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

[ONIKKINEN]

1 minute ago, vlaiv said:

Well, interesting thing about mounts and tracking is that tracking error in pixels decreases with declination.

It takes Polaris 24h to move 4° in pixel space (it is about 38.5 arc minutes from NCP and circumference of the circle is 2*r*pi so that is about 240 arc minutes or 4°). If you image at 8"/px - than that is about 450px of motion in 24h or 18.75px per hour, or 1px in 3 minutes.

Even if your mount does not move at all - at that declination and that resolution stars will stay mostly round in 3 minute exposures.

In order to really test your mount - you need to track at meridian and then see how well it behaves (same goes for guiding).

I am well aware of this, i had to use this knowledge once i realized the EQM35 was not going to work the way i wanted. After realizing this i looked at targets in very high declinations, like 65 and above and only shot those. And to be fair i was able to get reasonable performance at these latitudes, but this is to be expected. I am fairly confident in saying that if someone absolutely must use an undermounted system, or some obscure DIY solution, shooting high in DEC is the way to go.

The Astromaster pic was on M31, so fairly south. Took me 45 minutes to fiddle with polar aligning and the RA motor speed though (stepless speed adjustment).

[wuthton]

11 hours ago, ONIKKINEN said:

I am well aware of this, i had to use this knowledge once i realized the EQM35 was not going to work the way i wanted. After realizing this i looked at targets in very high declinations, like 65 and above and only shot those. And to be fair i was able to get reasonable performance at these latitudes, but this is to be expected. I am fairly confident in saying that if someone absolutely must use an undermounted system, or some obscure DIY solution, shooting high in DEC is the way to go.

The Astromaster pic was on M31, so fairly south. Took me 45 minutes to fiddle with polar aligning and the RA motor speed though (stepless speed adjustment).

I'm going to amend my original estimations as the post was originally meant to be a talk about beginners with modest budgets to what would be a much better number, arcseconds/pixel as it accounts for the focal length and the camera pixel size --- the magic number to get the most out of modest/lighter equipment. 

Give or take half and arcsecond between larger reflectors vs smaller refactors.

Fixed tripod - 150mm - I've never used one, I'll let some else suggest

Star tracker - See above

AZ-Gti - 250mm - >4"/pixel 

EQ3 pro - 400mm - >2.5"/pixel

EQ5 pro - 500mm+ - >2"/pixel

HEQ5 - +/-1"/pixel

NEQ6 - +/- 1"/pixel but with a bit more grunt for those big reflectors.

I'm going to have a guess that your camera and scope combination was close to 1 arcsecond, in which case you'd need a HEQ5 and I'd be the first to tell you. But, but, but would you have been better changing the camera/scope/lens rather than the mount as the cheapest route to a great image, that's my question.

Edited January 31, 2022 by wuthton
I was being a bit mean to the EQ3/5

[vlaiv]

@wuthton

Are those "/px that people use or what people can achieve?

I'm yet to see person actually achieve 1"/px, even 1.5"/px is going to be very challenging and needs at least 6-8" of aperture. I think that you need to "shift" your list one place:

1"/px - almost unachievable on anything but a premium mount

1.5"/px - 2.5"/px HEQ5 / EQ6 / CEM70 class mount

2.5"/px - 3.5"/px EQ5

and so on ...

When you get to lens - you are no longer limited by mount (at least from this list) - you are limited by lens itself. Lenses are simply not diffraction limited and have much larger spot diagrams (just look at MTF of a lens - they show it for 10 to 30lpmm - that is equivalent of 50 - 17µm pixel size and modern cameras have about x5 smaller pixels than that upper limit).

 

[malc-c]

Can I take this on another slightly tangential point having read a recent post and get some opinions on whether it could influence the reason why recommendations typically end up on an HEQ5

I remember a post along the normal lines of someone wanting to get into imagining.  Now I can't recall if he already had the mount (EQ5) and was looking at upgrade options or if he was looking to buy the mount in one of the the powered options.  Anyway when the Synscan goto option was suggested, with the "better" motors, more flexible connectivity options, and the ability to pulse guide through an EQDIR cable, the cost between that and the cheaper basic dual motor drive was the hurdle and the person opted for the latter which uses the ST-4 port for guiding.

That person has posted recently requesting help as his guiding graphs are all over the place.  The consensus is that its due to backlash in the DEC drive.

Now this is where I think a lot of people recommend the HEQ5.  Having suggested an EQ5 pro goto, the HEQ5 is then recommended as the next step up for its better class of motors and microstepping resolution, load capability and connectivity, often siting previous posts where others have opted for cheaper options and then find they don't perform as expected.

Just a thought 

[Stu]

As a visual observer, I would just make the following observation (😉) which is kind of supportive of @wuthton’s last post.

If someone asks on the forum what is a good visual starter scope for £x budget, there are a range of responses, some which fit the budget, others which make suggestions above budget and some which are more like ‘don’t bother unless you can afford £x’

I get pretty cheesed off with the latter, because there are many who literally can’t afford any more and just want to get started with something. I think there are visual offerings from £50 upwards which can suit young children, albeit with limitations, but they let people get started. Of course by spending more they will get a better scope and better views, but by thinking they can’t even join the club without a certain budget, they see nothing. This should be about encouragement and inclusion, not ‘if you can’t afford X, don’t bother.’

Similarly with imaging, I’ve no doubt that an HEQ5 makes absolute sense for imaging above a certain focal length, payload and accuracy, but to call that ‘serious astrophotography’ demeans the wonderful widefield MilkyWay shots which are possible with much simpler and cheaper kit. It is absolutely possible to make a start, surely, and to begin to learn the fundamentals and processes/processing required without spending HEQ5 money. They then get to understand if the hobby is for them, and it becomes a more gradual learning curve, less prone to failure. How many times have we seen people new to the hobby throw serious money at a load of kit they don’t understand and never get the full potential out of?

I think, out of respect for people’s personal circumstances, recommendations should sit within the budget given, outlining what is possible and what is not possible within that budget. There’s no harm in saying if you want to achieve more then an HEQ5 (or whatever) is the way to go, but let’s not shut people’s enthusiasm off by saying it’s the ONLY way to go.

[vlaiv]

Out of interest - can we like link here to a post or two at a topic where it was said that HEQ5 is only way to go and that nothing else works for a beginner?

[Stu]

8 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

Out of interest - can we like link here to a post or two at a topic where it was said that HEQ5 is only way to go and that nothing else works for a beginner?

I’m not going to trawl through all the posts Vlad. I think you know what I’m saying.

[vlaiv]

Just now, Stu said:

I’m not going to trawl through all the posts Vlad. I think you know what I’m saying.

I know what you are saying, but I still maintain that this is really not the case with heq5 and imaging. I similarly react when people say things like "it is only solution" when it is not, but I think, or at least - that is how I remember things, is that HEQ5 was always recommended in sensible way - as being minimum given peoples wants / needs / expectations.

For this reason, I'd like to see an example of such post where Heq5 was blindly recommended as solely option for a beginner. I'm not expecting anyone to go looking for it, but I was hoping that maybe OP could provide one - or at least some of the people that often encounter such posts.

[Stu]

Just now, vlaiv said:

I know what you are saying, but I still maintain that this is really not the case with heq5 and imaging. I similarly react when people say things like "it is only solution" when it is not, but I think, or at least - that is how I remember things, is that HEQ5 was always recommended in sensible way - as being minimum given peoples wants / needs / expectations.

For this reason, I'd like to see an example of such post where Heq5 was blindly recommended as solely option for a beginner. I'm not expecting anyone to go looking for it, but I was hoping that maybe OP could provide one - or at least some of the people that often encounter such posts.

I think if someone asks to be able to image at a certain focal length/resolution etc then it’s a perfectly valid recommendation. If they say ‘I want to get started in AP with £x budget’, and the budget is too low then recommendations should match the budget and explain what is possible/not possible.

I don’t think people blindly recommend the HEQ5, but it does often seem to be the default entry level option which isn’t always the case.

[wuthton]

27 minutes ago, malc-c said:

Can I take this on another slightly tangential point having read a recent post and get some opinions on whether it could influence the reason why recommendations typically end up on an HEQ5

I remember a post along the normal lines of someone wanting to get into imagining.  Now I can't recall if he already had the mount (EQ5) and was looking at upgrade options or if he was looking to buy the mount in one of the the powered options.  Anyway when the Synscan goto option was suggested, with the "better" motors, more flexible connectivity options, and the ability to pulse guide through an EQDIR cable, the cost between that and the cheaper basic dual motor drive was the hurdle and the person opted for the latter which uses the ST-4 port for guiding.

That person has posted recently requesting help as his guiding graphs are all over the place.  The consensus is that its due to backlash in the DEC drive.

Now this is where I think a lot of people recommend the HEQ5.  Having suggested an EQ5 pro goto, the HEQ5 is then recommended as the next step up for its better class of motors and microstepping resolution, load capability and connectivity, often siting previous posts where others have opted for cheaper options and then find they don't perform as expected.

Just a thought 

 

Hear, Hear!!!!

 

9 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

Out of interest - can we like link here to a post or two at a topic where it was said that HEQ5 is only way to go and that nothing else works for a beginner?

The following stuck in the mind as they are my last comments on the subject but I'm sure I could find many more.

Op wants a mount for AP for under 500 Euro

Post #3 - "I don't think 500 eur is going to be enough for any astrophotography mount"

Loads of talk in-between about how bad cheap mounts are.

Post #13 "For me, the HEQ5 mount (which I bought used) is the minimum for astrophotography."

I'll concede that the thread ended up in the right spot but I fear if you or someone else who's also used a variety of mounts, cameras and focal lengths hadn't joined in it would not have done. I bowed out before casting aspersions at other peoples equipment choices.

 

 

 

 

[ONIKKINEN]

12 minutes ago, wuthton said:

Post #3 - "I don't think 500 eur is going to be enough for any astrophotography mount"

This would be mine, and i still stand by this advice. Well its not really advice the way its said as a personal opinion but it works as advice in this context. I personally think 500eur is not enough for an astrophotography mount (= not tracker). In that thread looked like OP had started the path that i and many others took as beginners and tried to look for the cheapest solution available, which in my opinion leads to ruin more often than not.

AZGTI, Star adventurer, SkyguiderPro are all over 500e with tripods and wedges and whatnot.

Others had better out of the box ideas with DIY solutions in the end.

[vlaiv]

18 minutes ago, wuthton said:

The following stuck in the mind as they are my last comments on the subject but I'm sure I could find many more.

I think that we see things a bit differently

19 minutes ago, wuthton said:

Post #3 - "I don't think 500 eur is going to be enough for any astrophotography mount"

This post then goes to explain:

Quote

500 eur is just barely enough for a Skywatcher star adventurer or Ioptron sky guider pro. Neither of these come with a tripod, so you would have to use the current one (which is not great, since its falling over?). These are also not really meant to be telescope mounts, but just trackers for a camera and a modest sized lens.

All of which is right - SA and Sky Guider Pro are indeed star trackers and not mounts. For 500 euros you really can't get even EQ3-2 with goto. Most people associate AP mount with goto capability as it so much simplifies things.

Out of all other posts in that thread - only one person forced Heq5 due to their experience - which they emphasized:

20 minutes ago, wuthton said:

Post #13 "For me, the HEQ5 mount (which I bought used) is the minimum for astrophotography."

I added bold part.

All other were putting significant effort to present possible alternatives to OP.

[malc-c]

To be honest I think we are all going round in circles, and maybe this thread needs to be locked.

This is a public forum.  With such a diverse membership all with different levels of experience, expectations and knowledge there will be contradicting opinions being offered.  We typically base our opinions on personal experience, and if that experience might save someone else losing money, or being possibly disappointed in some way, or having to put more work in to getting the results then they will naturally feel justified in expressing that "advice". 

In reality, each  time we see one of these "I want to get into imaging but can only spend £xxx" we have no real understanding of their expectations, the time they are willing to put in to getting the results, or how serious they may be.  I think the reason a lot of people will suggest equipment that is more than the persons budget, is so that want that person to be excited about the results and stick with the hobby rather than buy cheap and then be disappointed and walk away.   

For me my personal opinion to the OP question....  No,  the HEQ5 is not the minimum standard for astrophotography.   The reason is that there is no context to that question.   Astrophotography covers such a wide range of disciplines and the equipment will vary through out these. 

Do I feel that the HEQ5 is the minimum standard mount for an Explorer 200P with a basic dSLR or similar to do DSO imaging... Yes.  In this context the mount is the starting point.  

[wuthton]

I think @malc-c is correct that we now going around in circles at a point where everyone is correct in some way or form. But I'll bow out with the following statement:

I still believe that a cooled camera with a lens and cheap mount gives me a greater chance of an APOD than a DSLR and a HEQ5 and in many cases where the HEQ5 has been pushed to improve guiding accuracy for beginners they'd have been better off increasing their pixel scale for a similar budget. The later point is very much an opinion as both options would be correct advice but personally I'd always prefer a great, big pixel camera over a great mount if I could only afford one of them.

[malc-c]

LOL - I value your opinion, but on this one I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one

[wuthton]

43 minutes ago, malc-c said:

LOL - I value your opinion, but on this one I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one

LOL...... Now that sounds like a friendly challenge? Orion or the Triangulum? My AZ-GTI and Atik 314 vs your HEQ5, I'll need a couple of clear nights as I assume you'll want some proof but you're welcome to drop your trousers first if you wish.

Shall we say £5 to the charity of choice of who's deemed the winner?

Edited January 31, 2022 by wuthton
?

[ONIKKINEN]

This thread was IMO never going to reach a conclusion that everyone agrees with.

People have differing opinions and so give differing advice, isnt it up to the person asking the advice to decide what route to take through the jungle of forum posts? 

I fail to see how a cooled camera + lens + cheap mount is a better alternative to an HEQ5+200P,DS or maybe 150PDS.

Example: 533MC + samyang 135 + AZGTI = around 2000e. Not usable for visual, not usable for planetary/lunar, not usable for medium or small DSO. Only usable for wide field, but very good for that. Mount and lens must be ditched when upgrading = half the money spent is gone.

Example 2: HEQ5+cheap newtonian+Cheap DSLR + some coma corrector = also around 2000e. Usable for visual, usable for planetary, usable for almost all DSOs. Only the DSLR will be upgraded from these, and even that is not a must have upgrade. Worst case scenario is that the cheap synta newt has a lemon of a mirror and will have to be swapped, but tge most expensive and important part: the mount can stay. Will a beginner produce APODs with this? Of course not, but its a learning experience for anyone in the beginning.

For what its worth most beginners can afford neither (from what i have seen), so some compromises will be made in both cases.

[malc-c]

Matt it wasn't a challenge, and too may variables in sky quality (seeing I'm in a town location) wouldn't make it fair...  Like I said - you're going round in circles to push home your viewpoint - I respect your opinion, which differs to mine, so lets just agree to disagree.

Quote

Example 2: HEQ5+cheap newtonian+Cheap DSLR + some coma corrector = also around 2000e. Usable for visual, usable for planetary, usable for almost all DSOs. Only the DSLR will be upgraded from these, and even that is not a must have upgrade. Worst case scenario is that the cheap synta newt has a lemon of a mirror and will have to be swapped, but tge most expensive and important part: the mount can stay. Will a beginner produce APODs with this? Of course not, but its a learning experience for anyone in the beginning.

You have basically described my rig

 

Edited January 31, 2022 by malc-c
typo

[wuthton]

11 minutes ago, malc-c said:

Matt it wasn't a challenge, and too may variables in sky quality (seeing I'm in a town location) wouldn't make it fair...  Like I said - you're going round in circles to push home your viewpoint - I respect your opinion, which differs to mine, so lets just agree to disagree.

You have basically described my rig

 

Malc, I'm also in a town location with Bradford 4 miles North, Huddersfield 4 miles south, Halifax 5 miles West and Leeds 7 miles East? Come on, you were the one with the "LOL", lets have some fun?

[ollypenrice]

I don't want to see the thread locked but I do think it's going round in circles. Precisely tracked deep sky imaging at between, say, 1"PP and 4"PP is one thing and 'other astrophotography' is another. Is it worth fighting over a question which is easily resolved by making a distinction between the two?

Olly

[Peter Drew]

I don't know why I've read all through this thread being as I've no ambitions to becoming an imager, maybe it's to confirm this 🤣.

@Ollypenrice, out of interest, what imaging setup did you first use as a beginner, if you can remember that far back.    🙂

[Elp]

I'm quite happy with my azgti WOZ61 combination, when I need to mount my Newtonian or if I want super accurate images I will decide then what I need. I didn't start with the azgti, I started with a tripod+compact camera, then a star tracker, then an eq1, eq3-2... and learned the hard way. I didn't want to spend £1k upfront (+ for all the other equipment) on a heavy duty mount which I knew I'd hardly use (mostly due to the weather and also because I wanted a travel friendly setup), this was my decision. I sold off what I didn't need to fund the next as most people do. So I did my research and decided what I wanted for my needs. I think this is what the OP is trying to get at, why is the majority of the time a (fairly) expensive mount offered in the first instance when something cheaper may offer the user an equally exciting personal experience, they might not care too much about guiding accuracy or pin sharp round stars. On the other side many times I've also read and asked myself when answering newbie questions what their budget and expectations are, only then can you offer constructive responses. The newbie will also need to be communicated to at the same time as to what to expect with each recommendation. Not everyone is prepared to pay a lot of money not knowing immediately the level of effort needed and what the end result will be. Everyone is different.

[ollypenrice]

16 minutes ago, Peter Drew said:

I don't know why I've read all through this thread being as I've no ambitions to becoming an imager, maybe it's to confirm this 🤣.

@Ollypenrice, out of interest, what imaging setup did you first use as a beginner, if you can remember that far back.    🙂

I can, Peter. I was a reluctant imager with a visual background, but I'd taken the huge risk of throwing my all into emigrating to offer astronomy at a reliable dark site. I soon discovered that the visual observers were not going to be my salvation! Most of my bookings were from imagers bringing their own gear, so I realized I was going to have to become an imager. Fortunately I soon found that I loved it.

I had an LX200 10 inch for which I bought a wedge, buying into Meade's twaddle about this being a deep sky imaging dream. It was, of course, a nightmare. Around the same time I contacted that most excellent man, Ian King, to seek his advice. He said, 'EQ6, monochrome CCD with filters, autoguided, short FL refractor.' This is what I bought, initially using my TeleVue Genesis (Mk1 Pearl River F5) which was not colour corrected for imaging but got me going.  I then went for a Tak Baby Q and a succession of further upgrades but Ian's advice was the best I ever received and I tend to repeat it all these years later.

Give me an autoguided HEQ5, an APSc CMOS camera and a Samyang 135 lens and I could die a happy man.

Olly

[vlaiv]

5 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

Give me an autoguided HEQ5, an APSc CMOS camera and a Samyang 135 lens and I could die a happy man.

You do know how to throw a curve ball.

Thought you were die hard CCD man

Can't combine HEQ5 and Samyang 135 - to each their own - Samy is with AzGTI and HEQ5 has nice telescope sitting on it

 

 

[wuthton]

29 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

You do know how to throw a curve ball.

Thought you were die hard CCD man

Can't combine HEQ5 and Samyang 135 - to each their own - Samy is with AzGTI and HEQ5 has nice telescope sitting on it

 

 

Same for me!

36 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

Give me an autoguided HEQ5, an APSc CMOS camera and a Samyang 135 lens and I could die a happy man.

Olly

@ollypenrice Let me give you a budget restraint,  the Samy, DSLR and the HEQ5... or Samy, AZ-GTI /EQ3 pro and a dedicated, cooled camera, with which could you take the most impressive image? I know my answer.

Edited January 31, 2022 by wuthton
can't spell