EQ v AZ Mounts - Do you need an EQ mount if you're not going to take any pictures?

[Nigella Bryant]

I currently use a solarquest mount which is alt az. It's brilliant, turn it on and off it goes, centres and tracks. Based on the skywatcher Azgti. I use it for both my solar scope's but eventually I want to mount both scope's on a bigger altaz mount. Love the Modern Astronomy altaz 100 but waiting for the motorized version.  

[Carl Au]

9 hours ago, PeterCPC said:

Purely for visual I would stick to AltAz.

I concur 

[Carl Au]

It depends on the scope you are going to hang of it. This is a fl7 4 inch refractor. 

[Carl Au]

Just now, Carl Au said:

It depends on the scope you are going to hang of it. This is a fl7 4 inch refractor. 

Incidentally this is an AZ4 the biggest scope I would put on it would be a frac this size or a 150 Newtonian 

[Stu]

I’m with @mikeDnighton this one. If I’m star hopping and observing DSOs then I much prefer a manual alt az mount such as my Ercole, or one with push to for instance like the AZ100. Panning up the Milky Way with all its treasures is so simple with this type of mount, and the eyepiece always stays well positioned.

However, for high power viewing over a long period such as lunar, planetary or solar I normally opt for a simple driven EQ mount. My choice currently is an old, but very well fettled Vixen GP with dual axis drives. It is almost as quick as an Alt Az to setup, just needing to be level and pointing north, and it then gives me lovely steady views with no need to adjust, apart from panning around using the controller. I find it much easier to concentrate on the fine detail if I don’t have to keeping twiddling with slow motion knobs. Sticking on one target for a long period means you can get comfortable and the eyepiece doesn’t change position too much as the mount tracks.

[Tiny Clanger]

1 hour ago, MrFreeze said:

If you had started out as I did, with a Tasco reflector in the 1970s, I think you might have a different opinion on the suitability of Alt-Az mounts. The mounts on those scopes are/were very far from sturdy, and quite enough to put you off Alt-Az for life. In comparison, the cheapest nastiest EQ1 knock-off would seem like luxury. I'm also very unimpressed with the performance of most Pan head type mechanisms on tripod mounts. I guess if you paid hundreds of pounds on a top of the range tripod you may get better results, but I don't feel inclined to throw that sort of money at something that may or may not work.

David

 I started out with an inherited Celestron 114 newt on a truly awful cheap eq  and that has put me off cheap eq mounts very effectively. The budget eq  looks the part, I'll give you that. 

[Stu]

Just now, Tiny Clanger said:

 I started out with an inherited Celestron 114 newt on a truly awful cheap eq  and that has put me off cheap eq mounts very effectively. The budget eq  looks the part, I'll give you that. 

I do think the very spindly EQ mounts sold frequently with starter scopes should be banned!!  They must give such a bad intro to the hobby; complicated and wobbly. An alt az is always likely to be a better option in comparison.

[Captain Scarlet]

5 hours ago, Jasonb said:

... I really have no plans to do imaging (I think that's a rabbit hole I'd never escape from).

... but at least you’d have plenty of company down there 😉

[Space Hopper]

I think when the AZ100 gets it motors it will be the ideal mounting solution. I'll be interested in seeing how they implement them and how effective they are.

I may even think about purchasing one myself......i have 3x alt-az already : a fourth wouldn't hurt would it.....??

Edited February 1, 2021 by Space Hopper

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I have a mini-giro mount which is a handy little alt-az mount. I use it mainly for solar observing, however. For some reason I find star-hopping in RA and DEC easier, so at night I really always hook out one of my EQ mounts. Whatever floats your boat.

[Carl Au]

The best AZ mount I ever had was a Giro III with a ADM (?) clamps with an extension. A very sold bit of kit that would handle a 6 inch refractor no bother. 

[John]

3 minutes ago, Carl Au said:

The best AZ mount I ever had was a Giro III with a ADM (?) clamps with an extension. A very sold bit of kit that would handle a 6 inch refractor no bother. 

I used to have one. I now have the Giro Ercole which is very similar

Getting the tripod right and, with these "T" type alt-az mounts makes a lot of difference to how steady they are and how smooth their motions are. They do have a lot of capacity. ED120 on one side, ED150 on the other:

 

 

[Jasonb]

Loving this thread everyone, thanks for all the replies and discussion.

[KP82]

I used to have quite a few manual alt-az mounts including AZ5, Sabre v2 and AZ Pronto. But after realising how relaxed it can be when viewing through a tracking mount, I sold all of them and started using EQ with my refractors exclusively. The only alt-az I've got left is the 8" dob.

 

My APM 107/700 on an ES iEXOS-100 PMC8 and my DIY eFinder. Plate solving + tracking for maximum ease of use in the freezing winter nights.

[Jasonb]

So the way I see it, whenever I do plan to upgrade a mount it really looks like I'll be fine with an AZ, unless I plan to do long exposure imaging, or unless I like the convenience of tracking.

I have noticed that when you reach a certain price point with AZ Mounts, they seem to become dual ones, which I'd never be looking for. The AZ4 looks like it's around the right price/payload capacity for me, but I think I'd miss slow-motion controls.

Anyhow, I'm not upgrading anytime soon, but it was interesting to here the different opinions, I learned a lot. As suggested, I am going to try my EQ1 in EQ mode some night (whenever it gets clear again) to see how I feel operating the scope that way.

Thanks again!

[banjaxed]

I used to have an AZ4 which was ok but since I changed it for an AZ5 I find it much better to use with the slo mo controls. Used to have a EQ mount but it was rarely used.

[Jasonb]

16 minutes ago, banjaxed said:

I used to have an AZ4 which was ok but since I changed it for an AZ5 I find it much better to use with the slo mo controls. Used to have a EQ mount but it was rarely used.

That's interesting, I looked at both of those (of course, just looking, not buying!) and the AZ4 comes with a steel tripod and is listed with a payload capacity of 6.8Kg and the AZ5 comes with a Aluminium and a capacity of 5Kg. Seems weird the AZ5 is 'worse' than the AZ4?

 

[John]

4 minutes ago, Jasonb said:

That's interesting, I looked at both of those (of course, just looking, not buying!) and the AZ4 comes with a steel tripod and is listed with a payload capacity of 6.8Kg and the AZ5 comes with a Aluminium and a capacity of 5Kg. Seems weird the AZ5 is 'worse' than the AZ4?

 

I don't think the he mount head of the AZ5 is quite as solid as the AZ4. Also aluminum tripods don't generally have the stiffness and solidity of the steel tripods, although there are better ones about eg: Vixen.

I'm rather cautious about translating loading capacity figures into relattive "real world" capacity because the characteristics of the scope can make a major difference ie: the physical tube length and the focal length. The weight capacity is just one part of the equation.

 

 

[Jasonb]

That's true John, but sometimes all I have to go on from sites etc. is the figures they have, like Payload. That said, if you had an AZ5 and put it on a steel tripod, I'd expect its capacity to increase.

Edited February 2, 2021 by Jasonb

[Tiny Clanger]

20 minutes ago, Jasonb said:

That's interesting, I looked at both of those (of course, just looking, not buying!) and the AZ4 comes with a steel tripod and is listed with a payload capacity of 6.8Kg and the AZ5 comes with a Aluminium and a capacity of 5Kg. Seems weird the AZ5 is 'worse' than the AZ4?

 

I looked at both az4 and az5 carefully having a tripod already to put whatever I bought on. The anomaly of the az5 quoted limit is down to the weakness of the alu tripod, the statistic for the head alone is that it's rated for 9kgs . Which is why I went with the extra money for the az5. My tripod is rated for 11kgs, so I don't imagine I'll ever need to upgrade either !

What I find weird is that the lighter duty tripod gets bundled with the heftier head, and vice versa ....

Heather

[Carl Au]

21 minutes ago, John said:

I don't think the he mount head of the AZ5 is quite as solid as the AZ4. Also aluminum tripods don't generally have the stiffness and solidity of the steel tripods, although there are better ones about eg: Vixen.

I'm rather cautious about translating loading capacity figures into relattive "real world" capacity because the characteristics of the scope can make a major difference ie: the physical tube length and the focal length. The weight capacity is just one part of the equation.

 

 

Which is why I didn't buy an AZ5. This is the second AZ4 I have had. For a 4 inch frac my size I would not use anything else, very much wedded to them. Absolutely rock solid. I hate GEM's. I could never get on with them, horrible things 

[Carl Au]

25 minutes ago, John said:

I don't think the he mount head of the AZ5 is quite as solid as the AZ4. Also aluminum tripods don't generally have the stiffness and solidity of the steel tripods, although there are better ones about eg: Vixen.

I'm rather cautious about translating loading capacity figures into relattive "real world" capacity because the characteristics of the scope can make a major difference ie: the physical tube length and the focal length. The weight capacity is just one part of the equation.

 

 

My feelings entirely. I love my AZ4. I have been using them on and off for 10 years 

[Jasonb]

7 minutes ago, Tiny Clanger said:

I looked at both az4 and az5 carefully having a tripod already to put whatever I bought on. The anomaly of the az5 quoted limit is down to the weakness of the alu tripod, the statistic for the head alone is that it's rated for 9kgs . Which is why I went with the extra money for the az5. My tripod is rated for 11kgs, so I don't imagine I'll ever need to upgrade either !

What I find weird is that the lighter duty tripod gets bundled with the heftier head, and vice versa ....

Heather

Exactly, why put an Aluminium tripod under an AZ5? Though I don't know if it's Skywatcher or FLO that are making that pairing. And to be fair to FLO, you can easily buy the AZ5 and they sell a separate steel tripod that would fit it. Didn't know you had the AZ5 Heather, I take it you're happy with it?

[Carl Au]

I don't get it either, anyway there was no way I was buying one when U found that out. I assumed it must be more heavy duty not less. I had slow motion controls before but never used them. You get them on a dob and no one complains you might notice. Still everyone to there own I guess.

Edited February 2, 2021 by Carl Au
Spelling mistake

[John]

21 minutes ago, Jasonb said:

That's true John, but sometimes all I have to go on from sites etc. is the figures they have, like Payload. That said, if you had an AZ5 and put it on a steel tripod, I'd expect it's capacity to increase.

The AZ4 was one of the most portable mounts I've ever owned. It was my "go to" mount for outreach events in remote sights where I had to carry the equipment some way. When we can do such things again, I'll probably get another one.