EQ3-2 and Skywatcher 150p

[bambuko]

...Mount movement was very stiff when I received it. To get any reduction fiction I had to slacken off so much it caused too much slop. Took assembly apart decrease and used lithium grease, then reassembled. Movement was free'er, but still very slack. Too much wobble when observing, so I bought an EQ5 instead...

thank you for that!

I am glad to find that I am not alone in my experiences and mine is not "...first actual 'lemon' EQ3-2, I have heard of...."

I suspect there are more, not because EQ3-2 is particularly bad, but because we push it to the limit of it's capabilities.

Here, some other experiences:

EQ3-2 Fit for what?

EQ3 vs EQ5

Skywatcher Payload Limits

Despite excellent results achieved by the likes of RikM:

Rant about EQ3-2

and many others who voiced their positive opinions in this thread, it takes luck, perseverance and additional work to make EQ3-2 a success when used with bigger OTA.

I am still waiting for my replacement

[haitch]

Glad you seem to be getting some resolution (scuse the pun). Sorry I haven't butted back in your thread sooner - been backwards and forwards to London all week (on a delayed train now) so haven't been finding too much time for the forum.

Good luck with the replacement.

[JamesF]

Missed this thread earlier, but I also think you've been very unlucky.

I have an old EQ3-2 (like the black one in the photo comparing it with the other mount).  It's been well-used, even before I bought it.  I rebuilt the DEC axis to get rid of as much backlash as I could there and adjusted the RA axis, and since then I've been using it (on the standard tripod) for planetary imaging, when it has quite happily held a target on my SPC900 sensor for ten minutes or more at a focal length of at least 4.5m, for DSO imaging with a DSLR and 200mm lens and exposures of four minutes, and for DSO imaging with my 127 Mak and CCD, where I started to lose frames due to trailing at about 30 seconds and lost perhaps half at 45 seconds.

It's only this summer when I started trying long exposure imaging of globs and PNs using the Mak that it really started to show its weaknesses.

The 150P is about 1.5kg heavier than the Mak, but after adding my motorised focuser, modded DEC motor mount, cameras and ancillaries I bet there's nowhere near as much in it.  The more compact design of the Mak will work in its favour of course.

The replacement should be much better.

James

[bambuko]

Just got my replacement and the first impression - it is a lot better than the old one.

I am able to rotate both DEC and RA using just my fingers on the spindles (previously DEC was rough and RA wouldn't turn with just fingers).

As a bonus RA scale works on this example as well (after a fashion as is normal) - on the old one the scale was totally loose and non-functional.

More tests to follow, but in summary, my advice:

When you get your new kit, don't just put it together and expect it to work.

Do a proper "incoming inspection" using "fingers to rotate the spindle" method and do not accept it, if it is rough, stiff or difficult/impossible to turn with just the fingers.

Big handles/knobs to rotate the mount loaded with you brand new scope will mask any potential faults/quality problems and you will not know if it is you or the mount.

[JamesF]

That sounds like a massive improvement

James

[JB80]

I have the 150PL on the EQ3-2, It is a wobbly beast for sure with the longer focal length.

[Astro Imp]

Pleased to hear it all turned out well in the end.