Another 'which mount' thread ...

[Demonperformer]

I know some of this has been covered in previous threads, but I am still trying to decide which of the following mounts would be my best option, and have managed to narrow down my precise requirements with a specific question, so (with apologies to anyone who thinks this is just duplicating what has gone before) here goes.

The options (with FLO prices):

• EQ6 syntrek + EQDIR module £865
  
• NEQ6 Synscan PRO £960
  
• EQ6 GT GEQ/AltAz £1375
  

What I will require it to do:

• It will be required to hold my 8SE and 102ST scopes (not at the same time), both of which have a celestron type dovetail bar - this needs to fit. (I am aware that an f/10 scope is not ideal for imaging, but that's part of the gear I currently have, so that's what I need to work with.)
  
• I will never need to use the mount in AZ mode, as I have an AZ mount with each scope and if I ever wanted to do a purely-visual/planetary-webcam AZ setup I would be able to use one of those.
  
• It will therefore be used exclusively for imaging, and, as such, I will always have the laptop connected to it, so EQMOD will always be available.
  
• Guiding (when I get to that point) will be via an OAG (primarily because of the focal ratio of the 8SE, even if I use the reducer).
  
• I may at some point want to add a smaller refractor (ED80 - ish) for wider-field imaging.
  

My priorities are:

• Stability of setup (It will have to be set up each time and taken down at the end of the night - no permanent obsy).
  
• Ease of alignment (the house is positioned E-W, so I cannot see both E&W horizons at the same time from either front or back gardens).
  
• Accuracy of GOTO once aligned (I may want to image objects I cannot see visually, and so would want something that if I send it to an 18th mag galaxy, it will place it on the ccd chip without messing around).
  
• Accuracy of tracking during imaging (I guess this includes ease of PEC setup as well). The specs list the EQ6 & NEQ6 as 0.144 arc seconds and the EQ6 GT as 0.1436 arc seconds (is that extra 0.0004 arc seconds really that important?)
  

My SPECIFIC question is:

Bearing all the above in mind, in my situation, what do either of the two more expensive mounts offer that would make them worth the extra £95/£510?

And the bonus question is:

Are there any points ABOUT THE MOUNT that are important & I have not considered?

Responses from imagers with experience of more than one of the mounts in question will be especially appreciated.

Thanks.

[Marki]

My initial thoughts are that the AZEQ6Gt is not what you need if you don't need to dual mount or want to use in AZ mode. The dual encoder function may be useful - but maybe not £500 extra useful.

[r3i]

You would want to consider the SynScan version over the SynTrek if you could envisage a situation where you would not be using a laptop and required a goto facility. However you have clearly stated that you would always be using a laptop so the SynScan should be surplus to requirements ( I bought the SynTrek version for that same reason).

So I would just narrow your choice to between the SynTrek and the new AZEQ6GT - I think Mark's comments above on the AZEQ6GT pretty much sum up what you'll need to consider.

[Demonperformer]

Thanks, guys. You have more or less confirmed my original thoughts that the extra cash is probably not worth it.

As for the dual encoder function, maybe I suffer from a great lack of imagination, but I can't see why anyone would want to move the telescope manually during a session? Unless it means I could pick up the entire setup and move it from the back garden to the front garden as my object passes from E to W and continue without realigning. Now a feature like that might be useful. If it's just a case of coping with someone kicking the tripod, a little care would seem to save a lot of money.

[chrisshillito]

• Accuracy of tracking during imaging (I guess this includes ease of PEC setup as well). The specs list the EQ6 & NEQ6 as 0.144 arc seconds and the EQ6 GT as 0.1436 arc seconds (is that extra 0.0004 arc seconds really that important?)
  

Wouldn't get to hung up on that "difference". They are actually all identical - 0.143617 arcseconds. Its just the number of decimal places they chose to quote. In any case this number just represents the theoretical positioning resolution and takes into account that use of microstepping the stepper motor (splitting each stepper motor step into a number of sub divisions). The practical reality is that microstepping doesn't provide a linear subdivision of a "step" into 64 microsteps (for these mounts anyway). So whilst at a half or full step position the positioning accuracy may well be 0.144 arc secs it doesn't necessarily follow that between these positions it will be as accurate.

Chris.

[Sp@ce_d]

From my experience... I reckon I've used the handset on my NEQ6 twice in nearly 2 years. So in hindsight I'd save the money. The EQ6 is heavy to keep carting in & out though.. I built an obsy in the end before my back gave in..

If you're using EQMOD I don't see the point of the extra ££'s for the handset... A little off topic but worth mentioning.. if you haven't already, check out AstroTortila. Works a treat with EQMOD & will have you on target in seconds!

[Dixie]

Just to add to the views I do find having the handset handy. If you want to do planetary is one less thing to worry about and who knows you might want to do a bit of visual. The encoder set up is something I like the sound of - if you image over a couple of hours you'll need to re-balance for the area of sky and this means you can release the clutches and tighten without the need for re-alignment.