Weight Limits - Is It Tripod or Heads?

[BargeGazer]

There are a lot of posts relating to weight limits on mounts and it made me wonder whether the limit is in the head or in the tripod. OK, I know both parts have limits but if, for example, you mount an EQ6 head on a well designed and damped pillar instead of the standard tripod it woud seem to me that it would take a heavier payload.

Is this right and if so does anyone have any idea as to what the difference is?

David

[cantab]

I'd assume the limit is imposed by the mount (head) itself. That's the big assembly of precision-machined parts, the tripod's just a few metal tubes and it would make no sense for a mount manufacturer to spend a load on the mount and handicap it to save a few pennies on the tripod.

[Bizibilder]

The quoted figures are for the "mount". It is generally assumed (?) that the supplied tripod is of adequate strength and rigidity - however most folk who are serious about having a "solid" set-up (which usually means for long exposure astro-photography) would almost certainly go for a properly designed and well constructed pier.

Unfortunately some tripods are not at all well designed or made and bahave like jelly! This is especially so at the "cheaper" end of the market. The general advice is always to go for the best possible mount that you can afford as a first priority.

[Naemeth]

I should imagine that an Aluminium Tripod is the lightweight option that you do not want to be putting too much weight on. The Steel Tripod is the middle ground that is pretty sturdy, and the Pier is the Observatory standard, and no amount of wind (should) knock that over!

[ollypenrice]

Unless the tripod is particularly bad the real issues are twofold. Weight, yes, it matters. However, the longer the focal length, in imaging and to a lesser extent in visual, the better the mount has to be. There are lots of mounts out there that can handle the weight of telescopes that their accuracy cannot handle. When you tune into discussions in advanced imaging circles there is far less talk of weight and far more talk of accuracy for long focal length systems. Somewhere around 2.0 to 2.5 metres of focal length you enter a brave new world in which weight, quite honestly, is no longer the issue at all. You won't buy a mount that can't handle your payload but you might easily buy one that won't handle your focal length. In my opinion this is not sufficiently to the fore in SGL discussions so I raise the issue.

Olly

[ian_bird]

Well said Olly! Beginning to understand what you mean!

BTW - did you know that The Sky At Night Magazine has a review of dark sky holidays - and Les Granges is in there.

Cheers

Ian

[Jannis]

Unless the tripod is particularly bad the real issues are twofold. Weight, yes, it matters. However, the longer the focal length, in imaging and to a lesser extent in visual, the better the mount has to be. There are lots of mounts out there that can handle the weight of telescopes that their accuracy cannot handle. When you tune into discussions in advanced imaging circles there is far less talk of weight and far more talk of accuracy for long focal length systems. Somewhere around 2.0 to 2.5 metres of focal length you enter a brave new world in which weight, quite honestly, is no longer the issue at all. You won't buy a mount that can't handle your payload but you might easily buy one that won't handle your focal length. In my opinion this is not sufficiently to the fore in SGL discussions so I raise the issue.

Olly

When we're on to that, i was thinking of putting in a 2x barlow on my explorer 200pds to get 2000mm. You think this could be too much for the HEQ5 to handle with a scope load of ~10.5kg?