Help me choose a mount please

[scitmon]

Hi all, I'm plotting to treat myself to my first imaging mount this year and I need help choosing one!  My only telescope at the moment is a SW 80ED Ds-pro and my camera is a Canon 700d.  From what I have read when researching, the HEQ5 has more than enough capacity for what I have at the moment.  However, in the future I will probably want to do some imaging of smaller targets, perhaps with something like a Edge HD 8 / 190MN or a 200PDS, which a HEQ5 would not be able to cope with I'm guessing.  Which brings me to either the NEQ6 Pro or the EQ6-R Pro.  The main difference between these two seem to be that the EQ6 has a higher capacity and is belt driven.  I'm wondering how this compares to a NEQ6 with a Rowan Belt mod?

[steppenwolf]

You are quite right, the HEQ5 would be perfect for your existing telescope, even factoring in the additional weight of a guide telescope. However, the three other telescopes that you mention would place the HEQ5 at its upper limit for imaging so an EQ6 variant would be the way forward with future-proofing built in.

I have direct experience of the NEQ6 and the AZ EQ6 GT but not the EQ6-R Pro but from what I have seen and read, I am not really sure why you would buy the latter when for a little bit more, you could have the AZ EQ6 GT which on the face of it is more heavily engineered - and nicely at that! Both EQ6-R Pto and AZ EQ6 GT have belt drive.

[johnrt]

I'm going to disagree with Steve a little bit on the AZ-EQ6 if you are only planning to use it in EQ mode for imaging, it may be suitable for you, but see my post below for reasons why it may not. (Apologies for quoting my own post!)

 

I have owned an AZ-EQ6 for a few years now, so I can offer an opinion based on the long term use of this mount.

The Good

The overall build quality of this mount is good, my first one had quality control issues (as can happen with any mount you might buy), but luckilly I bought from the fantastic FLO who replaced it ASAP without fuss.

It handles my 6"RC imaging set up without issue and once running guides for imaging at under 1 arcsec/pixel consistantly, running up to 20 minute guided subs. The design to allow both an EQ & AZ set up is novel for those that might utilise both options.

The Indifferent

The mount has developed a not insignificant amount of backlash in Dec over time, not a disaster, but certainly needs to be managed carefully when setting up to image for the night. Once running this does not seem to effect the performance of the mount significantly.

The Bad

The very unique design mechanism that allows the alternate EQ & AZ methods of use on this mount is it's ultimate downfall for me. The mechanism is simply not robust enough to maintain an accuate polar alignment over the course of a couple of months or even weeks. The hand tightened nuts are not able to lock down the RA axis to hold it in place for any length of time. For me, this has been a real issue. I can only see polaris from my back garden imaging location for about 4 months a year, and need my polar alignment to last the other 8 months without shifting, until I can re-check my polar alignment in autumn when the leaves have dropped from the trees that obscure my view.

To try to remedy this, I have replaced the hand tightened nuts and spongey plastic washers with M12 nylock nuts and penny washers. These can be done up tightly with a spanner to lock the RA axis down in place. Thas has improved the performance, but is still far from perfect, or ideal.

Of course, for those who set up and tear down nightly or on mobile imaging rigs at a dark site this is not an issue as their polar alignment only needs to last the evening (or two), but for those who might seek to put this mount in an observatory on a permanent basis, or a semi permanent pier set up like mine, I would avoid this mount.

Simarly if you have no plans to use the AZ mode and use for EQ only, as I do, then simarly I would not recommend this mount. The AZ to EQ switching mechanism is just introducing an achilles heel that can be eliminated by chosing the simarly priced EQ6R, or the cheaper NEQ6, both of which will perform to the same standard.

I hope my observations are of use.

John

 

 

[steppenwolf]

4 minutes ago, johnrt said:

I'm going to disagree with Steve a little bit on the AZ-EQ6 if you are only planning to use it in EQ mode for imaging,

Take heed from John's reply above as he has clearly had his mount for longer than I had mine - I had it for a medium length review period and I loved it but John's somewhat extended use throws some more light on the matter!

If you want to play safe, my original EQ6 is still going strong (and working well) after over 10 years and there are numerous imagers using them to very good effect.

[RayD]

Yes I have to agree with John regarding the AZ-EQ6 GT Alt lock-off which is not very good at all and, even with it "locked", a gentle squeeze on the alt bolt still moves it easily.  However, this aside it is a very good mount and tracks very well for AP.

Mine had way too much backlash for my needs from the factory, but this was very easy to tune out to an acceptable level. 

 

[scitmon]

Well I did anticipate that the EQ6-Pro would be recommended (on the assumption this is as good/better than a Rowan Belt modded NEQ6) and I was going to follow up with a suggestion of going all the way with the AZ version.  I do think I will go down the semi perm pier route in the future so that is good to know.  

[spillage]

I would also like to say that my eq6 is still going strong and over the time I have had it have installed the rowan kit and wedge. This is only because both items were brought cheaply. Although if you are taking down the mount every night the alt bolts are its achellies heel.

[newbie alert]

I mainly image with my 80ed but also would want to try my 8sct too..i setup and tear down most nights so also been looking at the heq6 pro for the future..have to be the belt mod version as id go unsane with the noise from the geared version..

[scitmon]

I think I am leaning towards the AZ EQ5-GT now, looks like an excellent mount after watching https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2Se4yjYIY0 and a realistic 10kg (states 15kg) payload capacity I think can satisfy my future needs.  

 

[Owmuchonomy]

I would disagree with that. The AZEQ5 GT won't have the imaging payload required to match the scopes you mention above particularly when you add all your paraphernalia.  I have had my AZEQ6 GT permanently mounted for two years now and it is more than adequate. I haven't suffered any of the issues described above but I will say it is my second mount. FLO replaced it due to a worm drive issue on the first one proven directly with Synta in China using their test protocol. I use it in Alt Az mode for solar and lunar imaging and outreach and EQ mode for the rest.

[scitmon]

My thought process was looking at, for example an Edge HD 8 which weighs 6.35kg, plus maybe 2kgs of cameras and guide equipment seems to fall within the realistic payload of this mount? Even the 200pds weighs around 8kg plus seems to fall fairly safely within the limit?