HEQ5 vs Meade LXD75 GOTO Mount

[Dan13]

Hi , I currently have an EQ5 mount with a 130pds and dual axis motor. I really enjoy this hobby and want to upgrade my equipment and venture into guiding at some point.

I've been desperately searching for a used HEQ5 but they seem like hens teeth to find!  I have found however a few decent priced LXD75 mounts and may have been so caught up in the skywatcher fad that ive overlooked other manufactures.

Ive read conflicting reports that the LXD is the equivalent to the EQ5 but also read that the LXD is better. So my question is how does the LXD fair up against the HEQ5 ? My imaging set up is currently 5kg and when the extras im looking at are added it will be roughly 8kg max. Ill add the LXD wil come with goto

 

Many thanks for any input.

[John]

I've owned a LXD75 and one of the older HEQ5 mounts. The HEQ5 was the stronger and more capable mount. The latest versions of the HEQ5 will be even more so. The LXD75 was about the same as the Celestron CG5.

 

[Dan13]

Just now, John said:

I've owned a LXD75 and one of the older HEQ5 mounts. The HEQ5 was the stronger and more capable mount. The latest versions of the HEQ5 will be even more so. The LXD75 was about the same as the Celestron CG5.

 

Thank you John, ive seen some LXD75's being sold in the region of £250 and a Rowan upgrade HEQ5 is £900, woudl the LXD75 (goto) give me a vast upgrade to my current EQ5 (dual axis) while i save or wait for an HEQ5 or should i sit on my EQ5 for the mo and just save for a HEQ5 (new that is, i have money for something used)

 

Dan

[johninderby]

The 75 is more like the EQ5 but with better bearings. The HEQ5 is a heavier duty mount. 

[Dan13]

1 minute ago, johninderby said:

The 75 is more like the EQ5 but with better bearings. The HEQ5 is a heavier duty mount. 

Thank you John, do the better bearing provide a smoother/consistent  tracking experience?

[johninderby]

Not sure if it would make any real difference in tracking other than the bearings should hold up to wear better. Apparently the LXD75 mount usualy needs tuning up to get it to work properly. 

[Dan13]

12 minutes ago, johninderby said:

Not sure if it would make any real difference in tracking other than the bearings should hold up to wear better. Apparently the LXD75 mount usualy needs tuning up to get it to work properly. 

Ok thank you John much appreciated 

[FaDG]

Hi Dan, the LXD is basically the same head as the EQ5 and the CG5, the difference being the Autostar goto (and if I'm not astray, belt drive like the CG5 GT instead of cogs like the EQ5).

So, apart from the goto, no big improvement vs. the EQ5. 

The HEQ5, now this is playing in a completely different class. You're not changing for that to increase the payload (or only in a minimal part). You do so for the accuracy and consistency of the results. 

I passed from an EQ5 to a belt modded HEQ5 and my only regret was the time I spent before changing, which would yielded many hours worth of fine data!

I use it guided with a 150p Newt or either an ED80 or a 72ED and it is consistently tracking with less than 0,6 arcsec RMS error on nights of good seeing. 

Look at it as a scaled down EQ6, not a beefed up EQ5. The best money I spent for the hobby. 

Edited April 6, 2020 by FaDG

[Cornelius Varley]

26 minutes ago, FaDG said:

Hi Dan, the LXD is basically the same head as the EQ5 and the CG5, the difference being the Autostar goto (and if I'm not astray, belt drive like the CG5 GT instead of cogs like the EQ5)

All three still use gear drives. The Celestron CGX and CGX-L are belt driven.

[Dan13]

37 minutes ago, FaDG said:

Hi Dan, the LXD is basically the same head as the EQ5 and the CG5, the difference being the Autostar goto (and if I'm not astray, belt drive like the CG5 GT instead of cogs like the EQ5).

So, apart from the goto, no big improvement vs. the EQ5. 

The HEQ5, now this is playing in a completely different class. You're not changing for that to increase the payload (or only in a minimal part). You do so for the accuracy and consistency of the results. 

I passed from an EQ5 to a belt modded HEQ5 and my only regret was the time I spent before changing, which would yielded many hours worth of fine data!

I use it guided with a 150p Newt or either an ED80 or a 72ED and it is consistently tracking with less than 0,6 arcsec RMS error on nights of good seeing. 

Look at it as a scaled down EQ6, not a beefed up EQ5. The best money I spent for the hobby. 

Thank you, appreciate the response and info! I think i need either open my wallet for a new HEQ5 or be patient and try and grab one on the used market.  im really struggling with the DA motor at on the EQ5 and my results are inconsistent.

[FaDG]

On 06/04/2020 at 14:44, Cornelius Varley said:

All three still use gear drives. The Celestron CGX and CGX-L are belt driven.

You're right, I remember having seen a belt driven CG5 ASGT but it had been belt modded, probably. 

My mount did not have goto, so it was like the OP one. Upgrade to the HEQ5 has proven invaluable. 

Edited April 7, 2020 by FaDG