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

[Starflyer]

1 hour 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 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. 
 

Troll!

[Stu]

Well, the scientist has gone to a better place...... for him.

Normal service resumed.

[Geoff Barnes]

Ha! Ha! I thought I'd mistakenly logged on to Cloudy Nights the way he was ranting on!

I was about to suggest to him that he was liable to get banned and "poof" he was gone!

I knew you were loitering behind the scenes @Stu.  

[johninderby]

Bye bye, will  not be missed. 

Edited February 11, 2020 by johninderby

[Stu]

18 minutes ago, Geoff Barnes said:

I knew you were loitering behind the scenes @Stu.

I can't claim the credit for this one Geoff, the deed was done by another valiant mod

[Marvin Jenkins]

Looks like someone over paid for an AVX and wished they had a belt modded HEQ5. 😂

[Frank the Troll]

Cant belive I read through this dribble (face in palms)

Edited February 11, 2020 by Frank the Troll

[johninderby]

Please, please erase this thread from my memory. 😬

[Marvin Jenkins]

It’s either justification of a purchase or a salesman. Either way he did not do a good job.

We are all entitled to our opinions, but just the amount of Astro images from happy HEQ5 owners says it all.

Marv

[Marvin Jenkins]

On 31/12/2019 at 13:27, Clear Skies! said:

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!

Now. If I am not mistaken, the start of this thread said the following....

without further ado, can we just all say we are better off without nutters.

What is the general position of all concerned ???

Marvin

[Bukko]

I think we might have scared the OP away...

Hopefully not, but as Marvin highlights the original request, price is a factor.

Both the Celestron and HEQ5 are 1000 Euro mounts for a 200mm SW reflector.

I agree the other two would not be good choices for the scope, but an option to at least try and shave some of the cost would be to consider the iOptron CEM25P. Over a hundred Euros cheaper, includes GPS for portable setting up, the worm engagement is better than the SW clutch system, is belt driven and the sprung loaded worm will also improve on backlash.

I have both the CEM25P and the HEQ5 and I feel the CEM25P would do the job well.

I know the CEM25P does not quite have the same payload capacity as the HEQ5, but overall, I think it better.

Mods, please don't ban me !!!

Gordon.

 

 

[Stu]

@Bukko thank you for getting the thread back on track!

Hopefully @Clear Skies! will come out of hiding now 😉

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

12 hours ago, Bukko said:

I think we might have scared the OP away...

Hopefully not, but as Marvin highlights the original request, price is a factor.

Both the Celestron and HEQ5 are 1000 Euro mounts for a 200mm SW reflector.

I agree the other two would not be good choices for the scope, but an option to at least try and shave some of the cost would be to consider the iOptron CEM25P. Over a hundred Euros cheaper, includes GPS for portable setting up, the worm engagement is better than the SW clutch system, is belt driven and the sprung loaded worm will also improve on backlash.

I have both the CEM25P and the HEQ5 and I feel the CEM25P would do the job well.

I know the CEM25P does not quite have the same payload capacity as the HEQ5, but overall, I think it better.

Mods, please don't ban me !!!

Gordon.

 

 

This isn't CN, much as part of this thread might have seemed to be. Giving reasonable suggestions is not a banning offence

[johninderby]

I’m all for hearing different opinions and reasoned debate but wild ranting and a closed mind and a refusal to consider other opinions  isn’t welcome. 

I’m sure there are some who prefer the EQ1 over the HEQ5,and they are welcome to their opinion, however misguided that might be. 😁😁😁

Edited February 13, 2020 by johninderby

[Bukko]

3 hours ago, michael.h.f.wilkinson said:

This isn't CN, much as part of this thread might have seemed to be. Giving reasonable suggestions is not a banning offence

I only said it to try and lighten the tone of the thread....

G.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

26 minutes ago, Bukko said:

I only said it to try and lighten the tone of the thread....

G.

Same here

[spillage]

@Clear Skies! have you considered the second hand market?

[newbie alert]

On 10/02/2020 at 17:59, 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. You 'ain't catching me upgradig to an EQ5; a person upgrades to an AVX.

Much that I'm biased towards the AVX as I've never owned a skywatcher there's parts in this blurb that I don't agree with at all...

As for aviation..what's that got to do with a basic mechanical mount?

[Clear Skies!]

On 13/02/2020 at 08:16, Stu said:

@Bukko thank you for getting the thread back on track!

Hopefully @Clear Skies! will come out of hiding now 😉

Good morning everybody! I fell asleep a little and forgot to set my alarm clock. 🛌 ⏰ Sorry for waiting. 🥱

 

Now I will start my maraton on answering all the questions ...

[Clear Skies!]

On 02/01/2020 at 16:51, happy-kat said:

Are you observing or intending to image with your telescope?

Maybe first observing, and then buying a new camera + astrophotography.

[Clear Skies!]

On 13/02/2020 at 14:01, spillage said:

@Clear Skies! have you considered the second hand market?

Yes, but without success. I am now checking on Amazon, but is it normal, that they sell orion EQ-G mount for 300 €?

Edited February 20, 2020 by Clear Skies!

[Clear Skies!]

On 13/02/2020 at 08:16, Stu said:

@Bukko thank you for getting the thread back on track!

Hopefully @Clear Skies! will come out of hiding now 😉

I'm here! 🙈

[Clear Skies!]

On 10/02/2020 at 19:31, Cornelius Varley said:

"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.

 

I have also bad experience with mount Celestron EQ-2 (maybe EQ-3, I don't know). You can't even point the telescope in all directions, and you need to cheat, that you point the northern pole to the south. When you place the motor, it is always on the way of the weights. Motor is also bad, and the mount doesn't have included polar align scope. So I couldn't do so much. And how many Messier objects can you see with (old scope) 130 mm? How many with (new) 200 mm?

[Clear Skies!]

On 10/02/2020 at 22:22, 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 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. 
 

It seems like you are in job in Celestron ... I have pretty bad experiences with Celestron scopes, although they advertisement it, like it's the best scope in the world.

[Clear Skies!]

On 11/02/2020 at 13:21, johninderby said:

Please, please erase this thread from my memory. 😬

Of course you can do this! https://www.amazon.com/-/de/dp/B00006IFAQ/ref=lp_12896781_1_8?s=arts-crafts&ie=UTF8&qid=1582223178&sr=1-8 (just you need to buy it ...)