Jump to content

Narrowband

Is the advice "The HEQ5 is the entry point to AP" just plain wrong?


wuthton

Recommended Posts

For me the entry point to AP is a handheld DSLR with a 50mm lens pointed upwards at night, from then on the more stable your mounting the longer you can go with your focal length and with that, the more money you'll need to spend.

Fixed tripod - 150mm

Star tracker/AZ-Gti - 250mm

EQ3 pro - 400mm

EQ5 pro - 500mm+

"I want to image with a 200PDS" - You're gonna need a HEQ5 minimum, how is this "entry point"?

I actually joined this forum after many years of lurking because a chap with a modest budget was being pushed towards a HEQ5 and I offered a cheaper solution. I occasionally wade in on similar threads but I'm nearly always drowned out in all the HEQ5 drum banging and I just don't understand it, I never have. You regularly see newcomers with modest budgets ask about equipment choice and without fail the HEQ5 is recommended even if it's double, triple the stated budget.

The bottom line - if I was buying my first setup today with a budget of £1500, I'd have a cooled camera with a lens, on a cheap mount before buying a HEQ5.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes you are probably right.

I think correct and more often used statement is: "Heq5 is entry point to serious AP".

(bold and italics is instead of quotation marks - so I don't double quote)

Want to image a galaxy with some sort of detail? Well, you can't use resolutions of 5-6"/px or higher - you need to start using at least 3-4"/px to image detail in galaxies (even large ones like M31 and M33).

1 hour ago, wuthton said:

The bottom line - if I was buying my first setup today with a budget of £1500, I'd have a cooled camera with a lens, on a cheap mount before buying a HEQ5.

That again depends on how serious you are.

If you are even remotely serious about AP - then I would recommend that you start any rig build with mount and then add other bits based on your mount selection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the OP, never really understood the recommendation (well I know why but to recommend such a thing to beginners...). I think I've done quite well with my azgti as have others in the group. Personally I also thought when I had it the eq3-2 is a very sturdy mount having come from an eq1 and for years I read people knocking it. Then I saw a video by Astrobiscuit talking to Dark Frame Optics and he also thought an eq3-2 makes for a good mount. If the optical train requires it due to weight/FL then fair enough but I've seen some fantastic photos also from dslr setups which is always a good place to start.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on the type of astrophotography targets in mind and how much you are willing to compromise in quality and ease of capture on the final images, but yes if the goal is to get any picture of the sky, then a DSLR and a wide lens will do the trick for a lot cheaper than a mount + telescope. Cooled camera + lens + cheap mount would probably be cheaper, though not that much and you get i believe far less for your money.

But how much cheaper really? Not that much cheaper IMO.

Good lenses are more expensive than cheap telescopes, like the 200P. The 200P is actually very aggressively priced, and you cant really find a decent lens around the same price so the difference is waning already (i think a better choice would be the smaller 130 or 150). Then lets say the cheap mount you get is either a star adventurer or an EQ3. Maybe you can get rid of them with a little loss on value after using them for a while, but many people probably still hang on to theirs and cant really get rid of them. This means the price of the HEQ5 will be the price of the HEQ5 AND the cheap mount.

I also think that lens astrophotography is more of an experts choice for someone who already knows what they are doing and knows what they want. Beginners almost always want to do a bit of everything since they really dont know what they are going to be doing yet, so a lens will prove disappointing since you really cant do planetary, Lunar or smaller DSOs. You can churn out mediocre pictures with a cheap newtonian or an 80mm ED refractor much faster than with the lens and learn as you go so i think the HEQ5 + some scope is pretty good advice.

I as a beginner would have never agreed with using just a lens as i wanted to image galaxies mostly. After M31 and maybe M33 the list of shootable targets just ends with the typical camera+lens combination. Most beginners always state the same things: i want to do Lunar, planetary, DSO both big and small and i would prefer to also be able to do visual, and it needs to be cheap. Impossible of course but when you balance the scales and forget about a few or more requirements, you end up with a telescope on a mount 9 times out of 10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, vlaiv said:

If you are even remotely serious about AP - then I would recommend that you start any rig build with mount and then add other bits based on your mount selection.

Everything you said was true but I think you've slightly missed my point. I'm talking about beginners with modest budgets, they're not "serious", they want to take a nice image to impress their significant other indoors. When they ask for advice  on this forum they are told... every single time.... without fail... You need a HEQ5  MINIMUM. It's just not true.

 

1 hour ago, ONIKKINEN said:

But how much cheaper really? Not that much cheaper IMO.

The Az-Gti is £700 cheaper than the HEQ5 and at <250mm you're not going to see much difference in the quality of images you can achieve with either.

Edited by wuthton
I can't spell
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never liked the term "better" when discussing mounts, different with differing capabilities and limitations would be better. 

A HEQ5 would be less than useless if you wanted to take a trip abroad to image some milky way shots for instance with a DSLR and wide Samyang lens for example, the milky way shot can still be classed as serious AP and might even win you a APOTY or similar.

I would guess anyone "serious" about AP will have an HEQ5 type mount but also a "star tracker" and a decent photo tripod too.

Alan

Edited by Alien 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a Vixen GP mount with a SW Synscan Upgrade kit attached. I wanted to start long exposure AP. I knew that I would really regret selling the mount to upgrade to a HEQ5 or EQ6. I decided to hold off on getting a new mount and purchased a used SW ED80 OTA instead. Love the combination. The weather has been appalling for weeks but I've had a couple of decent imaging sessions. Making progress with guiding, processing, got Eqmod set up etc. My recent image of M31 is not going to win any prizes but I'm happy to have it as a benchmark to compare it to next Autumn when it's better placed for me and I'll maybe have a corrector too 🙂 

M31_3.jpg

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice pic, here's my first attempt at it with an azgti, no autoguiding just the in built sidereal tracking hence the short exposures. Can't wait to try it autoguided but busy on another target atm:

1432024616_M31AndromedaGalaxy-24-09-21-doimg_124635.thumb.jpg.e72d31cbc57cd2611a3540549758a240.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree with all the above points. 
 

I think the advice regarding the HEQ5 as a minimum starting point for AP relates to the previous experiences of all those that actually gave that advice. 
 

Almost everyone who bought some sort of star tracker to start out, found themselves upgrading to a proper mount to go deeper and longer. 
 

I suppose the advice is solid. 
 

And as the saying goes: I’m not rich to buy cheap!  Buy once, cry once. 
 

:)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I bought my HEQ5 about ten years ago it was a lot cheaper than a new one costs today, and second hand they were very reasonable. I wanted something portable that would track well with reasonable weight carrying, I could move around the garden to get targets which were obstructed by trees that were in surrounding gardens at the time and often blocked the view from my permanent obs.

Sticking an ED80 on an HEQ5 was certainly common advice then (that's what I did too). And it has been a great portable combination. I'm not sure what I would recommend today as there are so many more mounts to choose from. For wide field stuff I would probably suggest a star tracker to start out with if you already have a DSLR and upgrade from there if you decide to stick with it. I've seen some amazing images taken with DSLRs, zoom lenses and star trackers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, wuthton said:

For me the entry point to AP is a handheld DSLR with a 50mm lens pointed upwards at night, from then on the more stable your mounting the longer you can go with your focal length and with that, the more money you'll need to spend.

Fixed tripod - 150mm

Star tracker/AZ-Gti - 250mm

EQ3 pro - 400mm

EQ5 pro - 500mm+

"I want to image with a 200PDS" - You're gonna need a HEQ5 minimum, how is this "entry point"?

I actually joined this forum after many years of lurking because a chap with a modest budget was being pushed towards a HEQ5 and I offered a cheaper solution. I occasionally wade in on similar threads but I'm nearly always drowned out in all the HEQ5 drum banging and I just don't understand it, I never have. You regularly see newcomers with modest budgets ask about equipment choice and without fail the HEQ5 is recommended even if it's double, triple the stated budget.

I agree wholeheartedly with the points you make here. Many is the time I've seen the HEQ5 card played as soon as someone mentions 'interested in maybe doing some AP' . Sure, there are good examples where an HEQ5 is the right advice, but it seemed to be mentioned regardless of budget. 

I have lost count of the times I've wanted to post what you have, so you get a 🌟 from me 😁 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, wuthton said:

. When they ask for advice  on this forum they are told... every single time.... without fail... You need a HEQ5  MINIMUM. It's just not true.

I can't really agree with this, since I've given advice more than once, and more than once I recommended different things depending on what person wanted to achieve.

I often mention barn door tracker in DIY variety to people with very thin budgets. I also recommend Eq5 + simple tracking motor for those a bit more ambitious that are on tight budget.

I also believe that decent star tracker can be 3d printed for a fraction of the cost of commercial units. I even recently started a thread on choice of reduction mechanism (Strain-wave vs Cycloidal vs Split Ring Compound Epicyclic gear).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, vlaiv said:

I can't really agree with this, since I've given advice more than once, and more than once I recommended different things depending on what person wanted to achieve.

I often mention barn door tracker in DIY variety to people with very thin budgets. I also recommend Eq5 + simple tracking motor for those a bit more ambitious that are on tight budget.

I also believe that decent star tracker can be 3d printed for a fraction of the cost of commercial units. I even recently started a thread on choice of reduction mechanism (Strain-wave vs Cycloidal vs Split Ring Compound Epicyclic gear).

 

 

My apologies, that statement wasn't directed at you specifically but I've got a crisp, ten pound note that says anytime you've suggested cheap mounting options for AP someone else has mentioned the HEQ5 in the same thread. 

 

7 hours ago, Elp said:

Nice pic, here's my first attempt at it with an azgti, 

8 hours ago, Peter_D said:

I have a Vixen GP mount 

This is exactly what I'm talking about, any boyfriend, girlfriend, wife or husband would be impressed to see this these following morning,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer your post question, yes it clearly is wrong, you can do entry level AP without an Astro mount of any kind.

I think that folks who have gone deep (in every sense of the word) into AP give the HEQ5 advice simply to avoid the regret spend of buying a lower spec mount then trying to do long exposure imaging with it using a heavy scope and camera.

Not everyone who ventures into AP gets lured down the rabbit hole of ever more extensive (and expensive) kit in the quest for ever better images, and there is no doubt excellent results can be obtained today with modest equipment.


With the advent of sensitive low read noise CMOS cameras the traditional approach to AP is changing, you might be better investing in a decent PC to process those hundreds of 5 second unguided subs the CMOS camera can generate, rather than a heavy duty mount.

The irony is the appeal of the CMOS cameras is making used CCD cameras more affordable, but they, in my view, do need a good mount to get the most out of them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@wuthton

Out of interest,

"I'm new to all of this and I want to do some visual, but mostly I'd like to get nice images of galaxies, globular clusters, planetary nebulae and some planets. I have some background in daytime photography and I've seen nice image of DSOs people make on the net and also images in magazines.  Like with all newcomers, idea of having multiple scopes is really not even remote possibility at this stage. I have budget that is almost enough but I could stretch it a bit if need be"

What would you recommend to me and why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion.

Matt you are correct that you can image the night sky with a basic camera and cheap lens.  Some would argue you don't even need a DSLR and lens, and a modern mobile phone can get results.  There are also those who have managed to get some good DSO images using moderate EQ mounts and small reflectors, but chances are whilst it worked, it was a lot of effort.  I often use analogies such as two cars, one being a basic 1.1ltr hatchback and another a 4.2ltr Jaguar.  Both will get you form A to B,  but you will enjoy the ride and get there safer and quicker in the Jag than the hatchback.  It's the same with the mounts.  An EQ3 goto will do the same job as an HEQ5, but the HEQ5 has more precision, and provides a more suitable platform for carrying all the additional kit that has now been accepted as being a requirement to get guided images. of faint objects.

Part of the problem is based on repeating old information.  10 year ago we had around 4 goto mounts form Skywatcher, the EQ3, EQ5, HEQ5 and EQ6.  Most of the recommendations were made on these options at the time, the HEQ5 having the same precision of the EQ6 but more portable, but having better weight carrying ability and better gearing than the EQ5.  These days the choice of mount is a mind field, especially if we include the star trackers designed for use with cameras, expanding the options available to anyone wanting to take pictures of the night sky.

On a personal view, a decade ago I purchased a 200P on an EQ5 and soon found the limitations when I opted to try imaging with a DSLR as visual images were washed out by light pollution form my home location.  I sold the mount and purchased an HEQ5 and the stability and precision of the mount gave me results that I'm more than happy with being a casual beginner.

flame.png.49de62a0e0884ac17d37db1323441863.png

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

@wuthton

Out of interest,

"I'm new to all of this and I want to do some visual, but mostly I'd like to get nice images of galaxies, globular clusters, planetary nebulae and some planets. I have some background in daytime photography and I've seen nice image of DSOs people make on the net and also images in magazines.  Like with all newcomers, idea of having multiple scopes is really not even remote possibility at this stage. I have budget that is almost enough but I could stretch it a bit if need be"

What would you recommend to me and why?

@vlaiv You know the answer to that request just as well as me, and yes the minimum mount for the selection of scopes and cameras would the in HEQ5 class. I'm more referring to....

"I want to try astrophotography with my DSLR, what equipment would you recommend for a budget of £400?" - Without fail someone will chip in with "The HEQ5 is the minimum requirement for AP". It makes the corner of my eye twitch every time I see it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. I worry that when people recommend the HEQ5 to every person who asks for advice on an entry level astrophotography mount they could be putting people off from even trying it.

There are some great youtube channels which show really well that you don't need to break the bank to get amazing pictures (astrobuiscuit is one, some of astrobackyards videos, and nebula photos as a few examples).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, wuthton said:

@vlaiv You know the answer to that request just as well as me, and yes the minimum mount for the selection of scopes and cameras would the in HEQ5 class. I'm more referring to....

"I want to try astrophotography with my DSLR, what equipment would you recommend for a budget of £400?" - Without fail someone will chip in with "The HEQ5 is the minimum requirement for AP". It makes the corner of my eye twitch every time I see it.

I've found that most of the time, questions like that can be categorized in two different classes:

- ones that have enough budget to fit "regular" imaging setup - then discussion becomes whether to get Heq5 or go with Eq5 with just tracking, how much DIY versus maybe second hand gear and so on ... In this category, heq5 is, if budget allows - most hassle free and future proof recommendation.

- ones that simply don't have sensible budget.

Second class is far more "interesting" as it really requires thinking outside of the box.

I have some very interesting solutions for the second case, however, all of them require more or less "non standard" fiddling with equipment.

Solutions like Az-Gti in EQ mode are for example, recommendations like that. I've made such recommendation several times, but we always must be careful when doing so. We are expecting from someone new to all of this, confused enough by different recommendations and things they've read to:

- get separate CW shaft that will fit the mount

- get CWs for it

- get separate wedge

- sort out polar alignment somehow

- Flash custom firmware to enable them to use EQ mode.

- additionally complicate things if they want to guide with having to work with mobile phone and wifi connections (or get separate cable)

and of course - knowing that you need to do all of that just to get your mount to work, versus just using "plug&play" versions of mounts (nothing is really p&p in this hobby - but some things are easier than others).

Similarly - I rarely hear afocal method being explained and recommended to beginners.  Everyone has smart phone these days - and if smart phone has CameraAPI2 (android) or whatever equivalent for Apple devices is -  one can use that.

There are few simple calculations to be performed - matching exit / entrance pupils, selecting proper eyepiece and adapter, finding exit pupil and so on.

My point is - although all of these methods are available - they are not something to be recommended to a novice without explaining what is involved - and that might just put them off the idea.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, vlaiv said:

Yes you are probably right.

I think correct and more often used statement is: "Heq5 is entry point to serious AP".

(bold and italics is instead of quotation marks - so I don't double quote)

Want to image a galaxy with some sort of detail? Well, you can't use resolutions of 5-6"/px or higher - you need to start using at least 3-4"/px to image detail in galaxies (even large ones like M31 and M33).

That again depends on how serious you are.

If you are even remotely serious about AP - then I would recommend that you start any rig build with mount and then add other bits based on your mount selection.

I don't think that serious AP is the correct term to be honest. You can do some serious work at 200mm focal length with a lesser mount. So for example my ~200mm AP kit totals up to over £3000 worth of equipment, that is AD filters, mono cameras, autofocusers etc. Its serious equipment for serious AP, all mounted on an AZGTI mount. I say this having had a HEQ5pro as my first mount and having subsequently split that to a AZEQ6GT for heavy weight imaging and the AZ GTI for mobile imaging. 

Note: The AZ GTI while great for the price often needs hands on tuning to perform and so it would not be something so a none technically proficient user. 

I think that its more accurate to say that is you want to use a 80mm+ refactor and image at under 2 arcseconds per pixel then you are going to need a HEQ5 Pro or better.  

SO I would say that it all depends on focal length and if you are wanting to image at a focal length of 450mm+ you probably want a HEQ5 pro as a minimum. If you are imaging at less than that you can probably use a lesser mount with no degradation in image quality. 

Interestingly at the time the HEQ5 pro was such a popular mount that when I sold it on I sold it for more than what I purchased the used AZEQ6 GT for, everything has gone up in price quite a bit since then though. So I don't know how much group think this happening with the HEQ5 pro especially when you have options at the same new price in the form of the CEM26 and GEM28 that are arguably superior mounts in a number of areas. 

Adam

Edited by Adam J
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Often overlooked is you do not need to use an EQ mount if you just want to expand and dip toes into using what you may already have, AltAz tracking imaging is possible so even the azgti can be left as factory when expanding the user experience.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

- get separate CW shaft that will fit the mount

You've got to love Skywatcher. When designing the AZ-GTI did they just have a guess at the thread size of a counterweight shaft and get it wrong or did they purposefully make it different to every shaft available, including all their own?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, wuthton said:

You've got to love Skywatcher. When designing the AZ-GTI did they just have a guess at the thread size of a counterweight shaft and get it wrong or did they purposefully make it different to every shaft available, including all their own?

Actually, I think that EQ1/EQ2 CW shaft fits AZ-GTI perfectly.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.