What upgrade path to take?

[DanLXIX]

I'm starting to consider my next steps. I've not remotely exhausted my 150PDS at the moment but I do feel that over the next year or so I'll want to upgrade. Rather than doing it in one big step I had thought I'd do it in steps.

The first thing I know I want to change is the mount. I'm right on the weight limit now of my EQ5 so I thought this was the place to start, but there is no point in buying a mount without having a reasonable idea about what is going to sit on it even though I've sort of assumed that going for something like an EQ6 makes the choices after that much simpler. My last purchase is likely to be the camera as I have my DLSR and use it for other things as well, so given I don't really do much visual, what would what would be a good choice of OTA type/size in the mid priced range that would be good with DLSR and then eventually a proper camera? I'm not setting a budget as such, but I don't have unlimited funds

I know this is very open ended so I'm more than happy to get quite different suggestions that give me scope for investigation.

[Peter Drew]

My only recommendation is that you experiment via used equipment, buying new and selling repeatably to reach your final goal will lose you money.     🙂

[KP82]

IMO you're on the right track to upgrade the mount first as that EQ5 Pro is the weakest link in your imaging setup. Something like an EQ6-R or CEM40 would be a good step up from what you've already got.

As for the scope your 150PDS (750mm) has a good aperture, f ratio and focal length for your DSLR. 800 - 1000mm focal length is probably the max for a D7100 before OAG and a better quality mount are required (also seeing condition will start to become a limit).

If you'd like to go widefield, there is a huge selection of 60 - 80mm ED refractors. The optical quality of these scopes are mostly about the same. So pick whatever is stock and can be easily serviced should anything go wrong.

Edited May 10, 2021 by KP82

[alacant]

45 minutes ago, DanLXIX said:

EQ6 makes the choices after that much simpler.

Hi

Now we're allowed, where we are at least, perhaps the best path to take is to go along to an astro club and see for yourself. Hands on with a demonstration under the stars for the price of a round of drinks is hard to beat. Between them, they will have all the stuff you're considering. Try before you buy:)

Cheers and HTH

 

Edited May 10, 2021 by alacant

[vlaiv]

Don't base your mount decision on weight alone if you are interested in imaging.

You won't need much heavier scope for considerable future. Even if you opt to go for 10" scope - you will still be under 16Kg for OTA alone or 20Kg combined (both 10" RC and 10" F/5 newtonian weigh around 15.5Kg).

This really means that mount that can handle something like 20Kg for imaging will be useful for quite long time. Even something like Heq5 will be step up from Eq5 in performance.

What do you see as being upgrade from 150PDS? What are your intended targets and working resolution?

I'd say that you should keep the scope for now - and upgrade it last and get better performing mount - something that you'll be able to guide in 0.8" RMS range and cooled astronomy camera. That will make significant difference to your images.

 

[ollypenrice]

I think the priority order is mount-camera-optics and I wouldn't want to change anything without knowing why I was changing it.

Mount: what you have is as accurate as an EQ6 which just has a bigger payload. Whether or not you need a bigger payload depends on what you want to put on it. But might you go for a long focal length, high resolution setup? If so, will an EQ6 be accurate enough even if it will carry the payload?

Optics. The key question is, at what focal length do you want to image? Widefield? Small galaxies? You have to choose.  Once you know that, you can think about how much aperture you can afford, how you would balance ease against fine tuning (since very fast optics are usually tricky), what size of corrected circle you need, etc.

Camera. But first, can you get decent tracking with your present scope and camera? If so, it's an absolute no-brainer that your biggest improvement will come from buying a dedicated astronomical camera. 

Olly

[vlaiv]

2 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

Mount: what you have is as accurate as an EQ6 which just has a bigger payload.

I'm not entirely sure of that.

Heq5 and EQ6 are same accuracy class if there is such a thing - 1.0"-1.5" unmodded / out of the box, ~0.5-0.6" modded and tuned.

EQ5 - not sure if it will go below 1" RMS, will it?

[DanLXIX]

I was considering the EQ6-R, which I thought was an improvement on the EQ5 in a number of respects. I had also considered switching to OAG before changing much else to get better tracking possibilities. Any thoughts on that?

As to camera before OTA, I understand that thought - and I want to do widefield and small targets, which doesn't make it simpler 

My tracking is OK right now, although PHD works hard to do it. I'm going to overhaul my mount this summer which I hope will help.

[ollypenrice]

1 hour ago, DanLXIX said:

I was considering the EQ6-R, which I thought was an improvement on the EQ5 in a number of respects. I had also considered switching to OAG before changing much else to get better tracking possibilities. Any thoughts on that?

As to camera before OTA, I understand that thought - and I want to do widefield and small targets, which doesn't make it simpler 

My tracking is OK right now, although PHD works hard to do it. I'm going to overhaul my mount this summer which I hope will help.

The 'R' might be a little more accurate but I've read formal comparisons which suggest no consistent difference between HEQ5 and NEQ6 in accuracy. The biggest variable is the particular one which comes through the post.

At the short FL which interests you there is no great need for an OAG. I use guidescopes on my large and small refractors, the TEC 140 working at high resolution (0.9"PP). I think they're easier. I've used an OAG on a large reflector but that's another story. If you have a guiding issue with what you have then, unless there is flexure at the guidescope, an OAG probably won't solve it. 

Most widefield scopes are quite small unless you go for something like a RASA 8. Image scale also tends to be fairly tolerant on the mount.

Olly

[JeremyS]

6 hours ago, Peter Drew said:

My only recommendation is that you experiment via used equipment, buying new and selling repeatably to reach your final goal will lose you money.     🙂

I wish you’d told me that 40 years ago, Peter!
 

🤣

[alacant]

4 hours ago, vlaiv said:

modded and tuned.

Hands on tells us that even if you invest in a new SkyWatcher EQ-anything, if you want it to track and guide predictably, you're gonna have to pull it apart, clean, re-grease and adjust. At the very least. You'll see why when you're inside. There's only a certain amount software can correct. Of course, you may get lucky out of the box, but still...

If you want to go the whole hog, high quality replacement bearings are all standard issue sizing and readily available. If you don't want to do it yourself the mechanic guy at your local club will do it for you.

HTH and clear skies:)

 

Edited May 10, 2021 by alacant

[vlaiv]

14 minutes ago, alacant said:

Hands on tells us that even if you invest in a new SkyWatcher EQ-anything, if you want it to track and guide predictably, you're gonna have to pull it apart, clean, re-grease and adjust. At the very least. You'll see why when you're inside. There's only a certain amount software can correct. Of course, you may get lucky out of the box, but still...

If you want to go the whole hog, high quality replacement bearings are all standard issue sizing and readily available. If you don't want to do it yourself the mechanic guy at your local club will do it for you.

HTH and clear skies:)

 

Indeed - I did full workup on my Heq5 - changed bearings for SKF ones, did belt mod, changed saddle plate to vixen / losmandy dual one, placed mount on Barlebach planet - and it can now guide sub 0.5" RMS.

[Peter Drew]

3 hours ago, JeremyS said:

I wish you’d told me that 40 years ago, Peter!
 

🤣

You probably couldn't afford my consultant advice 40 years ago!     😆