EQ3 Pro Go-To vs EQ5 Pro Go-To vs EQM-35 Pro Go-To

[Pitch Black Skies]

Hi guys,

I'm hoping to start AP with a 130P-DS.

Of the three mounts listed in the heading, how do they compare?

The EQ3 Pro Go-To is obviously cheaper so I will go with that if it's suitable.

Would there be a huge difference in choosing one of the others?

What are the pros and cons of each?

Are they all similar in their features and ease of use?

[smashing]

I haven't experience in any of those mounts but for astrophotography the mount is so so so so so important...I'm sure there are people using the above but weight and the moment arm soon starts adding up when you start adding in cameras, correctors, guide scopes etc etc 

Defacto minimum is usually HEQ5

Edited August 14, 2021 by smashing

[vlaiv]

Depends what your priorities are.

EQ5 is the most stable of the three - and you want stable platform for imaging.

Each of these is really a compromise when doing astrophotography with a telescope like 130PDS. The mount you should be looking at is this one:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/equatorial-astronomy-mounts/skywatcher-heq5-pro-synscan.html

but that mount is often perceived as too expensive and that is one reason why people decide for lighter mount - one of those listed by you.

Another reason why you might choose lighter mount is portability. If you often have to travel to dark location to image - you'll compromise and take lighter mount although it's not as stable as HEQ5 for example.

EQ3 is barely adequate for imaging in my view. I would use it with very short FL scope for wide field imaging.

EQ5 would be really minimum for longer FL scope like 130PDS/150PDS or refractors up to 100mm.

EQ35 was made as a sort of hybrid between the two above - "precision" and "weight capacity" of EQ5 combined with portability of EQ3.

I can't really say if that was successful or not. My guess is that EQ35 is a bit better than EQ3 - but not quite as good as EQ5 for imaging.

[Pitch Black Skies]

Stability is the priority, but cost is also important.

It looks like the EQ5 Pro Go-To at the moment for me so.

How does the HEQ5 compare to it vlaiv?

I also see there is an upgraded version with a Rowan belt.

Maybe I am looking at the wrong telescope. I just think the 130p-ds would suit me as I am comfortable with reflectors. I am coming from a 200p dob.

[vlaiv]

3 minutes ago, Pitch Black Skies said:

How does the HEQ5 compare to it vlaiv?

Mount is all about two things - stability and precision of tracking.

EQ5 can handle up to 9-10kg in total and recommended limit for imaging is 6.5kg (according to FLO - usually taken to be 2/3 of total capacity).

HEQ5 can handle up to 15Kg for visual and about 11kg for imaging.

HEQ5 is heavier mount than EQ5 - I don't have figures but it is certainly at least 4-5kg heavier all together - which means more stability.

HEQ5 is more precise in tracking and has more powerful stepper motors (0.287642" per step for EQ5 vs 0.143617" per step for HEQ5).

EQ5 can be purchased as manual mount and retrofitted with RA/DEC drives (even single tracking drive) - HEQ5 was powered version "from the beginning" (it was designed that way).

In the end, if you mod / tune HEQ5 you can have mount that guides at 0.5" RMS. Out of the box it will do 1" guide RMS most of the time. I don't have stats for EQ5 with regard to this.

[rl]

It's probably early days yet if you're just starting imaging, but do you expect to stick with it? Or are you just testing the water at this stage? If you do stick then you will probably want to upgrade fairly quickly from an EQ5.....to a HEQ5 or maybe even an EQ6 mount depending on portability requirements.  You are possibly more likely to stick with it starting with a good mount...there will be enough other problems to get right.  I just wonder if it's worth taking the financial hit trading up...or just save up for the HEQ5 in the first place. 

If you can find a secondhand HEQ5 it won't be that much more than the basic EQ5pro..they generally change hands for about £600-700 if you can afford to wait.

As I've put in another thread somewhere, the 130PDS is a real giantkiller in skilled hands. By AP standards it's an absolute bargain. But you might not get on with the diffraction spikes, and collimation is just something else to go wrong and ruin an otherwise excellent imaging session. The HEQ5 leaves you with more options if you do choose to change the scope. Small refractors have a reliability that Newtonians always struggle to match. I'm the Newt's biggest fan but for AP in the less than half-metre focal length range I'd take a small apo/ed frac any day, cost permitting.

Vlaiv's point is a very good one....the HEQ5 was actually designed to do AP rather than the facility being added on as an afterthought. 

Best of luck whichever way you go...there is a lot of support available on this site. 

[Pitch Black Skies]

I am just testing the waters. Might I be better to start with say a Skywatcher 72ED and Star Adventurer/EQ3 Pro Go-To?

I really like the idea of the 130P-DS as I'm also a huge reflector fan and really comfortable with collimation, but if it makes sense to get something smaller I will.

Edit: Yes vlaiv's point is very good indeed.

There seems to be a common theme so far, and that is the HEQ5 is the clear winner. 

Always appreciate the advice on this forum. Some great minds here.

Edited August 14, 2021 by Pitch Black Skies
Extended comment

[vlaiv]

2 minutes ago, Pitch Black Skies said:

I am just testing the waters. Might I be better to start with say a Skywatcher 72ED and Star Adventurer/EQ3 Pro Go-To?

I really like the idea of the 130P-DS as I'm also a huge reflector fan and really comfortable with collimation, but if it makes sense to get something smaller I will.

It is usually better to pick your gear based on targets you want to image rather than budget or some other consideration.

What do you want to image?

If you want to concentrate on wide field / low resolution work - then yes, 70mm scope + portable mount is a good solution.

130PDS is 650mm of focal length versus 350mm of 70mm F/6 scope paired with field flattener / focal reducer of about x0.8. That x2 in focal length and consequently x2 in FOV size for any given sensor. It is also x2 in resolution for given pixel size.

With 130PDS you can go wide field by doing mosaics, but with smaller scope and less precise mount - you can't get higher resolution image.

[Pitch Black Skies]

Makes sense. You know I would be pleased to capture some of the bigger objects like M31, M42, Pleiades, Moon, Virgo cluster. It might be a good place to start.

Would any of the mounts discussed above be suitable for the 72ED?

Edited August 15, 2021 by Pitch Black Skies
Typo

[rl]

There might be some merit in working out the field you will get with various scopes, correctors and cameras, just to get an idea of what will fit in. You would need to choose a coma corrector for the 130PDS, or a flattener for the ED72. These extras frequently modify the focal length. Are you planning on using a Canon DSLR or a proper astro cooled camera? Most midrange Canons come with an APSC-size sensor which is 16 by 24mm ...with a 420mm focal length this gives you roughly 2 by 3 degrees on the sky. This is fine for M42 but too small for M31 unless you're planning on doing a mosaic. Globulars like M13 show up reasonably well but are a bit small on that scale. The moon looks a bit on the small side and could use a Barlow.

If the HEQ5 is ruled out on cost, then an ED72 on an EQ5 pro isn't a bad place to start. The ED72 also makes a robust travel scope and comes in a nice case. They come up fairly frequently secondhand for about £250.

[Pitch Black Skies]

On 15/08/2021 at 09:34, rl said:

There might be some merit in working out the field you will get with various scopes, correctors and cameras, just to get an idea of what will fit in. You would need to choose a coma corrector for the 130PDS, or a flattener for the ED72. These extras frequently modify the focal length. Are you planning on using a Canon DSLR or a proper astro cooled camera? Most midrange Canons come with an APSC-size sensor which is 16 by 24mm ...with a 420mm focal length this gives you roughly 2 by 3 degrees on the sky. This is fine for M42 but too small for M31 unless you're planning on doing a mosaic. Globulars like M13 show up reasonably well but are a bit small on that scale. The moon looks a bit on the small side and could use a Barlow.

If the HEQ5 is ruled out on cost, then an ED72 on an EQ5 pro isn't a bad place to start. The ED72 also makes a robust travel scope and comes in a nice case. They come up fairly frequently secondhand for about £250.

I will be using my Canon DSLR.

These are some of the images I would expect to capture with it;

M51 might be a bit ambitious, M31 looks okay though.

Edited October 8, 2021 by Pitch Black Skies
Another typo...

[wimvb]

I have used the eq3-2 pro (goto) with a skywatcher 150pds, and can only advise against using it with a Newtonian telescope. Newtonian telescopes are big telescopes and, while not heavy for their size, act as sails. They need stable mounts. As @vlaivwrote in his first reply, this mount is good for short focal length wide field imaging (I’d say up to about 300-400mm). But then only if you first upgrade the tripod. The tripod in the image you shared is the aluminium version. With any mount, use a steel (or sturdy wooden) tripod.

The advantage that this mount has over a star tracker (star adventurer) is that it is goto and allows guiding in declination.

[Pitch Black Skies]

3 minutes ago, wimvb said:

I have used the eq3-2 pro (goto) with a skywatcher 150pds, and can only advise against using it with a Newtonian telescope. Newtonian telescopes are big telescopes and, while not heavy for their size, act as sails. They need stable mounts. As @vlaivwrote in his first reply, this mount is good for short focal length wide field imaging (I’d say up to about 300-400mm). But then only if you first upgrade the tripod. The tripod in the image you shared is the aluminium version. With any mount, use a steel (or sturdy wooden) tripod.

The advantage that this mount has over a star tracker (star adventurer) is that it is goto and allows guiding in declination.

Hi, the pic I shared is an EQ3 Pro Go-To.

What is the EQ3-2 Pro Go-To? Can you share a link of that?

I seen a video with Dave from DFO say the EQ3-2 is a great budget scope for something like a 72ED. I can only find a manual version of this mount though.

[wimvb]

5 minutes ago, Pitch Black Skies said:

Hi, the pic I shared is an EQ3 Pro Go-To.

What is the EQ3-2 Pro Go-To? Can you share a link of that?

It’s the same. I got my numbers mixed up. The goto version is called ”pro” and is based on the eq3-2, which is a further development of the eq3 mount without motors. The eq3 pro is based on the eq3-2 and has motors on ra and dec, and thus goto capability. Confusing? I always thought so.

[Pitch Black Skies]

😂 A little confusing yes, but you have explained that very well.

So I am thinking the EQ3 Pro Go-To combined with a 72ED might be a budget, but safe option.

Edited August 15, 2021 by Pitch Black Skies
Typo

[wimvb]

1 hour ago, Pitch Black Skies said:

thinking the EQ3 Pro Go-To combined with a 72ED might be a budget but safe option.

As I wrote before, the aluminium tripod isn’t very stable. If you decide for this mount, keep it as low as possible (don’t extend its legs all the way). I’ve read about people filling its legs with sand to improve stiffness. But when I tried that, the sand just ran out. Too many holes between the plastic parts and the aluminium. Instead I put wooden dowels inside the legs. I believe it improved stiffness. The mount itself is good for lightweight scopes and camera lenses, but definitely not for the Skywatcher 150pds that I had on it. I think that paired with a 72ed, as you suggest, may make a nice portable setup.

[Pitch Black Skies]

24 minutes ago, wimvb said:

As I wrote before, the aluminium tripod isn’t very stable. If you decide for this mount, keep it as low as possible (don’t extend its legs all the way). I’ve read about people filling its legs with sand to improve stiffness. But when I tried that, the sand just ran out. Too many holes between the plastic parts and the aluminium. Instead I put wooden dowels inside the legs. I believe it improved stiffness. The mount itself is good for lightweight scopes and camera lenses, but definitely not for the Skywatcher 150pds that I had on it. I think that paired with a 72ed, as you suggest, may make a nice portable setup.

Thanks, yes sorry forgot you had already mentioned about the aluminium tripod. That is definitely something worth considering I suppose.

Do you know if the EQ5 & EQM35 I attached have steel tripods? It doesn't say it the specifications.

Might another option might be a Star Adventurer Pro, steel tripod and the 72ED?

[wimvb]

5 hours ago, Pitch Black Skies said:

Do you know if the EQ5 & EQM35 I attached have steel tripods? It doesn't say it the specifications.

Might another option might be a Star Adventurer Pro, steel tripod and the 72ED?

Both the EQM35 and the EQ5 have steel tripods. You can tell from the round legs visible in the image. You could try to find a used EQ5 steel tripod. I believe it will fit an EQ3 PRO.

A Star Adventurer lacks the declination axis, and therefore any goto capability. Also, when you add guiding to the mix (eventually you will have to add guiding), a Star Adventurer can't guide in declination. You need declination guiding unless you have zero polar alignment error.

[nephilim]

All of the above is good advice, I'll add my two penneth.

As has been mentioned previously, I cannot stress enough how important the mount is. Buy cheap, buy twice is a phrase I've heard many times in the forum & it's very true. Several years ago I tried to image on the 'cheap' with a EQ5 & the after market motors but all I achieved was a headache 😂, there's enough to learn without having extra issues with unsuitable/ sub par gear.

This hobby is very rewarding but it can also be very frustrating & (I speak from experience unfortunately) it's always best to get it right first time around with the best gear you can afford & if the gear you need is a little out of budget save until you can buy it (You'll be glad you did in the long run)

I'd go for the HEQ5 then you'll be future proofed. Buying a mount that is right on the edge of its weight limit for your gear or trying to match a scope to the mount just to save money wont be a good idea as at some point you'll maybe upgrade your scope, with a bare minimum mount you'll end up having to also upgrade the mount which will be an expensive job.

Steve

[AstroMuni]

On 14/08/2021 at 21:33, Pitch Black Skies said:

I'm hoping to start AP with a 130P-DS.

I use a Celestron 130/650mm OTA so quite similar to your 130PDS. I had an EQ3 type mount and found it inadequate. After doing some research I opted for a secondhand HEQ5 pro and it has made a big difference. See link in my signature for my AP journey.

Hope this helps you decide.

[rnobleeddy]

I tried a 130PDS on an EQ5 and whilst it's possible to achieve good results, if I had a time machine, I'd go back and get a HEQ5 immediately (rather than a few months later). People do report success with EQ5s, but mine was a bit of a disaster in DEC. That said, I'm much better at polar alignment now, so  I do wonder how much better it'd perform if I could try again.

[Pitch Black Skies]

First of all, thanks to everyone for your knowledge, help and advice.

Just to let you guys know, I have settled on a second hand Meade LXD-75.

First impressions is that it seems pretty solid but I really don't know much about equatorial mounts let alone this specific one.

I will spend the next few days tweaking it and trying to familiarise myself with it.

I don't really know where to begin but luckily I have a cat here that is an expert in balancing and polar aligning scopes!

Edited August 29, 2021 by Pitch Black Skies
Added pic

[Alex Almeida]

@Pitch Black Skies these are pretty good price! Where did you find them, mate?

Thank you!

[Pitch Black Skies]

2 hours ago, Alex Almeida said:

@Pitch Black Skies these are pretty good price! Where did you find them, mate?

Thank you!

That is a snapshot from the FLO website.

Although the prices are lower, customs fees need to be also taken into account.

In fact it is actually working out more expensive for me now to buy from FLO than it is from astroshop.eu or teleskop-express.

A pity really, because I have always dealt with FLO.

Edited October 29, 2021 by Pitch Black Skies
Misspelling

[Alex Almeida]

The best price I've found recently is at https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/
https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/skywatcher-eqm-35-pro-synscan-goto-modular-equatorial-mounting-system.html
 

I saw Nebula Photos' review on this mount and I got a bit confused on the USB connector he specifies at 5'24" in this video below. All of EQM35 PRO I found out there doesnt seem to have this USB connector.