Astrophotography Mount on a budget

[Samibotss]

Hello everyone,

I've been into visual astronomy for a very long time, but recently (now that I've gotten a job) I've been looking into Astrophotography. The complete setup I'm looking for is a goto EQ mount, SkyWatcher Evostar 72 as imaging scope and a canon dslr. The first purchase I'm going to make is the imaging mount, and that is where I hesitate the most. The thing is, the location from which I'll be doing most of my imaging ( = appartement balcony) is located near the city center with some considerable light pollution, and gives me access to the southern night sky, but not the northern. All these factors and the fact that I'm don't make a lot of money don't allow me to shell almost a grand on a brand new HEQ-5. I've looked at the secondhand market in my country, but the only listing for I could find is almost as expensive as buying it new.

And so, I started looking at budget alternatives. The EQ3-PRO seems nice but doesn't have the best tracking and a small payload capacity, the iOptron Smart EQ is hard to find in stock and has mixed reviews, the explore scientific IEXOS-100 PMC8 seems too quirky and is controlled by an app on tablets only (Which I don't have), and all I'm left with is the EQM-35 PRO which apparently has tracking comparable to the HEQ-5 but a smaller payload capacity. What to do? I won't be putting too much weight anyways, so the EQ3 seems like nice option to save 100-200$ over the EQM-35, but the 180-tooth gear seems like a worthy upgrade.

I'll be shopping on FLO, but since I live in Switzerland, I would probably have to pay an import fee which is also something to consider...

 

Any Input is greatly appreciated!

Edited March 25, 2020 by Samibotss

[vlaiv]

What is your budget in the end?

I would not consider EQM-35 as an option - price difference between it and EQ5 is very small and EQ5 is going to be more stable mount.

Another a bit more expensive option, but not as expensive as Heq5, would be this:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/ioptron-mounts/ioptron-cem25p-center-balanced-equatorial-goto-mount.html

On the other hand, if you are tight on budget but are handy and don't mind a bit of DIY, maybe get plain EQ5 type mount and motorize it yourself. Either some arduino + steppers or maybe kit conversion.

https://www.astroeq.co.uk/tutorials.php

or

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/sky-watcher-mount-accessories/enhanced-dual-axis-dc-motor-drives-for-eq-5.html

You can do the same for EQ3 but EQ5 is better mount.

In the end, some people use AzGTI in EQ mode or Star Adventurer for very mobile, very low cost imaging solution.

[Samibotss]

1 hour ago, vlaiv said:

What is your budget in the end?

I would not consider EQM-35 as an option - price difference between it and EQ5 is very small and EQ5 is going to be more stable mount.

Another a bit more expensive option, but not as expensive as Heq5, would be this:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/ioptron-mounts/ioptron-cem25p-center-balanced-equatorial-goto-mount.html

On the other hand, if you are tight on budget but are handy and don't mind a bit of DIY, maybe get plain EQ5 type mount and motorize it yourself. Either some arduino + steppers or maybe kit conversion.

https://www.astroeq.co.uk/tutorials.php

or

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/sky-watcher-mount-accessories/enhanced-dual-axis-dc-motor-drives-for-eq-5.html

You can do the same for EQ3 but EQ5 is better mount.

In the end, some people use AzGTI in EQ mode or Star Adventurer for very mobile, very low cost imaging solution.

Current budget would be around 500£.

Is the extra stability worth it over the less accurate tracking of the EQ-5? The EQM35 has a larger payload capacity and a modular design, so unless you're speaking from experience, it seems on paper the EQM-35 would be more stable?

The iOptron CEM25P is very nice, but out of budget for me. In regards to the Star Adventurer/ AzGti, they don't seem to be geared to support an AP setup with an actual scope, and I doubt they would be as accurate as an EQ mount. Not to mention the 3KG capacity, which would be greatly limiting for any future autoguiding upgrades.

 

Thank you for your input!

[JonC]

You should be able to pickup a used HEQ5 for £500

[Samibotss]

5 minutes ago, JonC said:

You should be able to pickup a used HEQ5 for £500

I specifically wrote that a used HEQ-5 is not an option for me, as there are no listings for it in my country, and buying a used one overseas and importing is almost as expensive as buying a new one, which is out of my budget.

[Davey-T]

Nothing is cheap in astrophotography and trying is a false economy leading lots of frustration and wasted skies trying to push your equipment beyond its capabilities, even with the best of everything it can all go wrong and refuse to work.

A Skywatcher Star Adventurer and DSLR camera and lenses or small scope will get plenty of targets to keep you going and give you practice at the processing side which can be equally frustrating and expensive if you start purchasing dedicated software.

Dave

[happy-kat]

What directions does your balcony face?

[happy-kat]

The star adventurer is an imaging device so the payload quoted is the payload, I thought this was 5kg.

Members are also using small telescopes on it and guiding, there is a long running thread with images from members using it, and there is a growing base of members using the azgti plus a huge thread on imaging with it on cloudy nights.

One is designed for imaging the other one morphed into the capabilities.

[vlaiv]

33 minutes ago, Samibotss said:

Is the extra stability worth it over the less accurate tracking of the EQ-5? The EQM35 has a larger payload capacity and a modular design, so unless you're speaking from experience, it seems on paper the EQM-35 would be more stable?

I'm speaking from position of limited experience with mounts - I've got Heq5 that I've heavily modded to get it to guide at 0.5" RMS.

EQ35 is hybrid of EQ5 and EQ3. It is based on EQ3 platform with RA assembly of EQ5 if I'm not mistaken (or according to EQMOD Prerequisites page found here http://eq-mod.sourceforge.net/prerequisites.html) could be that it is in fact RA from EQ6 class mount - both EQ6 and EQ35 have 180 teeth on their RA worm gear.

In any case, I'm skeptical that EQM35 has higher payload capacity than EQ5. Both are quoted differently on different websites - but most of the time it is something like 10Kg visual 7kg imaging, and I guess that is about right. However if you look at supplied counterweights you will notice that they are different - EQ35 has 2x3.4Kg while EQ5 has 2x5Kg counter weights. Larger counter weights means you can balance larger scope and it stands to reason that this means mount has higher capacity.

I think that Eq35 is more like Eq3 - meant for portability but with improved tracking / guiding performance.

On the topic of guiding - we can't say which one of these mounts will be better at guiding. On paper there should be not much of a difference between the two. Both have just a bit less than 0.3" step resolution (0.28125 for EQ35 and 0.287642 for EQ5). EQ35 has much less precision in DEC so that could be a drawback, but it won't be huge disadvantage. In reality - there is so much sample to sample variation that both can perform good or bad and be better than the other and if you want to get the most out of your mount - you will have to tune it at some point.

With a bit of luck and a bit of skill you should be able to get rather good mount out of either of the two. I still recommend EQ5 as stability is important part. If on the other hand you value portability - then choose Eq35.

 

 

[happy-kat]

Portability is very subjective (weight/# of parts/distance/stairs) so is space available for storing equipment.

If light pollution is high can you see enough by eye to align or use go to.

 

[Samibotss]

2 hours ago, Davey-T said:

Nothing is cheap in astrophotography and trying is a false economy leading lots of frustration and wasted skies trying to push your equipment beyond its capabilities, even with the best of everything it can all go wrong and refuse to work.

A Skywatcher Star Adventurer and DSLR camera and lenses or small scope will get plenty of targets to keep you going and give you practice at the processing side which can be equally frustrating and expensive if you start purchasing dedicated software.

Dave

 

2 hours ago, happy-kat said:

The star adventurer is an imaging device so the payload quoted is the payload, I thought this was 5kg.

Members are also using small telescopes on it and guiding, there is a long running thread with images from members using it, and there is a growing base of members using the azgti plus a huge thread on imaging with it on cloudy nights.

One is designed for imaging the other one morphed into the capabilities.

 

I'm definitely interested in the Star Adventurer, I'm wary of the payload capacity stated on it. 5kg is going to be very limiting I assume If I ever decide to change scope or add any sort of guiding and/or other equipement I'm soon going to be running into problems, although it's an option I'm considering.

2 hours ago, vlaiv said:

I'm speaking from position of limited experience with mounts - I've got Heq5 that I've heavily modded to get it to guide at 0.5" RMS.

EQ35 is hybrid of EQ5 and EQ3. It is based on EQ3 platform with RA assembly of EQ5 if I'm not mistaken (or according to EQMOD Prerequisites page found here http://eq-mod.sourceforge.net/prerequisites.html) could be that it is in fact RA from EQ6 class mount - both EQ6 and EQ35 have 180 teeth on their RA worm gear.

In any case, I'm skeptical that EQM35 has higher payload capacity than EQ5. Both are quoted differently on different websites - but most of the time it is something like 10Kg visual 7kg imaging, and I guess that is about right. However if you look at supplied counterweights you will notice that they are different - EQ35 has 2x3.4Kg while EQ5 has 2x5Kg counter weights. Larger counter weights means you can balance larger scope and it stands to reason that this means mount has higher capacity.

I think that Eq35 is more like Eq3 - meant for portability but with improved tracking / guiding performance.

On the topic of guiding - we can't say which one of these mounts will be better at guiding. On paper there should be not much of a difference between the two. Both have just a bit less than 0.3" step resolution (0.28125 for EQ35 and 0.287642 for EQ5). EQ35 has much less precision in DEC so that could be a drawback, but it won't be huge disadvantage. In reality - there is so much sample to sample variation that both can perform good or bad and be better than the other and if you want to get the most out of your mount - you will have to tune it at some point.

With a bit of luck and a bit of skill you should be able to get rather good mount out of either of the two. I still recommend EQ5 as stability is important part. If on the other hand you value portability - then choose Eq35.

 

 

I'd definitely go with the EQ5 in that case, portability is not really something I consider for this setup.

 

1 hour ago, happy-kat said:

Portability is very subjective (weight/# of parts/distance/stairs) so is space available for storing equipment.

If light pollution is high can you see enough by eye to align or use go to.

 

Light Pollution is not very high per se, I've done years of visual on this location and I could observe bright deep sky objects with no problem. The thing is, I only have access to the southern part of the sky, which means I would have to align without using the north star. One of the reasons for which I don't want to pursue a 720£ HEQ5 (= 1000$ with shipping and import fees) is that no matter how good my hardware is, I'm always going to be limited by the two factors I just stated (light pollution and access to only half the sky). I'm looking to get something good enough for widefield imaging with a scope and camera, but I'm not looking to do very long exposure on dim DSOs or anything like that.

[Davey-T]

This works for me, and I've used it for solar imaging with 6kg although being video that's not very demanding

Dave

[Samibotss]

14 hours ago, Davey-T said:

This works for me, and I've used it for solar imaging with 6kg although being video that's not very demanding

Dave

A nice setup no doubt, but I don't think it's what I'm looking for.

 

Thanks for the input!

[vineyard]

I'm just a beginner into AP myself so cannot speak with anywhere near the expertise of others.  And while I've just gotten my hands on a used HEQ5 Pro at  an affordable price (and it does make a huge difference), I have to echo @vlaiv in his first post, and say maybe think about getting an old 2nd hand Vixen GP-style mount and then add the goto/motors yourself.  You should be able to do both of those comfortably within your budget?  That's how I got started tinkering with AP (an old GP2 that I modded with the EQStar EQ5 kit from this company in Ukraine - Alexander there is v helpful).  Good luck!

Vin

[Samibotss]

33 minutes ago, vineyard said:

I'm just a beginner into AP myself so cannot speak with anywhere near the expertise of others.  And while I've just gotten my hands on a used HEQ5 Pro at  an affordable price (and it does make a huge difference), I have to echo @vlaiv in his first post, and say maybe think about getting an old 2nd hand Vixen GP-style mount and then add the goto/motors yourself.  You should be able to do both of those comfortably within your budget?  That's how I got started tinkering with AP (an old GP2 that I modded with the EQStar EQ5 kit from this company in Ukraine - Alexander there is v helpful).  Good luck!

Vin

Not really a tinkerer, so I'd avoid going with that option.

In the end I settled on a SkyWatcher EQM-35 PRO, I was very hesitant between this and the EQ5 but the EQM35 seems like it will be a better fit for me. Thank you to everyone who has replied!

[APatel25]

Hi Samibotss,

 

I'm curious to know what you think of the SkyWatcher EQM-35 PRO now that you've had it for a year. I am considering on getting it, I don't have a lot of other options here in NZ, and the EQM 35 is the cheapest option i have before it shoots up to HEQ5 which is quite expensive. The EQM 35 seems to have the payload capacity for the scopes im looking to buy, an ED80 and an Orion CC6". But its the tracking performance has mixed views online. 

[StuartT]

On 25/03/2020 at 18:25, vlaiv said:

 

I would not consider EQM-35 as an option - price difference between it and EQ5 is very small and EQ5 is going to be more stable mount.

 

Interesting thread. Thanks everyone!

vlaiv - you recommend the EQ5, but according to the product spec it has a max payload of 9kg. I have a Meade LX-90 8" (which weighs 15kg). Can you recommend a mount able to take that?

Thanks

[vlaiv]

3 minutes ago, StuartT said:

Interesting thread. Thanks everyone!

vlaiv - you recommend the EQ5, but according to the product spec it has a max payload of 9kg. I have a Meade LX-90 8" (which weighs 15kg). Can you recommend a mount able to take that?

Thanks

Are you sure it weighs that much? That is extraordinary weight for 8" compact scope.

My RC8" weighs less than 10Kg and my HEQ5 can carry it. I was under impression that SCTs are even lighter than that.

According TS website 8" ACT OTA weighs only 7Kg:

https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p5825_Meade-8-inch-f-10-ACF-OTA.html

Other sources quote it at even less - 14.1lbs or 6.4Kg

(at least for lx200  model, not sure if there are differences between LX versions in OTA itself - I guess it's mostly down to mount?)

In any case, for compact scope of 15Kg - I would be looking at EQ6 / EQ6-R / AZEQ6 or CEM-60 mounts (for some reason discontinued - replaced by more expensive CEM70). Maybe GEM45 by iOptron as well.

 

[Kev M]

The 15kg is the weight including the fork mount, the OTA on its own is a lot less ( probably 6.4kg as stated ).

 

 

[StuartT]

oops! sorry. You are right. I was reading the combined weight!

Thanks 😳

[AstroNebulee]

On 25/03/2020 at 20:32, Samibotss said:

In regards to the Star Adventurer/ AzGti, they don't seem to be geared to support an AP setup with an actual scope, and I doubt they would be as accurate as an EQ mount. Not to mention the 3KG capacity

The star adventurer and evostar 72ed ds pro are very capable and compatible for astrophotography together. 

[nfotis]

I don't know if there's much astronomy done in Switzerland, but even here in Greece I was able to score a used HEQ5 mount (and the seller was even within walking distance from my home in Athens!).

I think that there are many German language astronomy fora which could help in searching for used equipment (nearly everything I bought was in the previous year, used).

 

N.F.

Edited March 6, 2021 by nfotis

[barbulo]

I would like to use this thread to throw a question regarding mounts max weight capacity: I’ve read that for astrophotography it’s recommended not to go above the 60% of the maximum weight capacity suggested by the manufacturer. What do you think about this?

[vlaiv]

28 minutes ago, barbulo said:

I would like to use this thread to throw a question regarding mounts max weight capacity: I’ve read that for astrophotography it’s recommended not to go above the 60% of the maximum weight capacity suggested by the manufacturer. What do you think about this?

Very sound advice.

Sometimes manufacturers even state payload for visual and payload for AP and AP payload is about 60-70% that of visual.

For visual, you won't see if mount skips odd step (ones with stepper motors) for example - but you will notice that in AP - as worse guide performance and larger stars / blurrier image.

More mass on the mount means more inertia when trying to guide - it can mean more under / over shoot in correction and need for additional corrections. Again - worse looking stars and blurrier image.

If mount can carry it - you can image with it, but question is - will you like results.

I have put imaging gear on the mount weighing close to its visual payload - and mount indeed tracks - but results were not good. Any breeze would wreak havoc on my guiding and setup would produce decent results only in perfect conditions (scope pointing at high DEC where RA error is smaller so guider does not need to do aggressive work).