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

[malc-c]

19 minutes ago, happy-kat said:

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.

The problem is all AltAZ mounts have an inherent problem and that is field rotation.  It's not so much of a problem if you are taking single "long" exposures with a camera and a wide angle lens, but if you were gathering hours of data for stacking it then becomes one more issue to deal with and whilst its still possible to correct in post processing, it's really just one more complication that ideally you would want to do with out.  Also tracking with an AltAz mount is linear, ie up/down and left right, so the track is stepped, rather than and arc as in the case with an EQ mount.

I agree with Vlaiv, in that you need to categorise each case.  You get those that want and expect to get the same sort of images seen in magazines and books, but only have £300 to spend on a complete rig.  Often people will recommend the HEQ5 to put them off getting less capable equipment and being disappointed.    

Others have posted here that they have £3000 worth of camera and lenses... if asked does it take better pictures than a set up costing 1/3 the amount they would argue the toss and say it does to justify the expense, when in reality to the layman there would see no difference.  But in the specifications if both cameras were pushed to the limits the reason for the extra cost will be seen as finer details will be resolved.  

For me in its price point the HEQ5 is still a mount I would recommend as being the entry point for someone how is serious at getting into imaging.  The precision it offers, the load capability, and that its just about portable if you have a car, makes it the ideal starting point. 

[adyj1]

8 minutes ago, malc-c said:

For me in its price point the HEQ5 is still a mount I would recommend as being the entry point for someone how is serious at getting into imaging.

In the past I've mulled over the idea of starting a discussion about whether the expense on each component of an AP setup can be expressed as a rough percentage of the overall cost of the setups, and that the setups could be broken down into different budgets (as a rough example, maybe the advice would be "if you're a beginner and you've got £500-800 and already have a DSLR, you should leave guiding until you have more money and spend X% on a mount and Y% on an OTA, and leave Z% for cables and adapters / if you've got ". (THIS IS NOT ACTUAL ADVICE - JUST AN EXAMPLE 😉 )

But it seemed that there would be too many permutations and maybe such a thread would end up meandering (maybe in the 'get an HEQ5!!!' argument) so I didn't bother 🙄

 

[happy-kat]

Field rotation does not stop people having a go, working around it (star trails are the other end of working with it) and keeping expectations proportionate opens the possibility of trying.

Edited January 28, 2022 by happy-kat

[adyj1]

I think it is worth pointing out that most people posting in defence of the HEQ5 here aren't the sort of people who I would consider give the 'if you don't spend £500+ on a mount you aren't serious about AP' advice (which is how I personally used to read the worst cases of this in the past). I do wonder whether the 'absolutely, always, without fail' nature of the original post has detracted from the original sentiment (apologies if I'm hijacking your point, @wuthton)

There's probably some cross-over here with a previous thread that went along the lines of "I wish people would only give advice when they are really sure they know what they are talking about"

[grjsk]

It's very subjective what our ambitions are. And a beginners budget does not always match his or her ambitions. And vice versa. Instead of making recommendations based on budget, perhaps it would be a good idea to make a post with some examples of what different kinds of equipment might produece. Example A) Unmodded DSLR with a kit lens and static tripod.  B ) DSLR and a prime lens, on a alt-az tracking mount, C ) modded DSLR with small refractor on a star adventurer/sky guider. D )HEQ5 and so on and so forth. 

[Clarkey]

I don't really think there are any arguments here. At the end of the day the equipment required depends on what you want to image and how easily you want to do it. There are always grey areas and you can always push the boundaries with any kit, but you might put a lot of effort in for poor results.

I am in the category of starting with an HEQ5 - not because I was told to, but I did my own research and decided not to limit my options too early. The main reason I would say to go down this route (if finances allow) is for exactly that reason. You can put a camera and lens on an HEQ5 or you can use scope capable of galaxy imaging. You can't do both with a tracker.

Having said all this, I have an HEQ6, AZ-EQ6 and I would still like to get a lightweight mobile set-up at some point. However, I will be fully aware of it's limitations.

[vlaiv]

27 minutes ago, grjsk said:

It's very subjective what our ambitions are. And a beginners budget does not always match his or her ambitions. And vice versa. Instead of making recommendations based on budget, perhaps it would be a good idea to make a post with some examples of what different kinds of equipment might produece. Example A) Unmodded DSLR with a kit lens and static tripod.  B ) DSLR and a prime lens, on a alt-az tracking mount, C ) modded DSLR with small refractor on a star adventurer/sky guider. D )HEQ5 and so on and so forth. 

That can also be misleading.

Give same kit to two different people and ask them to image the same target - odds are, you'll end up with two very different images. If you browse a bit imaging section - you can see examples where people work with same data and produce very different results.

 

[pete_l]

20 hours ago, Elp said:

never really understood the recommendation

The problem is that the world of amateur astronomy is overflowing with advice. Almost none of it is verifiable and lots of old stuff that should have been buried years ago keeps popping up.

Part of the problem is internet search algorithms that put stuff with lots of hits to the top. And the older something is, the more hits it will have.

Another issue is that almost none of the advice (particularly where mounts are concerned) is testable or quantifiable. Is mount "X" better than mount "Y"? At best this will just start a fight,  Where those who have purchased each type will wade in to its defence. Even when there is no data either for or against - apart from price, which seems to be used as a proxy for quality, or a buyer's "seriousness".

The thing about the HEQ5 is that it is the Ford Transit of mounts. It has been around for a long time. It has sold very many. Even if there are mounts that are "better", it is at least a known quantity. The safe option.

I am sure that there are now better mounts. If only someone could come up with an objective measure of goodness. One that everybody agreed with (see above about people defending what they have already purchased) and that could be publicised without suppliers threatening to pull their advertisements (or not send "influencers" free stuff) if unfavourable reviews were made.

[vlaiv]

I think it would be interesting to compile list of mounts that are in same price class as HEQ5 (or preferably cheaper) but offer some advantage over it.

I'd say we need to put some limits on what a mount can do like:

1. carry 10Kg photographic payload

2. Easily image with 2"/px resolution (1" RMS guiding out of the box - or such performance without guiding)

3. Capable of short exposures unguided (HEQ5 has 10+ minute period with periodic error of about 30-35" P2P

Ideally improvements would be:

- reduction/elimination of backlash

- ease of operation (USB connection)

- longer unguided subs

- lower RMS out of the box

[wuthton]

1 hour ago, malc-c said:

For me in its price point the HEQ5 is still a mount I would recommend as being the entry point for someone how is serious at getting into imaging.  The precision it offers, the load capability, and that its just about portable if you have a car, makes it the ideal starting point. 

I've got a Moravian G2 8300 screwed onto a Redcat 51, would I see any improvement in my images upgrading say from a EQ3 pro to a HEQ5?

[malc-c]

1 hour ago, happy-kat said:

Field rotation does not stop people having a go, working around it (star trails are the other end of working with it) and keeping expectations proportionate opens the possibility of trying.

Exactly my point.... it doesn't stop people having a go... but to overcome the rotation you have to make the stacking software work harder to get the end result.  I agree is all down to the individuals expectations.  I've seen people get really excited when they placed their mobile phone against an eyepiece and got a blurry image with little definition.  Equally I've seen a good friend dissatisfied with the image taken on an RCT / EQ8 and a camera costing more than I paid for a 5 year old Volvo V70, and that wasn't cheap...!! - To me I would be totally ecstatic to get that result and it put my best image ever to shame.  

Regarding field rotation, if field rotation wasn't an issue then why are so many of the expensive mounts such as the EQ8 and above all GEMs 🤔

Edited January 28, 2022 by malc-c

[ONIKKINEN]

5 minutes ago, wuthton said:

I've got a Moravian G2 8300 screwed onto a Redcat 51, would I see any improvement in my images upgrading say from a EQ3 pro to a HEQ5?

Having imaged with an EQM35 (similar to EQ3, a bit better) for a bit more than a year i can wholeheartedly say that i recommend absolutely nobody ever buy the mount. There is nothing but regret in my voice when i say that i bought the mount and tried to make it work while also believing all the time that its a waste of money and time. I ended up buying an AZEQ6 for 1900e to get a mount that works better, but thing is the AZEQ6 actually cost me 2650e considering the price of the EQM35 so did not in fact save money. Doubt i will be able to sell the EQM35 for more than half the price i bought it, if even able to sell it at all. In your case, the difference would probably be small or nonexistent with the little 50mm scope but once you put a telescope larger than a finder scope on the mount you will see the difference. I dont think im too far off when saying that most folks will want to move on to bigger scopes sooner rather than later regardless if thats a good idea or not.

You can use the EQ3 with the redcat51, you can also use the HEQ5 with the redcat 51. Difference is one is upgradeable with a bigger scope and one is really not. I think putting emphasis on the mount is very good advice for beginners, and advice that i ignored and now understand why it is so.

[malc-c]

17 minutes ago, wuthton said:

I've got a Moravian G2 8300 screwed onto a Redcat 51, would I see any improvement in my images upgrading say from a EQ3 pro to a HEQ5?

Can't say as I personally have not had experience of the G2/ Redcat combo...  Would there be any difference between the Eq3 and HEQ5, possibly.  Depending on the sensor in the camera, the higher precision and micro-stepping on the HEQ5 would provide tighter tracking and thus smaller and rounder stars.... in theory... and again it would be subjective to the individual.  I've got an old Olympus 500 that I use for general photography, with the stock 17-45mm lens... It gives me decent enough photos for my needs.  If I was looking at doing more serious photography then I would probably soon find its limitations and need to get something more suited to my needs.... 

[adyj1]

2 hours ago, malc-c said:

the HEQ5 is still a mount I would recommend as being the entry point for someone who is serious at getting into imaging

And I guess the point of this thread is to make sure that people who recommend it as 'the entry point' to beginners bear in mind that 'serious' means that the beginner is willing to spend the £1,000 or more - in addition to the cost of the mount - in order to achieve what they want (not necessarily all at once, admittedly, but a reasonable chunk more than just the mount).

At the outset of the hobby I would imagine that fewer beginners fall into this category than outside of it. In particular I'm thinking about the posts where a beginner is asking about 'getting into AP' when it is obvious that they don't really know what that entails.

 

I mean this sort of person;

5 minutes ago, malc-c said:

I've seen people get really excited when they placed their mobile phone against an eyepiece and got a blurry image with little definition

 

not this one 😉 ;

4 minutes ago, malc-c said:

Equally I've seen a good friend dissatisfied with the image taken on an RCT / EQ8 and a camera costing more than I paid for a 5 year old Volvo V70

 

Ady

[malc-c]

48 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

I think it would be interesting to compile list of mounts that are in same price class as HEQ5 (or preferably cheaper) but offer some advantage over it.

I'd say we need to put some limits on what a mount can do like:

1. carry 10Kg photographic payload

2. Easily image with 2"/px resolution (1" RMS guiding out of the box - or such performance without guiding)

3. Capable of short exposures unguided (HEQ5 has 10+ minute period with periodic error of about 30-35" P2P

Ideally improvements would be:

- reduction/elimination of backlash

- ease of operation (USB connection)

- longer unguided subs

- lower RMS out of the box

That would really prove interesting and helpful...  As mentioned above, things have come on so much since the choices we had 10 year ago

[malc-c]

15 minutes ago, adyj1 said:

And I guess the point of this thread is to make sure that people who recommend it as 'the entry point' to beginners bear in mind that 'serious' means that the beginner is willing to spend the £1,000 or more - in addition to the cost of the mount - in order to achieve what they want (not necessarily all at once, admittedly, but a reasonable chunk more than just the mount).

At the outset of the hobby I would imagine that fewer beginners fall into this category than outside of it. In particular I'm thinking about the posts where a beginner is asking about 'getting into AP' when it is obvious that they don't really know what that entails.

 

But that's the point...  Is it more cost effective buying cheap and then have to purchase something that would have give a decent upgrade path form the start.  If you buy an HEQ5 at the start, say another £600 on a 150P and an option to convert a 9 x 50 finder as a guider, and then find that its sits in the conservatory gathering dust because imaging became too frustrating or disappointing, that person would have no problems selling the HEQ5 for almost what he paid for it, especially in todays market.  Equally if they find they want a large scope, or want a better guide scope, and want to add a £2000 CCD and filter wheel, then they already have a mount that will take that, rather than having to sell a low end mount and buy an HEQ5 or EQ6

I keep providing comparisons, because in all hobbies there are always extremes between either ends of the equipment used, be that fishing, paintballing or astronomy.    My son spend £1500 on three carp rods (and believe me they were no where near the top end stuff) but did that make him catch more fish or bigger fish than me who was using a £50 rod and £30 reel? .... No, but when he landed a 28lb carp  his rods handled the stresses that such a fish placed on the kit where mine was at it breaking point - yes it snapped with a lesser weight fish on the end...

 

Edited January 28, 2022 by malc-c
added more context

[malc-c]

2 hours ago, adyj1 said:

I think it is worth pointing out that most people posting in defence of the HEQ5 here aren't the sort of people who I would consider give the 'if you don't spend £500+ on a mount you aren't serious about AP' advice (which is how I personally used to read the worst cases of this in the past). I do wonder whether the 'absolutely, always, without fail' nature of the original post has detracted from the original sentiment (apologies if I'm hijacking your point, @wuthton)

There's probably some cross-over here with a previous thread that went along the lines of "I wish people would only give advice when they are really sure they know what they are talking about"

I don't think you can label anyone....  a decade ago I spent £2200 on building an purpose custom built ROF observatory  to house my rig in... does that make me serious about astronomy, and imaging in particular?  - Nope, I had the opportunity to build something to house the equipment and make my life easier as it stopped me getting it in the neck when I woke half the family up at 3am bringing in the kit after an imaging session.  I go through phases... when I first built the observatory I was out every clear night for the first 6-9 months... then other things in my life happen and the interest waned.... but then comes back and I'll spend a few nights gathering photons.   I was serious about the level of kit I wanted, and I've already explained the route I took to get where I am today.  

The thing is we've seen lots of posts where people have taken equipment that you wouldn't normally expect be capable of  being guided and producing stunning results.  They may have overcome lots of hurdles to get there, but they prove imaging on a low budget is possible.  Someone else may have given up well before they finally got the results that they sought.

Someone mentioned the HEQ5 being the Ford Transit of mounts... I think that really sums it up.... as they say, the mount is old, tried and tested and used by many which is why it is so highly recommended as being the ideal mount to use with imaging.

 

[adyj1]

3 minutes ago, malc-c said:

But that's the point...

I think your point is that spending let's say £1,000-£2,000 (on a setup based on the HEQ5) allows you to find out whether you really do like 'serious' AP and is more cost-effective than buying lesser/cheaper kit because it will not perform as well and may put you off AP. You are offsetting the high outlay by saying that you'll get your money back if you don't want to continue the hobby.

My point is that when recommended to a beginner, you are setting a very high level of achievement for the beginner to 'try AP' and with it what I would consider an expensive 'entry point' - which is outside the reach of many beginners and will put them off AP. 

What I've described above could be described as elitism </deploys fire-retardant PPE> 

[Shibby]

Seems like a popular subject to wade in on!

My two cents - I spent many years imaging happily on a second-hand Vixen GP, second-hand DSLR & 150PDS, no guiding, with a total outlay of ~£550 IIRC. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the same to anyone else. Before that, I had a borrowed Nikon D70 on an Alt-Az mount. I've always been a proponent of starting small, getting the most out of your kit, then gradually upgrading / increasing budget depending on how things go. After all, if you find you don't enjoy it then there's also no need to upgrade.

However, it is our course important to set expectations correctly as a beginner as to what is required for what level of result.

[Padraic M]

Great thread! In many areas I'm in the category of "shouldn't give advice because doesn't really know what he's talking about..." but as a relative new comer I do know what it's like to be a beginner with poor kit, who now has a HEQ5 and I consider getting the HEQ5 the start of my astrophotography.

Something that I think works against a lot of beginners is that they have a pre-conceived notion of what they want without really knowing why, and which usually includes a telescope of some sort. That means that suggesting that they use camera lenses that they already have may not be considered 'good advice' - just as someone who asks about a good beginner scope for visual doesn't always appreciate being told to get a pair of binoculars. If someone really wants to do AP, and they obviously don't have ~€3,000 to spend on it over time, I usually hesitate to encourage them. There's no point recommending kit under €1,000 if they'll be underwhelmed with the results, if their mindset is "I want a tripod and a telescope and I'll use my (unmodified) DSLR".

Could we even agree on (say) three 'bundles' depending on the seriousness and budget of the user?

1. Entry-level DSO: Light-weight AZ mount, a light achromatic scope (e.g. ST80) and a DSLR T-ring. I know AZ is not ideal, but I would guess that nothing turns beginners off astronomy quicker than an EQ mount (I know more than 1). This allows short untracked DSLR exposures which can be stacked and could produce passable images.

2. Entry-level Milky Way: Star Tracker/Star Adventurer; use your own DSLR and camera lens. Allows to upgrade to a light wide-field scope at a later stage. Costs much less than €1,000.

3. Sustainable DSO - the 'keeper': HEQ5 or similar, ED frac or an AP-capable reflector (f/5 or slower)

I know that you can produce decent images with budget and diy equipment, but AP has so many learning curves, that as a beginner having equipment that does what it says (and you can trust) means that you can focus on addressing the priority learning curves without being completely confused by spurious equipment collywobbles or being distracted wondering if it's collimation or focal distance or bad focus or dew or mount shake or backlash or periodic error or software config or ... (and so on) ... that's causing your blurry pictures. In this respect, money DOES help you take better pictures.

Of course, this doesn't help if the beginner 'also' would like to image Jupiter and Saturn. 

[adyj1]

4 minutes ago, Padraic M said:

In this respect, money DOES help you take better pictures

amen to that! 😉

[ollypenrice]

This forum has a deep sky imaging section (among others.) If the kind of deep sky imaging the beginner is asking about is based on what they generally see on that part of the forum, then an HEQ5 is the minimum if they want a high probablity of success and an enjoyable time not fighting their mount. With a modest scope and slightly less modest camera you can become a player in high grade deep sky imaging.

In this context, in this context, the advice that an HEQ5 is the minimum is perfectly sound.

If this is not the context then other advice comes into play and the HEQ5 is certainly not the minimum mount. There are other kinds of astrophotography for which an HEQ5 is not needed or even well adapted.

There is no point in arguing about the mount before we have a coherent agreement as to what is meant by deep sky imaging.

Olly

Edited January 28, 2022 by ollypenrice
typo

[malc-c]

35 minutes ago, adyj1 said:

 could be described as elitism </deploys fire-retardant PPE> 

I don't think that anyone who owns an HEQ5 will consider themselves as being an elitist..... Its hardly at the top end of the mounts available on the market !

[malc-c]

2 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

This forum has a deep sky imaging section (among others.) If the kind of deep sky imaging the beginner is asking about is based on what they generally see on that part of the forum, then an HEQ5 is the minimum if you want a high probablity of success and an enjoyable time not fighting your mount. With a modest scope and slightly less modest camera you can become a player in high grade deep sky imaging.

In this context, in this context, the advice that an HEQ5 is the minimum is perfectly sound.

If this is not the context then other advice comes into play and the HEQ5 is certainly not the minimum mount. There are other kinds of astrophotography for which an HEQ5 is not needed or even well adapted.

There is no point in arguing about the mount before we have a coherent agreement as to what is meant by deep sky imaging.

Olly

Some sound words of wisdom there.... and probably says what I've been trying to say throughout this thread... that a definition, or in what context do we start labelling things such as "serious" and "deep sky imaging!.  Part of the problem is that we all have subjective opinions... Ady recons I'm in that elite group of  HEQ5 owner... where as I personally don't consider myself an elitist at all.  For me when I opted to try imaging as my skys were too polluted  for visual at the time, and explained what I wanted to achieve I was advised by more than one person on here to go for the HEQ5... and even though my imaging sessions are when ever the whim takes me, haven't looked back as it's given me the results that I'm happy with, and without too much hair pulling.

[malc-c]

44 minutes ago, Padraic M said:

Of course, this doesn't help if the beginner 'also' would like to image Jupiter and Saturn. 

Ahhh the holy grail .... one scope fits all

(and for just £300 !)