AZ eq5 mount for astrophotography

[Nova2000]

Hi, 

I am thinking of getting this mount to get into astrophotography. 

Reasons 

1 . latitude range due to its pier

2. Portability 

3.can be used as AZ platform for observing

4.good payload. 

What do you'll think about this mount? Is it good. Plz help 

Thankyou 

[Davey-T]

Hi Rajesh, not used one myself but it looks to be very nicely put together, couple of hundred GBP more than the HEQ5 but if you need the twin scope visual capability I guess it's worth it.

Dave

[RayD]

I have the AZ-EQ6 and it's pretty good for the money.  I generally don't do much by way of visual, and when I do it's only on a single scope, so then the mount is just left in its EQ position anyway.  It's probably a bit wasted on me being AZ also, but if the 6 is anything to go by, I'm sure the 5 is also very good 

[Nova2000]

The main reason I selected this mount is its latitude range. I would have selected the neq6, but it's expensive and heavy. I want to know how well this mount does astrophotography. 

[RayD]

32 minutes ago, Nova2000 said:

I want to know how well this mount does astrophotography

It will really depend what you're intending to put on it.  If you are looking at using a short to mid FL refractor, then probably very good, but if your're looking at an 11" SCT then probably not so good.

What OTA and cameras etc are you planning to use?

[Nova2000]

Planning to use a skywatcher black diamond 80ed. Canon 700d unmodded, focal reducer, a orion star shoot autoguider package or a QHYl2 mini guide scope and camera. And soon use my 150mm reflector on it. But mostly 80ed.

[RayD]

I would think that would be absolutely perfect 

[ollypenrice]

All you need to do to extend the latitude range is tip the tripod. You might want to hang a counterweight on it to keep it stable but 'latitude range' can be adjusted by tilting the mount. It really is that simple. Takahashi mount owners do it all the time.

Olly

[Nova2000]

I tie counter weights to the other legs? 

[RayD]

4 hours ago, Nova2000 said:

I tie counter weights to the other legs? 

Not necessarily on the other legs, I think he means just hang a weight under the mount, even centrally, some use bags of sand, just to make the tripod more stable as tilting it will give it a tendency to tip when the OTA is at that particular point.

[Nova2000]

Oh means I tie a counter wight to the accessory tray? Or keep one over it. Sounds good. 

[RayD]

2 minutes ago, Nova2000 said:

Oh means I tie a counter wight to the accessory tray? Or keep one over it. Sounds good. 

You got it.  It's just to counter the fact that the tripod head is now effectively off centre with the scope trying to pull it one way 

[alexbb]

The AZ-EQ5 is more an upgrade from HEQ5. It should also be more silent if that matters to you. Not sure about the latest firmware on the HEQ5, but the synscan controller on the AZ-EQ5 helps you with polar alignment and it does a pretty good job in my opinion. 1-2 adjustments and you get below 30 arcsecs polar alignment error. The payload should be the same as the HEQ5's. Also, if you want to use eqmod, it has an usb port and you can connect the mount to the computer directly with an USB cable. You still get the USB->serial conversion regarding the drivers (the USB->serial convertor is inside the mount), but at least you don't need another adapter. In terms of mobility, the pier is also much smaller than the tripod. And it has relative encoders which are useful if you want to rotate manually any of the axes without losing the GoTo alignment. If you ever plan (or not) to use the mount without a computer/laptop (not enough battery), the mount has also 2 triggers for Canon DSLRs and groups of bulb exposures can be configured on the handset.

On the other hand, the HEQ5 is cheaper and I believe more people have a HEQ5 than AZ-EQ5.
Edit: forgot to mention, the AZ-EQ5 does not have a polar scope by default, but the polar align routine does a good job for me, as I described above. I never felt that I need to buy a polar scope.

Personally, I would choose the AZ-EQ5 if budget allows easily.

Alex

[Nova2000]

Thank you Alex. The AZ eq5 does have  many useful  features. It's tripod and pier when foalded become very small and portable. 

[Rick_It]

Do you think the AZEQ5 would be fine for AP with a C8 + reducer? Of course the EQ6 / AZEQ6 is better but also much more heavier.

Including everything we should be at about 8-9kg and 1200 focal lenght.

[RayD]

17 minutes ago, Rick_It said:

Do you think the AZEQ5 would be fine for AP with a C8 + reducer? Of course the EQ6 / AZEQ6 is better but also much more heavier.

Including everything we should be at about 8-9kg and 1200 focal lenght.

I believe it has a 15kg payload capacity in EQ, so if you take the general rule of thumb on here of 50% for imaging, you'll be at if not slightly over the upper limit, especially at 1200fl.  Would be fine in AZ, but this may not help with imaging.

There may be someone on here who is using one with a C8 and it could be fine.  My C8 is on my AVX, and when fully loaded is theoretically over the "limit" but seems to works perfectly.

[alexbb]

A C8 + reducer could work under ideal conditions, but I wouldn't use them together for AP. I would prefer a mount with a better tracking resolution and a higher payload capacity.

1200mm focal length is not short and you still need to add a guider which adds to the total weight. An OAG would be preferred with a SCT. Even an EQ6 would be fine for this setup, but not great, due to its common high periodic errors.

You could overcome these issues though with good alignment, good guiding and wind protection, but it won't be piece of cake.

[Guest]

I have one (AZEQ5) and it is great mount for the money, and what I mostly like about the AZEQ5 is, the USB PORT for using i with EQASQOM/EQMOD  and it has built in Encoders  and is light weight

Mine is with the BERLEBACH UNI8 ( the small one ) see MY AZEQ5

and the tracking ( if well PA and well balanced ) is very smooth..

 

One thing I did notice about my QZEQ5! after some while there was  slack / play on both RA and DEC, but it did not harm at all the guiding performance, but there are

many users out there who have had same problem, and the matter ( slack / play ) is solvable SEE HERE  

 

Cheers

Martin

 

 

[Nova2000]

Hey artem how good is the tracking without autoguider? 

[Rick_It]

8-9kg includes everything, not only the OTA (by itself, it weights 5.6kg).

OTA: 5.6kg

Guiding scope: 600gr (60mm with helical focuser like APM one), connected in place of the original finder scope to save weight

DSLR: 800gr

Add 1 kg just to be sure (reducers, cables, spacers, guiding camera ecc...) and you arrive at 8kg.

We are at 60% of the maximum payload AND with a short tube....

 

[Guest]

Hi Suresh,

 

On my AZEQ5 I did pack on it.

 

SKYWATCHER NEWTON QUATTRO 8" with GPU Corrector (11KG) + ATIK460EXM + FINDER (BAADER VARIO FINDER) attached to the NEWTON + LODESTAR AG + Cables ( that means something like +/- 13KG)

And the guiding works without any problem..

Despite the "heavy load" the guiding was somehow smooth with PHD2 also the calibration, and I did not spent much time to improve  the setup, the POLAR ALIGNMENT ROUTINE was also done by PHD2

DRIFT METHOD.

I do not use any polar-scope, since from my location, I do not have any free / open view to the polaris..

See my guide graph..

Regards

 

Martin

 

[Nova2000]

I feel this is a good things of the AZ eq mounts. They are lightweight compared to their eq counterparts and have a greater wight /payload capacity.  

[alexbb]

This is the FOV of the Canon 700D attached on the 8" SCT with 0.63 reducer. The aimed resolution is "0.69"x0.69" per pixel", which is almost 4 times higher than Martin's total RMS.

Even with the Quattro at 800mm you are aiming at 1.11" per pixel with the Canon 700D and the PHD log above shows a deviation of 2.67" total RMS. You're already getting above this with the 700D with a longer FL than 3xx mm. At 400mm you're already aiming at 2.21" per pixel. Check this out: http://astronomy.tools/calculators/field_of_view/?fov[]=69||83||1|1|90&fov[]=33||83||1|1|90&fov[]=14||83||0.63|1|90&messier=13 in imaging mode.

You could get a better guiding though with some efforts and good balance, I remember I got PHD reporting the total RMS slightly below 1" under dark and steady skies and a light setup. The advertised tracking resolution of the AZ-EQ5 is 0.25 arc-second, but you won't even have skies that good.
https://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-mounts/skywatcher-az-eq5-gt-geq-alt-az-mount.html

I'm still saying that the AZ-EQ5 is a good mount, but don't expect that much from it to be easily achieved.

[Nova2000]

I'm thinking of using the normal drift alignment method for it. Ill not go for the polar scope as Polaris is mostly close to the horizon and can't be seen everyday 

[johnpd]

20 hours ago, Rick_It said:

Do you think the AZEQ5 would be fine for AP with a C8 + reducer? Of course the EQ6 / AZEQ6 is better but also much more heavier.

Including everything we should be at about 8-9kg and 1200 focal length.

I have had a lot of issues with just getting accurate visual pointing with my AZ-EQ5 with a C-8 mounted on it. Getting it to balance in RA has been another issue. I had to put some small counterweights on the bottom of the C-8 to offset the finder scope.

JohnD