iOptron iEQ45 PRO

[StarryEyed]

New iEQ45 2014 version listed on Altair Astro site.

Apparently has upgraded electronics and mechanics from CES60.

Maybe those spings have gone for a similar solution to the CES60.

Anyone know anything?

[Tim]

Anyone know anything?

Yeah, buy a Skywatcher

[StarryEyed]

Tim.

I wont do that for a number of reasons and in a nut shell am looking for something of a better overall quality.

If you have something constructive to add I would like to hear what you have to say.

Regards Kevin.

[tdnicholls]

Hi Kevin,

I have the iEQ45 2013 version which I am very pleased with though there was an initial problem with RA worm gear but a replacement was sent by iOptron. I find it a very good mount but I have only the Celestron CG-5 to compare against, easy to setup and align (altitude adjustment is so much better than the bolts on the CG-5) and preforms very well.

The Pro version is a upgrade to this taking some parts a lessons learned from the CEM60, from what I seen so far these are all positive and will improve the mount.

One step forward is the new ASCOM driver, in my opinion one of the weaker points as lacked some useful functions as well as not being a server requiring running though the ASCOM generic hub if more than single connection to the drive is required, currently this driver is only available for the CEM60 and Pro.

Ant specific questions please ask

Thanks

[StarryEyed]

Well I have been looking about and there is lots of chatter about the worms which is my point of interest really. Whilst it's not be said specifically is implied that they are of a similar mechanical operation for loading the worms add the cem 60. I have seen some photos from a Chinese site referenced of cloudy nights which is an upgrade being posted by ioptron to the existing mounts but it's not clear what had been changed Pitney than bigger worms.

I Nearly bought one of these last year but held of pending the cem60.

In any case or seems I won't have to wait long to find out.

[tdnicholls]

From what I understand the have increased the number of teeth on RA and DEC gear, beefed up the RA/DEC worm gear by 1.8mm. The Gear mesh has changed from Gap Free (spring loaded) to Zero, so expect the method is now as per CEM60. Servo motors replaced with stepper, upgraded electronics and an updated hand controller.

All sounds pretty good, makes me think I should have waited, only got mine in Dec 13. Waiting to find out if the upgrade will be available in the UK or if the mount has be shipped 1/2 way round the world for a few months. 

[StarryEyed]

I guess in a month or two there will be detailed run downs on the CEM60 giving that they have started shipping so some feedback on the worms mountings with long tubes (I'm planning a medium sized APO down the road)

Though the price has jumped for the CEM60 with a tripod to £2500 its starting to encroach on an Avalon fast linear I have been eyeing up but that's a another season or two away for me financially. I would be happy to hear that the iEQ45 might have new worm couplings that work with medium refractors as it would make it a no brainer for myself at this point.

Has been mentioned that they have started supplying the upgrade in China.

http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Board/lxd55/Number/6591848/page/0/view/collapsed/sb/5/o/all/fpart/2

[tdnicholls]

I am debating if I get the CEM60 and sell on the iEQ45...tricky one

[ollypenrice]

Tim.

I wont do that for a number of reasons and in a nut shell am looking for something of a better overall quality.

If you have something constructive to add I would like to hear what you have to say.

Regards Kevin.

I think Tim's post was constructive. I've had some considerable experience of the iEQ45, as have two of my friends, and... I think Tim's post was constructive.

Olly

[tdnicholls]

Olly,

I take it you have more issues that I have then, it is not a perfect mount and as I said I my first post I had a RA worm drive problem that required me to swap it out, not the easiest of jobs.

I do wonder if any mount within at this price point can be described as flawless, each seems to have some problems reported. I did do a lot of investigation before I brought the iEQ45 and was a choice between this or  the EQ6-AZ, I am aware of the issues with longer refractors and the spring loaded worm gear, the ASCOM driver leaves a lot to be desired, thought can work around that and it is now improving.

Would be interested to here the cons as you see them, what issues have been experienced - maybe I just don't use in the same way so have not see flaws that make me think I should not have brought this.

Cheers

[StarryEyed]

Certainly my in my own understand ioptron have had some engineering issues but seem to provide upgrades for better performance and design changes to address those problems. I feel much more comfortable with this approch rather than the pot luck of a skywatcher and the poor quality of the materials. I would personally be happy with a mount that will last fives years with potential upgrades available from the manafacture rather than bent bolts, stripped threads etc.....

I looked at Avalons and they have there faults as do...........

Olly.

in your opinion if these new worm mountings resolved all the issues relating to the length and capacity for telescope on that mount what you say in relation to you previous published review of the iEQ45?

Regards Kevin.

[StarryEyed]

Well it will be interesting to see if the iEQ45 PRO performs as well as the CEM60 seems to with a lot less capacity and cost.

[wuthton]

I'm intrigued as to what you have against Skywatcher?

Other than the altitude bolts which are fundamentally not fit for purpose (unless you live near the equator) they are good mounts for the money.

The altitude bolts are easier to upgrade compared to a worm gear.

[StarryEyed]

Nothing against them they are good value for money and I have owned three skywatcher mounts and two skywatcher telescopes. I just want something that requires less maintenence, fixing after purchase and better performance than is typical of skywatcher.

Within the bounds of this thread I have expressed my desire not to buy another skywatcher I have not expressed any sentiment that I am against them. To the contrary I have lived with my current skywatcher mount for the last ten years.

My question is about ioptron not skywatcher. Is that not allowed here?

[ollypenrice]

I found that the iOptron went 'soft' over a more extended time. I can only assume that this was because of the spring loading somehow losing tension. If they've addressed this, then great. I agree that this firm are quite active in looking at what's wrong and changing it, which is good. Something I'm guilty of having missed in my review, though, is that the worm is quite exposed. Pull back the spring loaded motor/worm and it is just about visible, so it's accessible to contaminants as well. Worm and wheel systems really do not like dust or grit one tiny bit. I supposed that I'm also influenced by the fact that two friends tried the iEQ45 and both gave up on theirs, though a third is happy.

I agree that there is no perfect mount in this sector. The Avalon is by far the best in manufacturing quality but is also a good bit more expensive. Is it even in this sector at all, given the price? I haven't had enough hours under the sky with the Avalon, yet, but apart from the elasticity (which, curiously, doesn't seem to create much of a problem) the guiding is proving very smooth.

Olly

[ronin]

I'm intrigued as to what you have against Skywatcher?

Other than the altitude bolts which are fundamentally not fit for purpose (unless you live near the equator) they are good mounts for the money.

The altitude bolts are easier to upgrade compared to a worm gear.

There seems to be a number of electronic and firmware failures on Skywatcher mounts, these can be costly, or plain terminal.

A bolt can be replaced, however why do Synta simply not get better bolts and charge 25p per bolt extra on the price. They will be buying the bolts in bulk. Also if a bolt bends and/or strips the threads it may not be a simple take old bolt out put new bolt in. More likely strip the head, send to an engineering shop and have it reworked.

Seems iOpron update their hardware, why then no updated bolts from Skywatcher?

I wouldn't mind adding a small goto EQ to the collection and at this time it is not going to be Skywatcher.

Even for the RA/Dec drives on a Skywatcher I have tracked down an alternative circuit and software for a replacement handset, they seem to just give up as well. Also have in mind an alternative that could drive the stepper motors.

Will say that having somewhere a matter of fact and level headed list of mounts and experiences would be very useful. Suspect however that it may need to be like the Supplier Reviews where people cannot just blast away.

[tdnicholls]

I found that the iOptron went 'soft' over a more extended time. I can only assume that this was because of the spring loading somehow losing tension. If they've addressed this, then great. I agree that this firm are quite active in looking at what's wrong and changing it, which is good. Something I'm guilty of having missed in my review, though, is that the worm is quite exposed. Pull back the spring loaded motor/worm and it is just about visible, so it's accessible to contaminants as well. Worm and wheel systems really do not like dust or grit one tiny bit. I supposed that I'm also influenced by the fact that two friends tried the iEQ45 and both gave up on theirs, though a third is happy.

I agree that there is no perfect mount in this sector. The Avalon is by far the best in manufacturing quality but is also a good bit more expensive. Is it even in this sector at all, given the price? I haven't had enough hours under the sky with the Avalon, yet, but apart from the elasticity (which, curiously, doesn't seem to create much of a problem) the guiding is proving very smooth.

Olly

Thanks Olly, it is a good point about the exposed worm, less of an issue if permanently mounted but the iEQ45 is advertised on it's portability and used that way dirt/dust could be an issue. Not sure they are addressing that. The loosening of the spring tension I can see, having had that whole assembly apart that is not the strongest spring I have seen, I did in fact pad out the base where the spring sits by 1.5mm to increase the tension sightly - guess I will need to keep an eye on the tension.

A key factor for me was was not having a mount with altitude bolts, had enough trouble with them on the CG-5 hence the choice between the iEQ45 and the EQ6-AZ, the iEQ45 seem to have the edge, at least on paper so went with that. I am lucky in as far as I am confidant in taking it apart, have all the tools etc. which is not something I expect most would be happy with, it is a shame that I had to do it to get it to perform as advertised, though the distributor and iOptron were very helpful in resolving the issue.

Personally I still like the mount, the Pro looks to be a significant improvement and shows the iOptron is listening  to it's customers and reacting in a positive way.

Cheers