The EQ3 DSO Challenge

[wimvb]

7 minutes ago, happy-kat said:

You've got the running man as well.

That's no slouch of a telescope, there is a dedicated thread too on imaging with the 130 PDS.

Indeed. And if that thread isn't convincing enough, this one should be. (Just not on a eq3)

 

[happy-kat]

https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/210593-imaging-with-the-130pds/

And here is the 130 PDS thread, 112 pages.

 

Edited February 1, 2020 by happy-kat

[Nova2000]

Hi , are images clicked using a ra tracker and eq3 mount eligible for this challenge ?

 

Edited February 2, 2020 by Nova2000

[Peco4321]

Some recent pictures of mine, all Skywatcher 150p on eq3-2 with enhanced dual motors canon 1100d. Tracking the progress of Comet PanSTARRS.  

[MylesGibson]

I thought I'd jump in here as well. I've been using a small refractor on an EQ3-2 with dual axis motors for a while now. If I spend some time on polar alignment, then I'd easily get 3 minutes, although I usually went with many exposures of 150 seconds as I could be sure they were fine. I got some pictures I was happy with. Just shows with a bit of patience you can get quite a bit out of this mount!

 

[wimvb]

Very nice. And welcome to SGL, @MylesGibson

[MylesGibson]

Thank you @wimvb. I stumbled across this topic and thought I would share some of my stuff on this mount. It's annoying to constantly hear people tell me I need a HEQ5 as a bare minimum to get anything worthwhile. I think myself and many others here have shown otherwise.

[Knight of Clear Skies]

2 minutes ago, MylesGibson said:

It's annoying to constantly hear people tell me I need a HEQ5 as a bare minimum to get anything worthwhile.

Yes. It's difficult to recommend the cheaper mounts for telescope imaging as it can be a recipe for frustration and imaging opportunities in the UK are limited. But if you already have an EQ3, are on a tight budget or have the time to sort out any problems then they can be rewarding.

[emyliano2000]

I absolutely love my eq3, it's giving me some great results for what is considered a very low end mount. 

Sometimes the guiding is so good, I find it hard to believe it. 

Emil

[MylesGibson]

2 minutes ago, Knight of Clear Skies said:

Yes. It's difficult to recommend the cheaper mounts for telescope imaging as it can be a recipe for frustration and imaging opportunities in the UK are limited

Just to be clear, I wouldn't recommend an EQ3, even though I use them, and I wouldn't expect them to be recommended either. It's just when people tell you that a HEQ5 is the bare minimum and that you'll never get anything good with less. That's what frustrates me. 

 

I would tell any potential imager on a budget that it can be done with cheaper mounts, but would also warn them not to raise their expectations too much, but I'd never tell them they can't do it unless they are prepared to spend more than they have.

[Knight of Clear Skies]

Yes, we're both on the same page.

[MylesGibson]

@emyliano2000 that's awesome!!!

[emyliano2000]

I bought my eq3 to have a light portable travel setup that I could easily put in the boot of my car but when I've seen what it can do I decided to put it in the garden next to my eq6 setup. Until a few days ago I've been only using my small 420mm focal lenght refractor with an ASI294MC on it but I decided to swap cameras between the telescopes and put my qhy183m on it now and even though the pixel scale is 1.18"/px compared to 2.27"/px that I had with the ASI294MC I still get nice round stars at 5min exposure. I did replace the silly aluminium tripod with a stainless steel one for increased stability and upgraded to a losmandy saddle though. 

Emil

[Knight of Clear Skies]

1 hour ago, emyliano2000 said:

I did replace the silly aluminium tripod with a stainless steel one for increased stability and upgraded to a losmandy saddle though. 

Yes, some people have suggested it's actually the tripod that's the weakest link. We also don't know what the quality control's like, perhaps some are more precisely machined than others?

Edited May 7, 2020 by Knight of Clear Skies

[emyliano2000]

Just now, Knight of Clear Skies said:

Yes, some people have suggested it's actually the tripod that's the weakest link. We also don't know what the quality control like, perhaps some are more precisely machined than others?

Yeah, it is very much possible that some are better than others. A lot of friends told me that I probably have the best eq3 in the world 😂😂

Lucky me! 😁

[alacant]

32 minutes ago, MylesGibson said:

It's just when people tell you that a HEQ5 is the bare minimum and that you'll never get anything good with less.

I understand what you are saying. It's unfortunate. The same happens with telescopes. It seems that you just have to have an ed80🙄 The forum seems driven by discussion of equipment.

Anyway, we can but try. I try. You do the heq5 alternatives and I'll do the ed80!

Cheers, stick with your eq3 and keep safe.

Edited May 7, 2020 by alacant

[Knight of Clear Skies]

3 minutes ago, alacant said:

Anyway, we can but try. You do the heq5 and I'll do the ed80!

I like to champion cheap m42 camera lenses from the 60s and 70s. I've yet to find one I can't get a decent image out of.

[Thalestris24]

9 minutes ago, Knight of Clear Skies said:

Yes, some people have suggested it's actually the tripod that's the weakest link. We also don't know what the quality control like, perhaps some are more precisely machined than others?

I never even bothered trying the rubbish aluminium tripod - put it straight on a HEQ5 one

Louise

[alacant]

5 minutes ago, Knight of Clear Skies said:

I like to champion cheap m42 camera lenses

OK, you're in!

(with apologies to the ops, otherwise we'll be out of order hijacking the thread)

[wimvb]

7 minutes ago, Knight of Clear Skies said:

Yes, some people have suggested it's actually the tripod that's the weakest link. We also don't know what the quality control like, perhaps some are more precisely machined than others?

Very likely. And with the eq3, the machining is very critical. The mount doesn't have bearings in the ra axis. Its smoothness depends solely on the machining and right amount of "chinese gunk", aka grease.

As long as you know the limitations of this mount, and stay on the safe side, it's a wonderful tool. But I maintain, promoting it with a 150pds (750 mm newt) as an entry level AP setup (as skywatcher does), is plain wrong.

Maybe at some point in the not too distant future, I'll get an 80ed with an osc camera, and revive my eq3 which I haven't used for a couple of years. 

[MylesGibson]

54 minutes ago, Knight of Clear Skies said:

Yes, some people have suggested it's actually the tripod that's the weakest link. We also don't know what the quality control like, perhaps some are more precisely machined than others?

Yeah, I have actually replaced the tripod on mine too. I managed to find a really solid wooden one. No idea where it came from originally, but it's done me very well so far. I'll have to find a picture of the setup and post it

[MylesGibson]

52 minutes ago, alacant said:

I understand what you are saying. It's unfortunate. The same happens with telescopes. It seems that you just have to have an ed80

For a long time I was using an old Helios Startravel 102. I got some decent images as you can see above. The only real annoyance was the CA that is quite bad on that scope. I've recently upgraded to a Starwave 102ED-R so i'm pushing the mount towards its limit now, but I am still using just the dual axis motors so I don't have a guide scope adding extra weight.

[Stub Mandrel]

2 hours ago, MylesGibson said:

Just to be clear, I wouldn't recommend an EQ3, even though I use them, and I wouldn't expect them to be recommended either. It's just when people tell you that a HEQ5 is the bare minimum and that you'll never get anything good with less. That's what frustrates me.

It surprising how many people will say that without ever having tried.

Now I have an HEQ5 I would say the biggest benefit is that computer control is simpler than with my homebrew system!

In practical terms the potential performance (payload) is similar enough, it's just a that the bigger mount is more tolerant of being out of adjustment.

Look what people achieve with a Star Adventurer and that's even more modest in spec than an EQ3.

[Knight of Clear Skies]

2 hours ago, alacant said:

OK, you're in!

(with apologies to the ops, otherwise we'll be out of order hijacking the thread)

And thus world's newest and most ineffective super-hero team was born. My super power is that I can tell when I've forgotten to boil the kettle just by the sound the water makes as it splashes in the mug.

Edited May 7, 2020 by Knight of Clear Skies

[alacant]

46 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

It surprising how many people will say that without ever having tried.

The armchair theorists. Ahhgghh!