Which mount - SW EQM-35 or EQ5 Pro

[Bukko]

Hi All,

I know how much we all like these questions, so here is another one.

My son wants to get back into astro imaging with a small rig. The plan is to also get an 80mm frac and some associated bits.

Since I moved to France, he has lost access to my toys. Anyway, his choice was the EQ5 Pro and I mentioned the new EQM-35. They are similarly priced with similar payload capacity and both within his reasonable budget. He is space limited and we should also consider weight as the system will need to be transportable.

There is no need to go to a HEQ5, I have one here used for my WO 110 frac, which will possibly be his upgrade path, should the need arise.

I have searched for info from users of the EQM35, but there seems to be little out there.

Our current thought process is the advantage of the 35 is weight and being a newer design, hopefully has improvements over the much older 5 pro. Perhaps even the axis are not as sticky as all the other SW mounts seem to be... BUT we do not like the exposed drivetrain. One piece of info gathered suggested that the 35 needed to be adjusted to reduce backlash and the open gears made this simple.

We don't think the modular feature will be helpful, but he does have a DSLR so dropping that on should not be ruled out.

So are there any EQM-35 owners out there who could help us make a decision either way?

Many thanks,

Gordon.

[Shaun_Astro]

I bought the EQM-35 in January I think, the DEC motor was kaput out of the box so I returned it. Another thing to point out... even with the clutches loosened it was so stiff it was impossible to balance properly even with 6kg scope.

Edited August 19, 2019 by Shaun_Astro

[Bukko]

Thanks for the reply, Shaun.

I am happy to accept the failed motor is not too common and suppliers like FLO would deal with that pretty quickly.

The tight axis seems to be a Skywatcher "feature" - I have been through a couple of EQ3-2's, I have a HEQ5 and NEQ6 and they all suffer from this. I tend to balance by testing the scope movement as a pendulum - similar overshoot when moved in both directions. The plan for this one would be an 80mm frac, lighter than the 6kg scope you are using.

Do you still have the mount? If so, accepting the tight axis, does it track OK?

 Gordon.

[Shaun_Astro]

Hi Gordon,

No the dec axis would only turn intermittently and wouldn't slew in dec even with just a DSLR attached. I sent it back for a refund.

I recently purchased an HEQ5 and it's infinitely better. It's not much heavier, (another thing that I found odd about the EQM-35), but it's easy to balance and the clutches work as they should. 0 problems with it so far and it doesn't have any of the external exposed gears and motors or janky clutches.

I saw on youtube someone has the same stiffness issue, and compared it to a star adventurer, which was very easy to balance.

Honestly would avoid it and get an HEQ5 as it's paired well with a 80mm frac and guiding equipment.

Edited August 30, 2019 by Shaun_Astro

[Adam J]

On 09/08/2019 at 18:24, Bukko said:

Hi All,

I know how much we all like these questions, so here is another one.

My son wants to get back into astro imaging with a small rig. The plan is to also get an 80mm frac and some associated bits.

Since I moved to France, he has lost access to my toys. Anyway, his choice was the EQ5 Pro and I mentioned the new EQM-35. They are similarly priced with similar payload capacity and both within his reasonable budget. He is space limited and we should also consider weight as the system will need to be transportable.

There is no need to go to a HEQ5, I have one here used for my WO 110 frac, which will possibly be his upgrade path, should the need arise.

I have searched for info from users of the EQM35, but there seems to be little out there.

Our current thought process is the advantage of the 35 is weight and being a newer design, hopefully has improvements over the much older 5 pro. Perhaps even the axis are not as sticky as all the other SW mounts seem to be... BUT we do not like the exposed drivetrain. One piece of info gathered suggested that the 35 needed to be adjusted to reduce backlash and the open gears made this simple.

We don't think the modular feature will be helpful, but he does have a DSLR so dropping that on should not be ruled out.

So are there any EQM-35 owners out there who could help us make a decision either way?

Many thanks,

Gordon.

Its a tough one as the EQM-35 has larger diameter / higher quality gearing on RA (same as in the Star adventurer) but uses bushes as opposed to proper bearings, hence it should guide to a higher resolution than a EQ5 pro but at the same time it will not move as smoothly when balancing it. I have heard of people applying better quality lubrication to the bushes to get around this and acheive good results. In the end I would think that the EQM-35 will achieve better guiding than a EQ5pro as the EQ5pro is ultimately just a manual EQ mount with added drive motors. 

I would go with the EQM-35 and re-lubricate if required.  

Adam 

[Bukko]

Thanks Shaun and Adam for the inputs.

My gut feeling was of the two, the 35 would have been the better choice. But weight (size) is an issue as my son lives in a shoebox* in central Reading so rules out the HEQ5. As I said, I already have one and agree it would be a better choice again if it was a contender.

Since I opened the thread, my son and I have been talking further and now include the iOptron CEM25P. Lightweight and better engineered although more expensive. All the cabling is internal and it also hase very good reviews. It's been out for a few years now so we will not be buying something still in development.

The plan will be to pull the trigger around the middle of September and at the moment, we both agree the stiff axis on the SW range is a problem, so unless we uncover something seriously wrong with the iOptron, I think that will be the choice now...

*Of course, not really a shoebox, but not exactly spacious....

Thanks for all inputs and hopefully you agree the iOptron is a good choice (If you have thoughts to the contrary, then please let me know as they are new to us..)

Gordon.

[Adam J]

14 minutes ago, Bukko said:

Thanks Shaun and Adam for the inputs.

My gut feeling was of the two, the 35 would have been the better choice. But weight (size) is an issue as my son lives in a shoebox* in central Reading so rules out the HEQ5. As I said, I already have one and agree it would be a better choice again if it was a contender.

Since I opened the thread, my son and I have been talking further and now include the iOptron CEM25P. Lightweight and better engineered although more expensive. All the cabling is internal and it also hase very good reviews. It's been out for a few years now so we will not be buying something still in development.

The plan will be to pull the trigger around the middle of September and at the moment, we both agree the stiff axis on the SW range is a problem, so unless we uncover something seriously wrong with the iOptron, I think that will be the choice now...

*Of course, not really a shoebox, but not exactly spacious....

Thanks for all inputs and hopefully you agree the iOptron is a good choice (If you have thoughts to the contrary, then please let me know as they are new to us..)

Gordon.

I would say thats a good choice but I would make sure it is compatable with EQ Mod. 

[Bukko]

1 hour ago, Adam J said:

I would say thats a good choice but I would make sure it is compatable with EQ Mod. 

Good thinking Adam. Yes, it is ASCOM compatible and FLO offers a USB cable for pc control. I know initially it will be controlled from the handset and so it is not a deal breaker, but good to know there is flexibility.

Gordon.