EQ5 SynScan

[lensman57]

Hi ,

I bought an EQ5 SynScan mount ( I couldn't sadly stretch to an HEQ5 SynTrek ) last friday to put my SW 127 MaK on it and I have had the chance to test very briefly on two occasions, the scope seems to be quite stable on the mount even though it is in my back garden and on grass. There was very little vibration if any during focusing using a 6 mm Orthoscopic EP. If the funds allow and the cloudy skies permit I intend to do some DSO imaging in the future and I know that the SW 150pds ( I would have preffered a 200 Quatro F4) plus all the other stuff that is required will probably be limit of what the mount could handle. Would this be a good choice for DSO imaging? I guess the alternative would be an 80 mm short and fast ED refractor of some description but these would at least double the cost given that a field corrector is probably necessary with either a 2 element or 3 element objective design.

Many thanks for your advice.

Regards,

A.G

[RikM]

For deepsky imaging on an EQ5 I would look at the new 130PDS. Is is f/5, so nice and fast, no false colour, nice and light and only 650mm focal length so unguided is doable and with guided imaging later it is quite forgiving and gives a nice wide field of view. The DS focuser means no problems reaching focus with a DSLR (was a problem with older SW Newtonians). You will need to keep it well collimated but it will be twice as easy as the f/4 Quattro. Add a coma corrector and you are still talking less than £300. It will be a bit more effort than using an ED80 with flatner/reducer and if you have the £600 + for that then go for it, but if you are on a tight budget, the 130PDS is worth considering.

[lensman57]

Hi Rik,

Thanks for your reply, I have considered the 130 but the price difference between 130 and 150 is about £65.00 and at least visually the 150 will give a slightly better view due to its aperture I think but then again I have to consider the weight for imaging, both scopes being F5 means that the exposure times will be the same with the 130 being that much lighter I guess then it may be a better choice on the EQ5 SynScan.

Plenty to think about.

[johnrt]

Above everything I would keep the weight down on an EQ5. Aperture when imaging means nothing, you f/ratio is much more important.

I started out with a 150p Skywatcher on an EQ5 and whilst imaging is possible it was frustrating and difficult. Losing 1 or 2 out of 3 subs because of tracking errors is no fun when we have such limited imaging time. I would go with the smaller scope if you can't upgrade mount, as at some point you will want to add a guide scope and camera too.