Decent computerised setup for beginner?

[tooth_dr]

I’m trying to advise on a new set up for someone I know.   Specifically wants goto and tracking.  Good likelihood of being used for imaging > visual. Will be used at home so just needs to be sufficiently portable to move outdoors.  Budget around £1500.

In my head a 200PDS on an HEQ5 would fit the budget and brief?  But is it too much bulk?  I now have a 200 myself and I find it small and manageable compared to the 250.  But I guess the EP can be high to use visually and an EQ mount is awkward for some.

Ive no experience of the Nexstar 8SE, but can deduce it’s limitations for AP.  However if imaging took a back foot, it’s going to a bit easier to use visually and easier to carry out?

Then there is the new EQM-35 mount which might be adequate, paired with a nice ED80.

Please feel free to add any suggestions that fit the brief.  
 

Many thanks

 

 

 

 

 

[ONIKKINEN]

The EQM-35 is not a good option for the money, it is more comparable to the EQ-3 than the EQ-5. The differences between the EQ3 and EQM35 are a "reinforced" RA-axis, removable DEC axis to make it a big Star Adventurer and an extra counterweight. Note that the RA axis is not an issue in the EQ-3, the DEC is, and they are the same (trash). Comparing weights of the 35 and 5 are also very similar if given equal counterweights. The EQM-35 is very error prone and just generally a bad time, perhaps even with a little 80mm scope. There are really almost no benefits to getting an EQM35 compared to an EQ5, so no contest there given the almost identical prices. Trust me, i have the mount and hate it 👎.

If the person you are advising said that there is a good likelihood it will be used for imaging, i would assume the likelihood is 100%, once the first pics roll in and they cant believe what they are seeing. For this reason the 150PDS might be a better choice. I am also using a 200mm newt, and i probably should have gotten a 150. Imaging performance is quite similar, but the 150 is a lot more manageable for the mount (i would assume, just judging from physical size and weight). HEQ-5 + 150PDS would be a cheap and upgradeable choice, HEQ-5+ + 200PDS could be worse for imaging because of its bulk. Both would be a chore to carry outside, but it doesn't have to be comfortable and they could always carry the mount and OTA in separate trips. And in the subject of comfort, whether the 200 on an EQ mount would be usable depends on the persons height. I am 187cm and the 200 on my EQ mount is just about perfect for zenith viewing.

[tooth_dr]

Thanks for that honest review on the 35. 

I did think that the 150 would be more manageable.  I started out myself a 6” on an LXD75.

 

 

 

[tooth_dr]

I was thinking an HEQ5 as a good starting point, then decide on an OTA to suit more specific requirements.   I've never used the Nexstar range, it was just suggested elsewhere, but I dont think it's particularly great???

[Dinglem]

@tooth_dr how about the Sky-Watcher AZ EQ5-GT, it would easily carry a 200p and can be used for both visual and AP.

 

[tooth_dr]

1 hour ago, Dinglem said:

@tooth_dr how about the Sky-Watcher AZ EQ5-GT, it would easily carry a 200p and can be used for both visual and AP.

 

I didn’t know that existed! 
 

I think the 200p might be a bit big for a beginner, but compared to my 250, I thinks it’s small 😇

 

[Dinglem]

I saw a 300P-DS at the weekend and it's huge compared to  my 200P.

[Clarkey]

Just to agree with some of the earlier comments. I would say a 150 rather than 200mm. I have both and the smaller one is much better for moving about. I started with a 200p and an HEQ5. The HEQ5 is great for the money - especially once belt driven and tuned a bit. Using the 200p for visual was a pain in the backside. I was permanently between and ladder and my knees to see anything! I would also suggest 150mm is a better size for the HEQ5 when imaging.

[tooth_dr]

44 minutes ago, Dinglem said:

I saw a 300P-DS at the weekend and it's huge compared to  my 200P.

You are not wrong there!  Here is a photo of my 300PDS beside the 250!

Edited November 1, 2021 by tooth_dr

[david_taurus83]

For a beginner, it's got to be an ED80 all day long on an HEQ5.

[Adam J]

22 hours ago, tooth_dr said:

I’m trying to advise on a new set up for someone I know.   Specifically wants goto and tracking.  Good likelihood of being used for imaging > visual. Will be used at home so just needs to be sufficiently portable to move outdoors.  Budget around £1500.

In my head a 200PDS on an HEQ5 would fit the budget and brief?  But is it too much bulk?  I now have a 200 myself and I find it small and manageable compared to the 250.  But I guess the EP can be high to use visually and an EQ mount is awkward for some.

Ive no experience of the Nexstar 8SE, but can deduce it’s limitations for AP.  However if imaging took a back foot, it’s going to a bit easier to use visually and easier to carry out?

Then there is the new EQM-35 mount which might be adequate, paired with a nice ED80.

Please feel free to add any suggestions that fit the brief.  
 

Many thanks

 

 

 

 

 

130pds on a eqm-35 is imaging is more important than visual. 

[Cosmic Geoff]

4 hours ago, tooth_dr said:

 I've never used the Nexstar range, it was just suggested elsewhere, but I dont think it's particularly great???

I have three Nexstar alt-az mounts as well as a Sky-watcher EQ5 Synscan.  The Nexstar system IMHO is a better designed and easier to use system, and for visual use I would recommend the Nexstar.  I have not seen the equatorial version (by which we most likely mean the AVX here).  As for the Synscan even though this is very popular I found it unintuitive with features present in the Nexstar either missing or hard to use, and the star align is also harder to use - without prior planning the 3-star align is almost impossible to use.  

I would say that spending £1500 on a telescope outfit could be unwise unless one has a very clear idea how it it to be used.  A HEQ5 could be put to various uses, if need be. A large aperture is not needed for deep sky imaging, it seems, unless one has small distant galaxies in mind, but it is desirable for planetary imaging.  If one does not intend to do deep sky imaging, there is no need to suffer the aggro of an equatorial mount (or Synscan), as an alt-az will be entirely adequate for visual, or planetary imaging.  Conversely, the Celestron C8 SE is a portable and easy to use outfit, very suitable for visual use, but a bit of a pain for planetary imaging and, (I expect) useless for deep sky imaging.

[tooth_dr]

2 hours ago, Adam J said:

130pds on a eqm-35 is imaging is more important than visual. 

What about the information above that the 35 is not good?

[Adam J]

11 hours ago, tooth_dr said:

What about the information above that the 35 is not good?

I would disagree, the RA spur gear on the 35 is larger 180 teeth than on any of the EQ5 variants 144 teeth, larger spur usually translates into more accurate tracking as small errors in the gears will give a smaller angular movement on a larger diameter gear than a smaller one. Also guiding resolution is higher. The only way to get better is to go with the HEQ5 pro. 

What I would say is that I have owned a few Skywatcher mounts and have never got one that did not need tuning out of the box. I mentioned the 130pds. But really if he is imaging with less than a Heq5 I would try to keep focal length under 460mm it 80mm F6 refractor. I only mention the 130pds as he wants to do visual to but that's a hard requirement on a budget mount. 

Edited November 2, 2021 by Adam J

[ONIKKINEN]

On 02/11/2021 at 10:17, Adam J said:

I would disagree, the RA spur gear on the 35 is larger 180 teeth than on any of the EQ5 variants 144 teeth, larger spur usually translates into more accurate tracking as small errors in the gears will give a smaller angular movement on a larger diameter gear than a smaller one. Also guiding resolution is higher. The only way to get better is to go with the HEQ5 pro.

Resolution of the steppers is the same in EQ3-35-5, 0,28 arcsec even with the toothcount changes. HEQ5 has 0,14. Its just a marketing tactic = bigger number is better.  Skywatcher has made the bigger RA gear into a pointless feature by lowering the gear ratio from 704:1 to 360:1 with the EQM35, so the bigger gear has less meaning.

The thing that makes all of this pointless is the lack of bearings in the EQ3/35 compared to the EQ5. No bearings means any weight above 0kg is guaranteed to cause stiction of the axis.

[Adam J]

42 minutes ago, ONIKKINEN said:

Resolution of the steppers is the same in EQ3-35-5, 0,28 arcsec even with the toothcount changes. HEQ5 has 0,14. Its just a marketing tactic = bigger number is better.  Skywatcher has made the bigger RA gear into a pointless feature by lowering the gear ratio from 704:1 to 360:1 with the EQM35, so the bigger gear has less meaning.

The thing that makes all of this pointless is the lack of bearings in the EQ3/35 compared to the EQ5. No bearings means any weight above 0kg is guaranteed to cause stiction of the axis.

No it's not pointless it still reduces guiding errors in the final drive to have a larger spur gear. But I suspect that the guiding resolution is the same. 

[ONIKKINEN]

10 minutes ago, Adam J said:

No it's not pointless it still reduces guiding errors in the final drive to have a larger spur gear. But I suspect that the guiding resolution is the same. 

Guiding errors caused by stiction because of the by-design flawed bearingless build are 10x easily compared to the slightly different gear size. I have the EQM35, it is not a good mount.

[Adam J]

2 hours ago, ONIKKINEN said:

Guiding errors caused by stiction because of the by-design flawed bearingless build are 10x easily compared to the slightly different gear size. I have the EQM35, it is not a good mount.

Throw up a guide graph so we.can take a look? 

[ONIKKINEN]

7 hours ago, Adam J said:

Throw up a guide graph so we.can take a look? 

Here you go

This was guiding in pretty average conditions towards triangulum, so not even the most difficult kind of low- DEC target possible. This yielded an acceptable result in the end, but far from what i would call good guiding. I wont pretend to be an expert in guiding, but i do know that the sawtooth RA pattern is due to stiction in the axis. Every time a correction is made the mount gets stuck a bit and then gets catapulted forwards as the axis frees itself, this happens over and over again and the mount ends up fighting itself. Perfect balance would probably help, but its impossible to achieve with poor feedback on the axis. The counterweights can be moved up or down maybe 5cm without any obvious changes to balance.

You will also see that DEC is all over the place, even though it is not being guided at all. I think it moves with the RA hiccups as the entire mount probably shakes. Still working out a proper explanation/cause for that but i cant think of anything else. The DEC axis is REALLY bad.