EQ-1 and EQ-2 Mounts

[Naemeth]

I don't see the advertised payload that these can both hold, and what the limiting diameter of the OTA that they could hold would be?

Does anyone know, or have experience with any of these mounts?

[JamesF]

Unless you're just thinking about mounting a camera with a relatively lightweight lens, I'd really not bother.

What purpose did you have in mind?

James

[Naemeth]

Unless you're just thinking about mounting a camera with a relatively lightweight lens, I'd really not bother.

What purpose did you have in mind?

James

Perhaps either for a lightweight refractor in the future (~80mm) or my current Heritage OTA (at 1.3kg).

[camoscato]

I've got an EQ-2. I couldn't find anywhere in the manual where it said what its capacity is, but it came with and holds my 2.5kg 90mm refractor with no trouble. Hope that helps a bit.

[JamesF]

I think either the AZ3 or AZ4 would be better for that.

There's no built-in way to polar align the EQ1 and EQ2 which makes the fact that they're equatorial of limited usefulness. If you're using them for a lightweight imaging rig then you can drift align or do something similar to get alignment, but for visual use you just have to point them in roughly the right direction and live with it. If that's the best you can do then you'll have to tweak the slow-mo controls every so often anyhow, so you're not really any better off than having an alt-az to start with. And the alt-az will probably be cheaper.

James

[JamesF]

I've got an EQ-2. I couldn't find anywhere in the manual where it said what its capacity is

I think that's because if you need to ask, it's almost certainly not going to be the mount you're after

James

[Naemeth]

Having something that would track would be useful. I thought about an AZ3 and an AZ4, but neither of these can track can they?

[JamesF]

Having something that would track would be useful. I thought about an AZ3 and an AZ4, but neither of these can track can they?

Tracking is only really useful if your polar alignment is reasonable. There's no facility to add a polar scope to these mounts, though I think Steve (steppenwolf) did attempt to add an external polar scope (actually a red dot finder IIRC) to one for short focal length imaging with a camera. If you don't have good polar alignment though and you have to use the slow-mo controls to keep tweaking the tracking then you're really not achieving that much more than an alt-az mount does.

James

[billhinge]

Hi

I have a modded CG-5 (aka EQ5), it does support a C11 and extras complete with 3 x 11lb counterweights hanging on the very end of the bar but it is a struggle and just about works for planetary observation/video

When I put my new 80mm APO on it then it copes with ease with just one counterweight and it is a more pleasurable experience

So I'm guessing for an 80mm an easy life you are looking at CG5/EQ5 size minimum, I do plan to upgrade my mount to something bigger when I can afford it so if funds permit then why not think bigger from the start

[JamesF]

I'd have thought the EQ3-2 would probably be good enough for most 80mm refractors or the Heritage 130, too.

James

[billhinge]

maybe it will , just saying my heavy 80mm is fine on a CG5, so how about anything in between a EQ3 and EQ5

[themos]

I use a red-dot finder with my EQ1 to get near Polaris. You go back and forth in RA, adjusting each time the azimuth and altitude controls until Polaris does not move much. I then use a photographic method for getting within 5-arcminutes (that's 1/6 of a full moon diameter). Details on http://code.google.c...olar-alignment/

[Naemeth]

Roughly how much do you think I could get a 2nd hand EQ3-2 for?

I've also heard about making a polarscope for an EQ1, could this make it a proper EQ Mount?

[username]

I have an eq2 upon which my 4 inch mak sits. The mak weighs ~2kg. I wouldn't want to be put much more weight or moment arm on it but for my scope I think it's a great mount.

Having wanted the answer to the same question I remember this thread http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/56725-eq2-load-bearing/

The 130p closed tube newt gets packaged with the eq2 and I haven't read many complaints regrading stability but I reckon that would be it's limit for an enjoyable experience. I wouldn't even think about an eq1

I think an additional question you should be asking yourself is why do you want an equatorial mount? Is it because you want the versatility of a tripod for your heritage, for an upgrade or because you want tracking? If it's because you want a tripod but you're happy with the alt-az motions of your heritage then I would look for alt-az az4 or astro-tech voyager (if you want slow motion controls). If you're looking for an upgrade of scope then you'd want something heftier than an eq2. If you want tracking and you're buying a new mount for it I would go for eq3 minimum probably eq5 to future proof. It's up to you if you want motors, I personally don't bother as I've got used to twiddling the RA so that I can keep objects on axis with no wobbles.

I wouldn't worry about polar aligning for visual, I can't see polaris from my main observing spot but have worked out good polar alignment after a few observing sessions.

[Naemeth]

I suppose it would be something with basic tracking that would allow very simple webcam shots / digicam shots of the planets so I could get some basic imaging done (moving the Alt-Az and trying to keep things stable isn't fun), and tracking would also be useful for continued viewing at high power. The tripod element is also very useful, as the table I stand my scope on is wobbly if I touch it. HEQ-5 is not in the budget at all.

[stem1989]

my EQ1 mount holds around 3kg but it sits in a corner gathering dust!

[JamesF]

If you want to use it for imaging planets then the inability to accurately polar align probably isn't that much of an issue as they will drift across the field of view anyhow and you'll need to tweak the controls to keep them in the frame. How much and how often depends on exactly which scope you're using, but it should be noticeably less than you would with an alt-az mount.

James

[Naemeth]

If you want to use it for imaging planets then the inability to accurately polar align probably isn't that much of an issue as they will drift across the field of view anyhow and you'll need to tweak the controls to keep them in the frame. How much and how often depends on exactly which scope you're using, but it should be noticeably less than you would with an alt-az mount.

James

How often would you think I'd need to tweak the controls? I can get away with about 15 seconds of Jupiter in the view at 162.5x, which can be a pain.

[Catweazel]

If it were me, I would get an EQ3-2 and put a single axis tracking motor on it, this should cover you for what you want to do!

[JamesF]

Well, that partly depends on how well-aligned the mount is to start with (because it will help, even if the planet's apparent motion isn't at sidereal rate), but also on which telescope you're using and what else you have in the optical train (and in fact what camera you're using, but let's assume something along the lines of an SPC900). If you did a themos- or steppenwolf-style mod to help with alignment and you were using the 130P you might get several minutes, but Jupiter would only be about 30 pixels across. Adding barlows to increase the image size will reduce the amount of time you have.

James

[Naemeth]

Well, that partly depends on how well-aligned the mount is to start with (because it will help, even if the planet's apparent motion isn't at sidereal rate), but also on which telescope you're using and what else you have in the optical train (and in fact what camera you're using, but let's assume something along the lines of an SPC900). If you did a themos- or steppenwolf-style mod to help with alignment and you were using the 130P you might get several minutes, but Jupiter would only be about 30 pixels across. Adding barlows to increase the image size will reduce the amount of time you have.

James

It's a Canon Ixus 700. Last time I tried Jupiter imaging I just held it up to the eyepiece, it was a bit blurry and focus was off but it worked. I used the video function, as the video function doesn't work on my webcam, the capture software keeps crashing (I use a Mac), would I need a T-Adaptor or something?

[camoscato]

I've got an EQ-2. I couldn't find anywhere in the manual where it said what its capacity is

I think that's because if you need to ask, it's almost certainly not going to be the mount you're after

There's a man in China somewhere taking great umbrage at this remark.

[Daniel-K]

i would just get one of these http://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-mounts/skywatcher-allview-mount.html

[JamesF]

There's a man in China somewhere taking great umbrage at this remark.

And long may he continue to do so

James

[JamesF]

It's a Canon Ixus 700. Last time I tried Jupiter imaging I just held it up to the eyepiece, it was a bit blurry and focus was off but it worked. I used the video function, as the video function doesn't work on my webcam, the capture software keeps crashing (I use a Mac), would I need a T-Adaptor or something?

Apple obviously don't think you should be allowed to do this

You can get a special mount for compact cameras to hold them in front of the eyepiece. There's even a remote shutter release that I've seen. I can't immediately see how an Ixus 700 would fit to a T thread.

James