How suitable is EQ5 for C9.25 for visual?

[neural]

Dear knowledgeable colleagues,

Haven't posted for a while owing to a busy few months (and the obvious white fluffy problems), though I did spend a very happy three hours under a suburban sky in New Zealand recently with 16x bins which I will try and get round to writing up here if I get a moment.

Thus far, my only scope has been an ED100. In an acute attack of aperture fever, I've decided that the best way of beating the clouds is to get a medium-sized SCT and have heard that the Celestron C9.25 is a good quality instrument for visual use (I don't do AP). I understand that my current mount, an EQ5, is underspecified for the C9.25, and I'll need to upgrade.

My question is: will my EQ5 be good enough to mount a C9.25 for the time being, until I can justify the outlay on a better-quality mount?

[Peter Drew]

I wouldn't recommend buying an EQ5 fpr a C9.25 but being as you already have one I'm sure it will be a useful stop gap for visual use. 

[dweller25]

Like Peter says.....

Also I tried my C9.25 on an HEQ5 and it was very wobbly when focussing at x200 for the planets. It was MUCH better on a Vixen GPDX.

[Laurie61]

As you have the mount perhaps consider a C8, at 5.6 kg it's usefully lighter than the C9.25 at  9 kg. Not a huge reduction in optical performance but the mount would cope much better.    

[neural]

Question answered, thank you very much. I hadn't realised the C8 was so much lighter than the C9.25 - I'll give it some thought.

[ollypenrice]

If it's visual and the planets then I think the 9.25 would be significantly better and I'd be inclined to put it on one of the new Alt-Eq mounts (the 5 or the 6) since alt-az mode is so much more convenient than EQ for visual.

Olly

[neural]

If it's visual and the planets then I think the 9.25 would be significantly better and I'd be inclined to put it on one of the new Alt-Eq mounts (the 5 or the 6) since alt-az mode is so much more convenient than EQ for visual.

Olly

Do you think so Olly? I've never tried alt-az (well, only for binoculars) but I've rarely cursed the EQ mount - only when looking at things close to the pole really.

I'm not familiar with the term Alt-Eq; do you mean something like the Skywatcher AZ-EQ6 GT? This would be well out of my current budget sadly   but maybe I should start saving the pennies!

[Stu]

I tend to agree with Olly, I had an AZ-EQ6 and only ever used it in AZ mode, I'm visual only.

I think I might get an AZ-EQ5 to replace it [emoji3]

[Owmuchonomy]

I just acquired the AZ EQ6, well actually it's my second one but that's in another thread. I love the concept and simplicity of it. My SCT 9.25 AND my AA 102 sit side by side like my obsy visitors, in comfort. If I want to go EQ and image then it's quite easy. I just have to recheck the alt setting by drift in PHD2.

[neural]

OK, so now I'm thinking seriously about getting a new mount. I don't need a driven mount and I'm used to EQ, so --- is there a mount that would suit me out there? They all seem to be driven?

[ollypenrice]

Do you think so Olly? I've never tried alt-az (well, only for binoculars) but I've rarely cursed the EQ mount - only when looking at things close to the pole really.

I'm not familiar with the term Alt-Eq; do you mean something like the Skywatcher AZ-EQ6 GT? This would be well out of my current budget sadly   but maybe I should start saving the pennies!

Sorry, I should have said AZEQ 5 or 6, of course. Yes, I love tracking Alt Az mounts for visual observing. The EP height remains more consistent, there is no meridian flip and the angle of the diagonal never needs changing. This means you are less likely to drop an EP as well! To my mind, amongst driven mounts, the sole purpose of the EQ is to avoid field rotation in imaging. The downside is that it transfers all kinds of contortionist rotations onto the observer instead! 

I'm perfectly happy undriven at low power but for high power planetary observing I vastly prefer to be tracking.

Olly

[neural]

Sorry, I should have said AZEQ 5 or 6, of course. Yes, I love tracking Alt Az mounts for visual observing. The EP height remains more consistent, there is no meridian flip and the angle of the diagonal never needs changing. This means you are less likely to drop an EP as well! To my mind, amongst driven mounts, the sole purpose of the EQ is to avoid field rotation in imaging. The downside is that it transfers all kinds of contortionist rotations onto the observer instead! 

I'm perfectly happy undriven at low power but for high power planetary observing I vastly prefer to be tracking.

Olly

Really interesting comments, thanks Olly. The way you describe it, driven alt-az makes a lot of sense for visual. I will rethink.

[nmoushon]

Just to put it out there that I have a HEQ5 and 9.25 EdgeHD and they work well together. The biggest problem is balance. Mine is slightly off (in both axis) because I'm waiting for more weight to ship to me. The mount handles it very easily even out of balance. But I dont want to grind the gears so I'm currently not using either...except for the unusually clear night this last weekend. i couldnt resist.  I was viewing with a 6mm EP on the last full moon and the only noticeable movement was either from the bad seeing or me bumping the EP with my cheek. So I think a HEQ5 would work fine for you. 

Though I do agree that the Alt/Az version would be a lot easier to use for visual only. Mine is the older version that is just EQ. I tried using it manually and its a pain to move around at those FL. I was really glad for Goto and tracking. I would advise at minimum have a tracking mount at those FL...especially when you put high mag EPs on it.