How are comparised these three mounts (+your opinion)?

[Clear Skies!]

I want to know how are comparised mounts in weight capacity and quality:

• Skywatcher Mount EQ5 Pro SynScan GoTo

• Skywatcher Mount HEQ-5 Pro SynScan GoTo

• Celestron Mount Advanced VX AVX GoTo

• Bresser Mount Messier EXOS-2/EQ-5 (And where can I buy a mount with supplied GoTo? This one is without GoTo.)

 

And what do you think about these three mounts? Which is the best in high quality and cheap prise?

 

Clear skies!

 

Edit: I have changed my choice: Now they are:

• HEQ5
• EQ6
• Orion EQ-G

Edited February 18, 2020 by Clear Skies!

[carastro]

IMO the HEQ5 is the best of these mounts.  The Bresser looks too small to be capable of much weight and accuracy.

The Celestron probably works OK, but I notice is has at one of those external motor housings which I experienced years ago when I had a CG5GT.  I found those external housings very annoying as sometimes they would actually get in the way of the movement of the mount, and also cables got mangled up in them.  

The EQ5 is a smaller version of the HEQ5 and will carry less weight. 

Carole 

[johninderby]

The HEQ5 is a much heavier duty mount than any of the others and you can allways do the Rowan drive belt mod to upgrade it later on if you wish.

[Clear Skies!]

1 hour ago, johninderby said:

The HEQ5 is a much heavier duty mount than any of the others and you can allways do the Rowan drive belt mod to upgrade it later on if you wish.

But where can I buy some cheaper versions? Also, check this at the bottom (about Bresser): https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/591655-explore-scientific-exos-2-goto-eq-mount/.

[Clear Skies!]

On 31/12/2019 at 14:07, johninderby said:

The HEQ5 is a much heavier duty mount than any of the others and you can allways do the Rowan drive belt mod to upgrade it later on if you wish.

What is Rowan drive belt mod?

[johninderby]

http://www.rowanastronomy.com/productsa1.htm#neq5beltkit

Also available pre-installed from FLO.

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-mounts/sky-watcher-heq5-pro-with-rowan-belt-mod-upgrade.html

 

[Clear Skies!]

My Skywatcher 200pds will very shake on EQ5, but what if I add some very heavy weights?

[happy-kat]

Are you observing or intending to image with your telescope?

[newbie alert]

Heq5 or AVX, both have the same capacity...just depends on your flavour, celestron or skywatcher

[Thalestris24]

Hi

Heq5 is the superior mount. It allows you to fit a belt mod which makes tracking and guiding much better - and quieter! Also is supported by Eqmod. The AVX is ok but my one suffers from a lot of backlash. It does have the Celestron Nexstar+ hand controller which is quite good and remembers its settings.

Louise

[johninderby]

The biggest criticism I’ve heard of the AVX is they are a bit variable in quality. Get a good one and it’s fine but too many reports of people having trouble with theirs. 

Think an HEQ5 with the belt mod is a safer bet.

[joe aguiar]

the heq5 is best of the 4 then the avx

the bresser is a manual eq5 where the skywatcher eq5 (1st pic) is a goto eq5 both these are about the same just one is goto other is not

joejaguar

Edited January 3, 2020 by joe aguiar

[Science562h]

My understanding is, that the Celestron AVX:

• AVX is the modern model; already replaces the EQ5s, which means, it replaces the HEQ5.
• They are for different markets.
• The belt modification is available for the AVX.
• The HEQ5 uses the old Synscan hand controller, while the AVX's is 2 generations ahead (+ and USB) 
• AVX wins, in everything electronic & also uses USB.

EQ5 can't be better, when it doesn't win in anything electronic. It's still good but not better. AVX is moderrn & the future of, what the EQ5 used to be. EQ5 is too old, even if functional. 

I ❤️ Helicopters 🚁

[Thalestris24]

4 minutes ago, Science562h said:

My understanding is, that the Celestron AVX:

• AVX is the modern model; already replaces the EQ5s, which means, it replaces the HEQ5.
• They are for different markets.
• The belt modification is available for the AVX.
• The HEQ5 uses the old Synscan hand controller, while the AVX's is 2 generations ahead (+ and USB) 
• AVX wins, in everything electronic & also uses USB.

EQ5 can't be better, when it doesn't win in anything electronic. It's still good but not better. AVX is moderrn & the future of, what the EQ5 used to be. EQ5 is too old, even if functional. 

I ❤️ Helicopters 🚁

I have both the Heq5 (belt mod) and the AVX - the HEQ5 is a much better mount! I use both via PC and effectively without the hand controllers. I have to use the AVX hand controller to interface to the PC with, but not otherwise.

Louise

[Starflyer]

Mechanically the HEQ5 is superior to the AVX, it's an accurate workhorse of a mount that forgoes modern aesthetics for functionality.  I'd rather have my astro stuff just work rather than look pretty.

[Science562h]

The AVX slews a-lot faster, 4° per sec, compared to 3.4 °; that's 360° to 306'°. Over the course of a night, the AVX will have finished its work, way before the HEQ5. The USB makes data transfer 1,000,000,000... times faster, which makes the AVX more efficient. "That is more work, faster." Anyway, Synscan is over 10 years old & the head 5+. It's got a 2 cent head & brain on it. It is electro-mechanically impossible, that the EQ5s are better & then by design.

By design, the HEQ5 has cables all over the place, with less 'scope clearance. In contrast, the AVX, has superior cable management & the motors are nicely tucked away & covered. It's a secure & completed mount. It's a clean design, that passes QA, while the HEQ5 is monkey rigged, of which the EQ5 can be had, with just one RA motor, working, as a basic EQ. The HEQ5 does not pass QA. The EQ5s are just old base EQ models, with aftermarket motors available, like the EQ1 to EQ3-2, non-integrated electro-mechanical components. Integration is, "mixing in, the electro-mechanical component/s to the entire unit, as a whole, making it a one functional peice." - That's a degree in Science from Albany New York USA, the #1 rated state in technology & capital of NY USA.   

Look, at the ergonomics, "how the 'scope interacts, with you & the environment." The EQ5s wouldn't have even passed in aviation for 1970s technology. - That's upper level aviation & design from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in FL, USA. You 'ain't catching me upgradig to an EQ5; a person upgrades to an AVX.

Edited February 10, 2020 by Science562h
Added Info.

[Thalestris24]

The guided performance of the heq5 with a belt mod is much better than that of the AVX. There's no need to use Synscan when you have computer control. The mount control via usb is basically the same between the two mounts. Plus the Heq5 is supported by eqmod.

Louise

[Xplode]

2 hours ago, Science562h said:

The AVX slews a-lot faster, 4° per sec, compared to 3.4 °; that's 360° to 306'°. Over the course of a night, the AVX will have finished its work, way before the HEQ5. The USB makes data transfer 1,000,000,000... times faster, which makes the AVX more efficient. "That is more work, faster." Anyway, Synscan is over 10 years old & the head 5+. It's got a 2 cent head & brain on it. It is electro-mechanically impossible, that the EQ5s are better & then by design.

By design, the HEQ5 has cables all over the place, with less 'scope clearance. In contrast, the AVX, has superior cable management & the motors are nicely tucked away & covered. It's a secure & completed mount. It's a clean design, that passes QA, while the HEQ5 is monkey rigged, of which the EQ5 can be had, with just one RA motor, working, as a basic EQ. The HEQ5 does not pass QA. The EQ5s are just old base EQ models, with aftermarket motors available, like the EQ1 to EQ3-2, non-integrated electro-mechanical components. Integration is, "mixing in, the electro-mechanical component/s to the entire unit, as a whole, making it a one functional peice." - That's a degree in Science from Albany New York USA, the #1 rated state in technology & capital of NY USA.   

Look, at the ergonomics, "how the 'scope interacts, with you & the environment." The EQ5s wouldn't have even passed in aviation for 1970s technology. - That's upper level aviation & design from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in FL, USA. 

What a load of rubbish.
Most people don't slew around the sky all night so 3.4 vs 4° per sec will save a person seconds to max a few minutes during the night.
USB vs direct serial connection doesn't matter...why? Because the AVX just has an integrated serial adapter so it will be exact the same speed of communication as the HEQ5...which is more than enough for the communication a mount needs.

You don't even seem to know the difference between EQ5 and HEQ5, they are different mounts with a different mount head, HEQ5 has only been sold with stepper motors, EQ5 has been sold without motors, with 1/2 servo motors and with stepper motors.
It's pretty funny that you say the HEQ5 is monkey rigged and doesn't pass QE control while the AVX is so much better...fun fact for you, they are made by the same company and goes through the same quality control.

 

[Cornelius Varley]

21 minutes ago, Science562h said:

By design, the HEQ5 has cables all over the place, with less 'scope clearance. In contrast, the AVX, has superior cable management & the motors are nicely tucked away & covered. It's a secure & completed mount.

"The HEQ5 has cables all over the place" ? I think not. The mount has two cables connected to it. One for the handset and one for the power. The AVX seems to have an external cable running from the mcb to the dec drive. By contrast all the mcb to motor connections on the HEQ5 are all internal and the motors are nicely integrated into the mount., not just tacked on in plastic cases. I think you must be getting confused between the EQ5 Pro and the HEQ5 Pro which is a completely different mount.

 

[Science562h]

Check this out. The AVX is better, at everything. 

 

Celestron Advanced VX (2013 Release)              vs.                 Skywatcher HEQ5 (2001 Release)  
All Star Polar Alignment: Yes                                                        No
Latitude Range: 7'-77' (Wider)                                                     10'-65' (Lower)
4' per sec (Faster)                                                                         3.4' per sec  (800x)
Nexstar+ (4+ Gen ahead)                                                           Synscan  
Integrated motors: Yes                                                                 No
Cable: USB                                                                                    Serial port RS-232
12 VDC, 3.5 A                                                                               11-15 VDC, 2 A
3 AUX ports                                                                                   NA
Dual saddle compatible                                                                NA
18 lbs. tripod, with 2" steel legs (Better)                                       12 lbs. & 1.75" steel legs (Lighter & smaller)
17 lbs. mount head                                                                        21 lbs. 
44"-64" height                                                                               38"-47" height or 40"-55" (Shorter)
Celestron Skysync GPS                                                                   Skywatcher GPS 
                        
                                                                                                                                Notes
1. 2001 (Fall): First version of HEQ5 released. Tracking motors only. Rated payload for the HEQ5 was 15kg. The specs above are for the newest ugraded HEQ5s.
2. Not even the HEQ5's tripod is heavier, sturdier. There is a 6 lbs. difference & the legs are 2 in vs. 1.75 in. The real & more capable workhorse is the AVX.  
3. The tracking issues were, with EQH5's first set of HCs.  

 

See, it's right there. During, that time, in 2001, I was working on the Orion Aircraft, made by Lockheed-Martin, as an aviation electrician. The Orion spaceshuttle was later renamed & built, also by Lockheed-Martin. that's, who the contract went to. It didn't go, to Space X. My instructors, back in 2001, were from NASA's flight control room. 
 

Edited February 10, 2020 by Science562h

[johninderby]

You should pay attention to some of the very experienced observers on this forum who from real world experience of using these mounts  have found the HEQ5 to be far superior to the AVX in every way. No contest. The AVX is a lighter duty mount and simpy not capable of handling the same load as the HEQ5 PRO.

 

Edited February 10, 2020 by johninderby

[BigMisterP]

Do yourself a favour - 

listen to these with ratings Main Sequence level and above, they have years of experience with a wide range of equipment, and really know what they are talking about..

 

[John]

I agree with the above posters. I've owned an AVX and an HEQ5. The HEQ5 the heavier duty and better all-round mount.

The table you posted is incorrect on the motors (maybe other things as well ?). The HEQ5 motors are integrated within the body of the mount.

 

[Xplode]

10 minutes ago, Science562h said:

Check this out. The AVX is better, at everything. 

 

Celestron Advanced VX (2013 Release)              vs.                 Skywatcher HEQ5 (2001 Release)  
All Star Polar Alignment: Yes                                                        No
Latitude Range: 7'-77' (Wider)                                                     10'-65' (Lower)
4' per sec (Faster)                                                                         3.4' per sec  (800x)
Nexstar+ (4+ Gen ahead)                                                           Synscan  
Integrated motors: Yes                                                                 No
Cable: USB                                                                                    Serial port RS-232
12 VDC, 3.5 A                                                                               11-15 VDC, 2 A
3 AUX ports                                                                                   NA
Dual saddle compatible                                                                NA
18 lbs. tripod, with 2" steel legs (Better)                                       12 lbs. & 1.75" steel legs (Lighter & smaller)
17 lbs. mount head                                                                        21 lbs. 
44"-64" height                                                                               38"-47" height or 40"-55" (Shorter)
Celestron Skysync GPS                                                                   Skywatcher GPS 
                        
                                                                                                                                Notes
1. 2001 (Fall): First version of HEQ5 released. Tracking motors only. Rated payload for the HEQ5 was 15kg. The specs above are for the newest ugraded HEQ5s.
2. Not even the HEQ5's tripod is heavier, sturdier. There is a 6 lbs. difference & the legs are 2 in vs. 1.75 in. The real & more capable workhorse is the AVX.  
3. The tracking issues were, with EQH5's first set of HCs.  

 

See, it's right there. During, that time, in 2001, I was working on the Orion Aircraft, made by Lockheed-Martin, as an aviation electrician. The Orion spacechuttle was later renamed & built, also by Lockheed-Martin. that's, who the contract went to. It didn't go, to Space X.
 

It's amazing that with your supposed education and skill doesn't know that numbers aren't everything, you're also trying to make unimportant things seem like they are making the AVX better than the HEQ5 while you're completely disregarding the fact that people that have tried both mounts says the HEQ5 is performing better.

Seeing that the OP has a 200PDS i would recommend the HEQ5, it will handle that scope better than the AVX even if the tripod isn't as sturdy, it's plenty sturdy for the 200PDS.

[Spikey]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the 2001 HEQ5 was the older black version which has inferior motors and accuracy when compared to the later white finished verisons. Therefore the comparison is incorrect and there are glaring mistakes in your table.

I've owned quite a few mounts including 2 HEQ5's and i wouild say iot's still the best mount out there for the price point.