some kind of manual guiding (like an off-axis guider or another scope = more money needed).

My recommendation is that you start snapping images without any autoguiding stuff, better to learn how to master the technique step by step (and not get confused with too many gadgets). Just make sure that your mount will cope with that extra weight when you get to the point where you actually want to buy an autoguiding system - which is exactly what's this discussion is all about. Better to buy a mount that lasts, rather than to buy a new mount when you want to add more stuff to it. Believe me, it will happen sooner than you think...

[NeilFawcett]

My recommendation is that you start snapping images without any autoguiding stuff, better to learn how to master the technique step by step (and not get confused with too many gadgets). Just make sure that your mount will cope with that extra weight when you get to the point where you actually want to buy an autoguiding system - which is exactly what's this discussion is all about. Better to buy a mount that lasts, rather than to buy a new mount when you want to add more stuff to it. Believe me, it will happen sooner than you think...

Absolutely, I only plan on taking manual motor driven stuff (ie: autoguiding it not on my mandate)... And hopefully the EQ5 Pro is the answer to this...

[RikM]

The unguided tracking accuracy will be no better than the EQ3 Pro. I only get 2 minutes unguided with my NEQ6! The EQ5 will give you better stability against the wind though, which will be a big help and can be used with autoguiding in the future (after your first couple of images, you will want to guide )

[NeilFawcett]

The unguided tracking accuracy will be no better than the EQ3 Pro. I only get 2 minutes unguided with my NEQ6! The EQ5 will give you better stability against the wind though, which will be a big help and can be used with autoguiding in the future (after your first couple of images, you will want to guide )

So the motors and bearings etc are identical between the EQ5 Pro and the EQ3-2?

But as you say, the EQ5 Pro will allow autoguiding to be added later

[RikM]

Identical no, but the same quality and accuracy.