EQ5 or EQ6 (De-forking Meade 8" LX10)

[KEJ]

I have a Meade 8" LX10 (Old RA clockwork drive), I like the scope and was thinking of de-forking it and mounting it on a GoTo mount.

Then using it for planetary, but also for with a reducer for the more faint/distant DSO's or am I wasting my time.

However,  I cannot seem to be able to find the weight of the actual telescope tube on its own, so that I can determine which mount to buy based on payload.

Questions:

1) Does anyone know the weight of a Meade 8" LX10 Telescope (Tube only) ?

2) Has anyone out there done a similar conversion and is it just a case of de-forking and then adding a dovetail bar?

3) Would a SW EQ5 be man enough for the job or would something bigger be required(adding a ZWO cameras and guide scopes) usually pretty light weight.

Thanks in advance

KEJ

Edited November 11, 2020 by Cornelius Varley
formatting corrected for colour

[masjstovel]

3) I bought the EQ5 for a SW 150PDS newtonian when getting in to this, and sold it 6 months or so later to buy an EQ6. EQ5 was just too lightweight for a good enough job. Besides, down the road you will probably wish to do upgrades and add-ons which increases the payload. 

When starting this hobby, and not knowing how it will be like, and not knowing if you mean business, it can be scary to put in so  much money, and tempting to go for the cheapest options, but i would argue hard that the place to leave the money should be on the mount at first. I recieved that tip and didnt listen to it (read first sentence).

[SmokeyJoe]

+1 for the EQ6.  I currently use an Ed80 frac plus Camera etc on an EQ 5 and it's not capable of any more than 2 min subs, 3 if I'm really lucky. 

[KEJ]

1 hour ago, masjstovel said:

3) I bought the EQ5 for a SW 150PDS newtonian when getting in to this, and sold it 6 months or so later to buy an EQ6. EQ5 was just too lightweight for a good enough job. Besides, down the road you will probably wish to do upgrades and add-ons which increases the payload. 

When starting this hobby, and not knowing how it will be like, and not knowing if you mean business, it can be scary to put in so  much money, and tempting to go for the cheapest options, but i would argue hard that the place to leave the money should be on the mount at first. I recieved that tip and didnt listen to it (read first sentence).

Wise words and my gut feelings are with you...........thank you

 

[KEJ]

1 hour ago, SmokeyJoe said:

+1 for the EQ6.  I currently use an Ed80 frac plus Camera etc on an EQ 5 and it's not capable of any more than 2 min subs, 3 if I'm really lucky. 

Dom thanks........I must admit I thought it would do better, is that with or without guiding.

 

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I have a Celestron GP-C8, which has a slightly lighter OTA than the Meade equivalent you have, whereas the Vixen Great Polaris mount it sits on is generally considered sturdier the the SkyWatcher EQ5 (which is one of many GP clones). This combo is fine for planetary imaging, and visually on DSOs, but I would not want to do DSO imaging with it. The GP mount works nicely with a short refractor, and at a pinch with my Meade 6" F/5 Schmidt-Newton, but DSO imaging at 1280 mm focal length would not work well at all. Even the EQ6 might struggle a bit at that focal length

[KEJ]

22 minutes ago, michael.h.f.wilkinson said:

I have a Celestron GP-C8, which has a slightly lighter OTA than the Meade equivalent you have, whereas the Vixen Great Polaris mount it sits on is generally considered sturdier the the SkyWatcher EQ5 (which is one of many GP clones). This combo is fine for planetary imaging, and visually on DSOs, but I would not want to do DSO imaging with it. The GP mount works nicely with a short refractor, and at a pinch with my Meade 6" F/5 Schmidt-Newton, but DSO imaging at 1280 mm focal length would not work well at all. Even the EQ6 might struggle a bit at that focal length

Thank you.  Part of me is thinking, right for planetary no more manual controlling to keep it on target(so a tick in the box), then I was assuming for DSO with a reducer so down to where you mentioning, I thought it would be fine especially if I was guiding!   Sounds like more researching required.

[ollypenrice]

You have to beware of the F ratio myth when you bring focal reducers into the story. Binning would also speed up capture. You can hardware bin a mono CCD but you can software bin data from an OSC camera of any kind. The real purpose of the focal reducer is to open up the field of view and, in the case of the Meade-Celestron one, to flatten the field - which will be necessary on anything but a very small chip.

Guiding does have its limits. An EQ6, working well under guiding, should deliver a guide RMS of 0.5 arcseconds or so. You need to double that to estimate the resolution your mount will support when the seeing allows. So you will probably be limited to about an arcsecond per pixel at the imaging camera. This calculator is helpful. http://www.12dstring.me.uk/fovcalc.php

To be honest the non ACF Meades are not great for DS imaging and will add to your difficulties. I wouldn't let your decision be too heavily influenced by DS imaging with the scope. It will never be good at it.

Olly

[KEJ]

3 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

You have to beware of the F ratio myth when you bring focal reducers into the story. Binning would also speed up capture. You can hardware bin a mono CCD but you can software bin data from an OSC camera of any kind. The real purpose of the focal reducer is to open up the field of view and, in the case of the Meade-Celestron one, to flatten the field - which will be necessary on anything but a very small chip.

Guiding does have its limits. An EQ6, working well under guiding, should deliver a guide RMS of 0.5 arcseconds or so. You need to double that to estimate the resolution your mount will support when the seeing allows. So you will probably be limited to about an arcsecond per pixel at the imaging camera. This calculator is helpful. http://www.12dstring.me.uk/fovcalc.php

To be honest the non ACF Meades are not great for DS imaging and will add to your difficulties. I wouldn't let your decision be too heavily influenced by DS imaging with the scope. It will never be good at it.

Olly

Thank you