The EQ3 DSO Challenge

[emyliano2000]

My latest results with the eq3. I went on a field trip to a darker skies location and I thought I should try to shoot the Rho Ophiuchi but until it rose a bit higher above the horizon I shot the M58, M87, M88, M89, M 90 and M91 group.

Guiding the mount went really well.

For the group of galaxies, I used my TS65quad and my moded 450d

And for the Rho Ophiuchi cloud complex I used a canon 200mm f2.8 stopped at f4 and my 450d

I hope you like them

[Stub Mandrel]

42 minutes ago, emyliano2000 said:

And for the Rho Ophiuchi cloud complex I used a canon 200mm f2.8 stopped at f4 and my 450d

Well that second image proves the bumblebees can fly...

[HowardHopkinson]

My EQ3 submission is the Elephant's Trunk nebula.

Shot using my ES ED80 triplet APO and my Canon 60D

69x90sec light frames
29x dark frames
25x flat frames
50x bias frames

Stacked in DSS and processed in PS.

[Stub Mandrel]

OK, I've now got an HEQ5

But to bow out on a high note, here's M3 from 19 May. 12 600s subs, guided on the EQ3.

Updated - I excluded the three first subs that had a rather blue sky with the result the colour balance is far superior

 

Edited May 21, 2018 by Stub Mandrel

[jjosefsen]

@Stub Mandrel

 I'm very interested to hear what you think about the heq5 vs the EQ3 when you get a chance to use it. And congrats on the upgrade. ?

[Thalestris24]

5 minutes ago, jjosefsen said:

@Stub Mandrel

 I'm very interested to hear what you think about the heq5 vs the EQ3 when you get a chance to use it. And congrats on the upgrade. ?

The heq5 is superior to the eq3 pro in every way - except price and portability! The eq3 pro on an heq5 tripod seems quite good

Louise

[Peco4321]

Crescent Nebula from Saturday night, 60 x 45 seconds ISO 1600 plus bias and darks. Stacked in DSS and stretched in GIMP and PS express. I have flats to add so will reprocess and see if there's any improvement. 

[jjosefsen]

49 minutes ago, Thalestris24 said:

The heq5 is superior to the eq3 pro in every way - except price and portability! The eq3 pro on an heq5 tripod seems quite good

Louise

I have no doubt.. But it would be interesting to see if for example there was a noticeable drop in average fwhm.

[HowardHopkinson]

I have the EQ3 Pro Synscan mount on the lightweight tripod. With my ES ED80 and my Canon 60D, I haven't noticed any issues thus far. Obviously, the HEQ5 will be more stable and able to take a significantly greater weight. However, portability was of primary concern to me and that's why I went with the EQ3 pro.

[Thalestris24]

Hmm… there are lots of factors that determine fwhm. Clearly, the heq5 is bigger, stronger, better and has better stepper motors. The eq3 has a low payload - ~5kg, I think, for imaging. But, certainly, with an heq5 tripod it seems to perform quite well. I probably wouldn't use it with more than about 500mm focal length. But it's portable, even with the heq5 tripod. The eq5 is the mount in between the two in terms of payload. It all depends what your looking for and how you're going to use it.

Louise

[Stub Mandrel]

2 hours ago, Thalestris24 said:

The heq5 is superior to the eq3 pro in every way - except price and portability! The eq3 pro on an heq5 tripod seems quite good

Louise

Now I need another EQ5 tripod... or maybe an EQ6 2" leg one for the EQ5?

[Stub Mandrel]

1 hour ago, jjosefsen said:

I have no doubt.. But it would be interesting to see if for example there was a noticeable drop in average fwhm.

I will post some comparable guiding graphs - once I have achieved more than 10 minutes of guiding!

[Thalestris24]

56 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

Now I need another EQ5 tripod... or maybe an EQ6 2" leg one for the EQ5?

I just happened to have a 'spare' heq5 tripod as I put the heq5 mount on a pedestal. Otherwise I might have made do with the supplied eq3 pro aluminium tripod though it seemed a bit too lightweight to me.

Louise

[emyliano2000]

Saturday night I went for the Sadr region in Ha with a Canon 200mm f2.8 stopped at f4

I'm pretty pleased with how it turned out. 24x600sec ISO1600 with my canon 600d full spectrum modified. I'm loving this little mount. Subarcsecond guiding, couldn't belive it.

[Nigel G]

21 hours ago, emyliano2000 said:

Saturday night I went for the Sadr region in Ha with a Canon 200mm f2.8 stopped at f4

I'm pretty pleased with how it turned out. 24x600sec ISO1600 with my canon 600d full spectrum modified. I'm loving this little mount. Subarcsecond guiding, couldn't belive it.

 

Stunning !

[Stub Mandrel]

Indeed!

[jjosefsen]

On 22/05/2018 at 21:27, emyliano2000 said:

Saturday night I went for the Sadr region in Ha with a Canon 200mm f2.8 stopped at f4

I'm pretty pleased with how it turned out. 24x600sec ISO1600 with my canon 600d full spectrum modified. I'm loving this little mount. Subarcsecond guiding, couldn't belive it.

That setup looks very cool! What kind of mounting plate is that?

Also what a great image, making me reconsidder getting an HA filter for my modded 600D

[emyliano2000]

 

16 minutes ago, jjosefsen said:

What kind of mounting plate is that?

The rings for the 9x50 finder-guider are fixed on a altair astro vixen clamp.

Edited May 23, 2018 by emyliano2000

[jjosefsen]

That's quite nifty!

[Snooze]

Very nice images! I just learned that you can auto-guide with the dual axis motors. So for those of you who use the dual axis motors, how well do they perform? Is the EQ3 Pro goto worth the +130€?

[jjosefsen]

Just now, Snooze said:

Very nice images! I just learned that you can auto-guide with the dual axis motors. So for those of you who use the dual axis motors, how well do they perform? Is the EQ3 Pro goto worth the +130€?

Yes absolutely! I have the non goto version, and even though it is fun to find objects without goto it cuts too much into my imaging time. This is especially true when imaging over multiple nights.

If possible save up some more and get a heq5 or maybe the eqm-35 instead.

[Snooze]

5 minutes ago, jjosefsen said:

Yes absolutely! I have the non goto version, and even though it is fun to find objects without goto it cuts too much into my imaging time. This is especially true when imaging over multiple nights.

If possible save up some more and get a heq5 or maybe the eqm-35 instead.

Is saving time the only benefit of the pro version or is the tracking smoother and better too?

I have my eyes set on the eqm-35 but there are not many(if any) reviews of it at the moment. But to be honest I'd rather save +200€ and get the eq3 pro(or non pro) and use a small APO to image if I can  . There are images in this thread that are way better than those taken on more expensive mounts.

[jjosefsen]

1 minute ago, Snooze said:

Is saving time the only benefit of the pro version or is the tracking smoother and better too?

I have my eyes set on the eqm-35 but there are not many(if any) reviews of it at the moment. But to be honest I'd rather save +200€ and get the eq3 pro(or non pro) and use a small APO to image if I can  . There are images in this thread that are way better than those taken on more expensive mounts.

I don't know actually. But I think it has stronger motors, so one could argue it would be better.

[jjosefsen]

RIP this thread! NEQ6 Pro Synscan incomming

[Stub Mandrel]

... another one bites the dust!

I think the point of this thread has been achieved. Those who say that an EQ3 mount is unsuitable for astrophotography are demonstrably talking rubbish.

It's an ideal route into learning the ropes with the expectation of being able to get images you can genuinely be proud of.

Having now got a little experience with the HEQ5 I can honestly say that the differences are chiefly that the EQ3 needs more frequent tweaking, as it is less tolerant of being out of adjustment than the HEQ5, particularly in DEC, and that the aluminium tripod is inferior to the stainless steel type.

The EQ3, on a steel tripod, matched with an astro-modded camera and a 130P-DS is a relatively affordable and rewarding route into deep sp[ace astrophotography.