Celestron v Sky Watcher EQ mounts

[shazstars01]

Hello all, 

I am a newbie to astronomy 😀 and am considering either a Skywatcher EQ mount + scope, or a Celestron EQ mount + scope: 

Potentially this:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/pro-series/skywatcher-evostar-80ed-pro-heq5-pro.html

(many have recommended this as a great first scope for deep sky imaging and good also for planets/moon)

or this:

https://www.celestron.com/products/advanced-vx-8-schmidt-cassegrain-telescope

(many have recommended this as a great allrounder scope with a focal reducer accessory needed for deep skies)

 

My aims are:

1) ease of use using app where possible for goto tracking (plus star alignment and polar alignment)

2) great observation of planets, sun, moon

3) very good --> great imaging of planets, sun, moon and deep skies (galaxies, nebula) as I get more advanced 

 

Very interested to hear whether since these posts 2 years ago there has been any change in opinion? Are they both still evenly matched? I am interested in the build quality but also the software quality of the goto apps for both of them (SkyPortal v SkyScan) and, importantly, anyone's experience with firmware updates for the equipment. For instance, I have heard Celestron's firmware update process is a nightmare. So the software side is very important for me. 

Very grateful for your input! 🙏 

[Dr Strange]

Synta owns both Skywatcher (their house band) and Celestron (which they bought) but for some reason they have kept them firewalled from each other for the most part. There are chinks in the armor in that the StarSense is now available on the Skywatcher platforms although it is more expensive by a fair margin and requires an adapter. I have heard rumors (with high confidence in them based on the source) that there is a work in progress to collapse the two code tree's (Nexstar and Synscan) into a single code base going forward. Though a target date for that hasn't been discussed. 

With that said, between the two the hand controller software on the Celestron mounts is easier to use (I have used both) but the quality of the mounts is better with the Skywatcher (I have also owned both). In addition there are options in the Skywatcher lineup that doesn't exist in the Celestron one. For example the AZ-EQx mounts and the AZ-GTi. The one armed bandit Celestron mounts like the EVO and SE platforms pale in comparison to the AZ-EQx mounts in terms of build quality and flexibility. 

Bottom line is they are both good for their price point and you just need to pick your poison. You can't go wrong with either. Caveat an Alt/Az mount will always be better than an EQ one for visual work because in Alt/Az mode the eyepiece stays in a comfortable position. And of course you really need a EQ mount for astro photography over about 20-30 seconds per sub-exposure. 

[Geoff Lister]

14 hours ago, shazstars01 said:

Very interested to hear whether since these posts 2 years ago there has been any change in opinion? Are they both still evenly matched? I am interested in the build quality but also the software quality of the goto apps for both of them (SkyPortal v SkyScan) and, importantly, anyone's experience with firmware updates for the equipment. For instance, I have heard Celestron's firmware update process is a nightmare. So the software side is very important for me. 

My (limited) experience is unchanged; they both produce good products.

Concerning firmware updates; I have not needed to update any of the firmware in any of my systems. I use the "If it isn't broke - don't fix it" philosophy. Most PC/tablet/phone software requires regular updates, often to correct security weaknesses or to add new features. A mature GoTo is stand-alone, so no security problems; and the night-sky object positioning calculations should be good for considerably longer than the useful lifetime of the mount/handset hardware.

14 hours ago, shazstars01 said:

 

My aims are:

1) ease of use using app where possible for goto tracking (plus star alignment and polar alignment)

2) great observation of planets, sun, moon

3) very good --> great imaging of planets, sun, moon and deep skies (galaxies, nebula) as I get more advanced 

As mentioned in other threads; for visual astronomy, the optical tube is most important, usually with an Az/Alt mount; for astrophotography, the mount is more important, usually an EQ mount, and usually more costly to get "decent" results.

Geoff

[Astro-Geek]

In my limited experience with both I found it impossible to get a replacement motor circuit board for a broken CG5 advanced mount (out of warranty),  as all my enquiries were met with the answer that Celestron  will no longer sell them to owners.  I had no recourse other than to sell the mount as sold as seen, electronics not working.

Similar parts for Skywatcher mounts do however appear readilly on astro suppliers websites, often at fairly reasonable prices too.

Having said that, the current Covid situation appears to have halted all international ordering/restocking from China.  I'm currently unable to get even a date for supply of a replacement board for my Skywatcher Dobsonian Goto motor board, but hopefully that's just a temporary glitch. (If it had been a Celestron board it wouldn't have even been available to purchase anyway).

Edited May 12, 2020 by Astro-Geek

[newbie alert]

Personally I'm never buying another celestron product again, I've thought about skywatcher but built along similar lines, so I'm going to try the ioptron flavour

[shazstars01]

Thanks so far for everyone's input. 😀

I am starting to side towards getting a Celestron AVX mount with a Sky Watcher ED 80 Refractor, something like this:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/pro-series/skywatcher-evostar-80ed-ds-pro-outfit.html

Reason for the AVX mount

• I get a sense from research that the Skyportal software from Celestron is more reliable than the Skyscan from SW.
• Skyportal also does the auto polar alignment 

Reason for the SW scope

• As my research continues, what I am seeing more and more is that something like the 8" SCT would not be wise first scope for any sort of photography, given cooling time and accuracy needed with long focal length. Great for viewing, but perhaps not as a first scope for photography.
• But something like this SW refractor may give the best of 3 worlds ....
  • a) viewing of planets/moon,
  • b) images of planets/moon
  • c) images of deep space (eventually).
  • And it's apparently quite a 'forgiving' scope so good for beginners. 

Do you think my logic is sound? 

Starsense Autoalign

I also have a question on Starsense Autoalign. Would it be advisable to use it on the refractor for any sort of star alignment? I have read it's much more important on the SCTs especially if you are starting out, but on the refractors the star alignment is much more simple. My understanding is the Starsense is purely for plate solving/star alignment, it is not an auto-guider camera.  

 

Great to get your thoughts on all of the above! 🙏

  

 

Edited May 12, 2020 by shazstars01

[Cosmic Geoff]

23 minutes ago, shazstars01 said:

Starsense Autoalign

I also have a question on Starsense Autoalign. Would it be advisable to use it on the refractor for any sort of star alignment? I have read it's much more important on the SCTs especially if you are starting out, but on the refractors the star alignment is much more simple. My understanding is the Starsense is purely for plate solving/star alignment, it is not an auto-guider camera.

I am not sure if you have understood what the Starsense actually does. Apologies if you do.  It points its camera (and attached scope, etc) to various points of the sky, resolving stars and doing plate-solves, till it has calculated an alignment and declares that it is ready. Essentially it automates the 2-star/3 object align you would have to do manually if you did not have the device.  Reports indicate that not everybody has happy experience of it, but when it works it is a great convenience, eliminating a tiresome procedure and instead allowing the owner to fetch some more gear while it does its thing.

Whether it is attached to a refractor or a SCT does not seem relevant as the scope is passive while the Starsense is running.  It is not possible to get a feed out from the Starsense for any other purpose such as imaging or guiding.

[Shimrod]

5 hours ago, shazstars01 said:

Starsense Autoalign

I also have a question on Starsense Autoalign. Would it be advisable to use it on the refractor for any sort of star alignment? I have read it's much more important on the SCTs especially if you are starting out, but on the refractors the star alignment is much more simple. My understanding is the Starsense is purely for plate solving/star alignment, it is not an auto-guider camera.

You use Starsense regardless of the telescope attached as you always need to perform your alignment process. The 'simplicity' of the refractor in this instance is that a less perfectly aligned scope will still give you reasonable imaging times as they normally have a much smaller focal length than the SCT (smaller focal length gives you a longer time before any imperfections in your alignment or tracking become obvious).