It didnt go to plan - First Night Of Astrophotography

[Demonperformer]

I think he means heq5

[Scoresby]

Right so a sturdy mount to eliminate wobble (this I understand) and its load capability to help this must be able to take a chunk (get this also. But it must also weigh enough to act as ballast for the ... forget the name point of arialle or something ... the pivot point. The momentum wobble will happen in anything. The lower its point of A, the less it will happen. The more that can be transmitted down legs the better. Mount turns and the weight from the scope is flung into momentum too. It recoils back against restraint and so momentum begins to build till it reaches harmonic something or other. To stop this a sturdy tripod with a low center of gravity is key. The longer the scope and the smaller the dovetail the greater the rotational momentum. Reducing scope weight/length would help. Outside influences etc like wind. And .... smooooooth motors. What cant be got rid off in design has to go down the collumn. A silicone rubber sheet cut to form a gasket between mount and tripod would also absorb. As would rubber feet and feet cups. But honestly ... dimensions and pivot points are the key and well look ....

 

Anyway.... tripods extend. The higher they go the further the point of A moves and the less stable it becomes. so ive not looked at tripod heights.

EQ5 without counterweights: 11.33 kg,                34cm tall without tripod ( I just measured mine.) 5KG counterweights x2

HEQ5 without counterweights 10 kg,                   33cm/35 cm tall without tripod depending what website you look at. 5kg counterweights x2

NEQ6 without counterweights 16.kgs  (it needs this because it point of A is higher --------> its taller     41cm tall  without tripod     5.1kg counterweights x2

The least stable with weight transmitted down the legs is the HEQ5. Maybe its tripod legs stick out more. Next is the EQ5 and heaviest of all but not by much is the NEQ6. Two bags of table salt heavier. 

Ill have to look at the drive motors specs between kit and HEQ

 

 

 

[Cornelius Varley]

1 hour ago, Scoresby said:

On another point if I did upgrade using the £300.00 kit am I not actually building a HEQ5 .... I've not looked at the specs (as I couldn't find an HEQ5 for sale it seemed a moot point). And is the HEQ5 goto gubbins and drives ... not the same gubbins in the kit? 

 

The HEQ5 and EQ5 are completely different, even if you add the goto upgrade to the EQ5. Better load capacity, better tracking resolution. The only thing they share is the stainless steel tripod.

[Scoresby]

11 minutes ago, Cornelius Varley said:

The HEQ5 and EQ5 are completely different, even if you add the goto upgrade to the EQ5. Better load capacity, better tracking resolution. The only thing they share is the stainless steel tripod.

the tripod is the stability ... if they share that the load distribution is equal. So how is the mount load more for the HEQ5 than the EQ5 .... if they are both the same diameter at the point they touch the tripod  ... they are the same. I dont know what the diameter is but that is the point of contact. If the HEQ5 is wider there ... it techinically should be a bit sturdier. But if it mates with the tripod flat ... that makes matters worse. Because all the rotational load is placed on the mount locking pin. The EQ5 sits in a socket so some of that rotational force is dissipated into the collar. Less lateral strain on the pin. Like a metal weld ... two rods welded end to end are weaker than one tube welded inside another.

I am not trying to start a punch up lol. But website statistics ... well .... they arent the best resource for facts. 

[Cornelius Varley]

The HEQ5 mount is physically much bigger than the EQ5, which is why is has a higher load capacity. By your argument an EQ1 head on the HEQ5/EQ5 tripod is going to be as good. Obviously not. Unless you see both mounts side by side it is difficult to comprehend the difference in size.

[Scoresby]

3 minutes ago, Cornelius Varley said:

The HEQ5 mount is physically much bigger than the EQ5, which is why is has a higher load capacity. By your argument an EQ1 head on the HEQ5/EQ5 tripod is going to be as good. Obviously not. Unless you see both mounts side by side it is difficult to comprehend the difference in size.

erm ... its not heavier which provides ballast .... HEQ5 is over a kilo lighter. And if the tripods are the same tripod ... then surely the point of contact is the same size? I dont know you tell me.

 

But to be honest dimensions play little part. It is the density and solid build of the mount. I suspect the physical dimensions of each is only different because of the housings for the motor. Im trying to find a side by side picture. 

[Demonperformer]

Lowering the centre of gravity (hanging a bag of sugar/other below it) can work wonders if you have an unstable mount (the SLT springs to mind!) but it is better to have a stable mount in the first place. 

[Scoresby]

4 minutes ago, Demonperformer said:

Lowering the centre of gravity (hanging a bag of sugar/other below it) can work wonders if you have an unstable mount (the SLT springs to mind!) but it is better to have a stable mount in the first place. 

Yeah like we do in photography ... but the rotation wobble by my big lump would make as it starts to move needs time to dissipate before taking images ... but I can also stop that with small bungys. from rings to dovetail. Or something to act as a dampner rod would do. I am not understanding the load capacity at all it sounds a bit wooly. A car jack has nowhere near the structural integrity of these solid metal mounts ... they do fine . Pretty sure my fat arris was leaning on the pillar most of the evening as my short arris struggled to reach the eyepiece. One moob of mine weighs like a bag of table salt ? ... no wobbles there. The only shimmy ... was the scope. That would have to be solved and only a smaller scope would fix that or support dampners ... or a longer mount clamp fitting to hold more of the dovetail. 

[Scott]

32 minutes ago, Scoresby said:

erm ... its not heavier which provides ballast .... HEQ5 is over a kilo lighter. And if the tripods are the same tripod ... then surely the point of contact is the same size? I dont know you tell me.

 

But to be honest dimensions play little part. It is the density and solid build of the mount. I suspect the physical dimensions of each is only different because of the housings for the motor. Im trying to find a side by side picture. 

5

I don't know if you realise it but some of the guys on this thread are EXTREMELY knowledgeable. You'd do well to listen to their advice. I've owned an eq5. If you think for one minute that the only difference is the tripod, you are mistaken. for starters, the build quality is chalk and cheese. 

I'm sorry but members give their time freely to share their knowledge.  Try to listen to people that know what they're talking about.

Also, "Erm..." is not the nicest way to start a sentence. I could slap kids when they start off with erm.

[Scoresby]

1 minute ago, Scott said:

I don't know if you realise it but some of the guys on this thread are EXTREMELY knowledgeable. You'd do well to listen to their advice. I've owned an eq5. If you think for one minute that the only difference is the tripod, you are mistaken. for starters, the build quality is chalk and cheese. 

I'm sorry but members give their time freely to share their knowledge.  Try to listen to people that know what they're talking about.

Also, "Erm..." is not the nicest way to start a sentence. I could slap kids when they start off with erm.

Oh ... thats quite an unpleasant post ?

 

The trouble with forums is that you have no tone of voice to transmit sentiment. The sentiment any post I make is sent in is .... friendly.  So while the knowledge is given freely ... it may be questioned .... thats what a forum is and it is also how people learn. And I am happy to learn but I also know, some things.  Im also passingly knowledgeable. You must remember new to a forum does not mean new born.  And for me to spend quite a bit more money i would like to know that the mechanics of something are valid and I am allowed to do that. If I question a statement .... its because that is what happens between adults in a room. They converse. A church or workplace is where people get told whats what.  

And the mechanics or mount stability seem to come from ..... what a website is saying it is. Obviously personal experience as well. 

The summery I have taken from the kind information given freely by  people on here is .... focal length ... basically ... pushes your view into space a long way. It also has a small field of view. So, stuff screams past it faster than a lower focal length scope. So in order to capture it I have to change my scope or stabilise my scope more. A heavier better mount will do this. But a lighter mount will not. A larger dovetail clamp will also do this.

 

NONE of these ... are load capacity. That is mentioned and in the context it is mentioned on every website is ... weight this thing can take. Before what ...... nothing said. It collapses? It tips over, it wont rotate ... I dont know. If you know tell me. But it is the main one of the main factors people are giving as a reason to go big or go home. Im just curious as to why. 

And mate .... chill out ok you shouldnt feel like slapping kids lol. DONT QUESTION STUFF ..... but its ok to slap children lol. Only Joking. 

[Cornelius Varley]

A quick history of why I have an HEQ5 Pro. My first eq mount was an EQ3-2, which was fine with a light telescope. I then got an IM603 mak (how I got it is another story). The IM603 on the EQ3-2 would take about 4 or 5 seconds to stop wobbling after adjusting the focuser (one of the symptoms of an overloaded mount). With the HEQ5 the telescope was rock solid, absolutely no wobble with accurate tracking.

[steppenwolf]

26 minutes ago, Scoresby said:

A larger dovetail clamp will also do this.

No it won't!

26 minutes ago, Scoresby said:

NONE of these ... are load capacity. That is mentioned and in the context it is mentioned on every website is ... weight this thing can take.

What this means is that for the mount to operate at an acceptable level with regard to tracking ability you should not exceed its rated load capacity. However, the load capacity is normally quoted with regard to observational use NOT astrophotography use. For astrophotography, it is common to assume a load capacity of between 50% and 70% of the rated capacity to achieve acceptable performance.

In fairness to Scott, you have been given some excellent advice from several experienced astronomers which I assume is what you were seeking when you posted here but you seem content with fighting nearly every valid point that has been made and your comment about the tripod being key is simply nonsense in the world of AP.

We welcome newcomers to the hobby and are keen to offer good (and varied) advice for consideration when asked but sometimes it pays to listen as well as talk.

[Scoresby]

10 minutes ago, Cornelius Varley said:

A quick history of why I have an HEQ5 Pro. My first eq mount was an EQ3-2, which was fine with a light telescope. I then got an IM603 mak (how I got it is another story). The IM603 on the EQ3-2 would take about 4 or 5 seconds to stop wobbling after adjusting the focuser (one of the symptoms of an overloaded mount). With the HEQ5 the telescope was rock solid, absolutely no wobble with accurate tracking.

Thanks Peter so it is as I suspected about wobble rather than weight limit the assembly can take. Ok well now I know that for certain I can attempt to counter that. In fact I think on mine (without looking I am not sure) that the dovetail slots into the mount in an oversize slot. Which is angled. But is only held flat against the angled side on one side of the mount clamp. The other just has a screw pushing into it. and the mount brack on that side is straight. So I could introduce an angled shim there which would decrease movement at the pivot point. Thank you.

[Alien 13]

It is often to easy to get caught up with mount specifications rather than real world practical limits, if you look at the EQ3 and EQ5 for example you might think that because the latter has a higher capacity that it will also be fine with longer focal lengths and although this is partly true for visual and planetary/Lunar imaging it is not the case for DSO imaging. As already mentioned the HEQ5 is different in every way but the strange thing is that the unguided performance is not too different to the other mounts mentioned when using shorter focal lengths but obviously far better with longer ones.

With the kit you have at the moment you can still enjoy visual astro and with the addition of the dual axis motors can still use the scope for lunar and planetary imaging but would be better to take the scope off and use the camera with lenses for DSO.

Alan

 

[Scoresby]

3 minutes ago, steppenwolf said:

No it won't!

What this means is that for the mount to operate at an acceptable level with regard to tracking ability you should not exceed its rated load capacity. However, the load capacity is normally quoted with regard to observational use NOT astrophotography use. For astrophotography, it is common to assume a load capacity of between 50% and 70% of the rated capacity to achieve acceptable performance.

In fairness to Scott, you have been given some excellent advice from several experienced astronomers which I assume is what you were seeking when you posted here but you seem content with fighting nearly every valid point that has been made and your comment about the tripod being key is simply nonsense in the world of AP.

We welcome newcomers to the hobby and are keen to offer good (and varied) advice for consideration when asked but sometimes it pays to listen as well as talk.

I have indeed and that has been taken on board. But I will say fight is not correct. Question when it doesnt appear to make sense .... is frankly normal. A larger dovetail clamp will work better to prevent rotational motion ... the wobble .... its why we hold a bat with our whole hand ... and not thumb and forefinger. ]

 

I have listened .... but a small yet key piece of information isnt being explained .... buy bigger and newer .... if you scroll back through this forum as I have you can find the same arguments discussions for each phase of mount. Which if it was so very important begs the question ... why are they selling the old ones and whey are people buying them. This must be the experience part ..... 

[Scoresby]

8 minutes ago, Alien 13 said:

It is often to easy to get caught up with mount specifications rather than real world practical limits, if you look at the EQ3 and EQ5 for example you might think that because the latter has a higher capacity that it will also be fine with longer focal lengths and although this is partly true for visual and planetary/Lunar imaging it is not the case for DSO imaging. As already mentioned the HEQ5 is different in every way but the strange thing is that the unguided performance is not too different to the other mounts mentioned when using shorter focal lengths but obviously far better with longer ones.

With the kit you have at the moment you can still enjoy visual astro and with the addition of the dual axis motors can still use the scope for lunar and planetary imaging but would be better to take the scope off and use the camera with lenses for DSO.

Alan

 

Thank you Alan. After all of your contributions I think the kit will be the most interesting and in budget. It wont be the best ... and apparently .. neither will the NEQ6 when the NEQ7 comes out  .... and later a smaller focal length scope. By then ill be an expert of course  and .... one quiet night when no one is looking .... ill sneak on here and buy the NEQ6 .... and lie about it from that moment on. 

I dont want to of course .... I want the latest gadgets and gizmos and bestest scope money can buy .... there will always be another new one round the corner ... its how they stay in business I guess. 

[Alien 13]

4 minutes ago, Scoresby said:

II have listened .... but a small yet key piece of information isnt being explained .... buy bigger and newer .... if you scroll back through this forum as I have you can find the same arguments discussions for each phase of mount. Which if it was so very important begs the question ... why are they selling the old ones and whey are people buying them. This must be the experience part ..... 

These comments are related to the fact that you want to image with an 8 inch scope, I do see a problem with manufacturers putting together scope/mount packages that are close to the limits even for visual use but they have always done this. 

Alan

[Alien 13]

There is one thing I should add is that a big scope isn't better but rather different in its capabilities and weaknesses, there are lots of people on this site that have moved in the opposite direction with mounts like the SA and tiny scopes or camera lenses because its more fun and less hassle, the resulting images are often better because its portable and you can get to a dark site.

Alan

[Scoresby]

Yeah the photography side of things I am aware of mainly ..... exposure settings ... but this will be a home based affair. The samyang 14mm will be for the same sort of thing out and about. Cant wait I almost have the money for that now. But this AP aspect is going to be a long term pursuit. I need to have Orions Nebula captured as I have seen it. Its really mesmerising. 

[Scott]

1 hour ago, Scoresby said:

I have indeed and that has been taken on board. But I will say fight is not correct. Question when it doesnt appear to make sense .... is frankly normal. A larger dovetail clamp will work better to prevent rotational motion ... the wobble .... its why we hold a bat with our whole hand ... and not thumb and forefinger. ]

 

I have listened .... but a small yet key piece of information isnt being explained .... buy bigger and newer .... if you scroll back through this forum as I have you can find the same arguments discussions for each phase of mount. Which if it was so very important begs the question ... why are they selling the old ones and whey are people buying them. This must be the experience part ..... 

5

You can hold a bat with both hands and a vice but if your wrist isn't up to the job, the bats gonna wobble

[carastro]

Quote

 why are they selling the old ones and whey are people buying them

The answer to that question is that those lighter mounts are intended for visual use and not astrophotography.  The mount is the most crucial piece of the imaging equipment,  it doesn't matter how good the camera and scope is if you don't have the right mount to put it on.

You could probably do a little astrophotography with them, but it will be a struggle and the results will not be as good as if you bought the right tool for the job.  Wasted evenings and frustration.  

Carole 

 

[Mr Spock]

You will find a suitable comparison in this thread: 

The difference between these mounts in both size and capability is substantial. If you are not willing to comprehend this or grasp the information given to you by the knowledgeable members here then I see no reason to continue this thread.