Jump to content

SkySurveyBanner.jpg.21855908fce40597655603b6c9af720d.jpg

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


wuthton

Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, malc-c said:

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 !

Because I do this for a living I have a premium Mesu 200 mount but what would I lose if, with a small refractor and camera imaging at 2.5 arcsecs per pixel, I went for an HEQ5 instead? I can answer that. Nothing.

The HEQ5 is an élite mount at a budget price. Respect, say I.

Olly

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, malc-c said:

Ady recons I'm in that elite group of  HEQ5 owner...

I think you missed the point about beginners and budget. I'm talking about a beginner reading a post and thinking he's being told he has to buy a HEQ5 or he's not serious about AP.

I don't understand how you extrapolated that I meant all HEQ5 owners are elitists.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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 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

I very much agree wholeheartedly with your points Olly, and about recommendations being appropriate to thecontext. 

The HEQ5 is a great mount and a wholly appropriate as a recommendation in the right context.

My only comment would be that the context of this thread is 'beginners being recommended HEQ5s when it isn't necessarily appropriate' , so for the sake of logic I'd have swapped your points around so that that comes first.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the early part of this thread, it is mentioned that newcomers to AP sometimes have limited budgets and no sound idea what they would like to concentrate on...

And we need to think "out of the box" to come up with ideas and possible solutions.

I am interested in where the forum is with regards proposing the use of a remote imaging site instead of purchasing hardware?

Different scopes, good cameras and mounts and with a budget of a few hundred pounds, could probably get quite a lot of quality imaging runs for the money -  good value for money, compared to how few clear nights we often get in a year..

Gordon.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Bukko said:

am interested in where the forum is with regards proposing the use of a remote imaging site instead of purchasing hardware?

It's a fair point. For the amount I have spent on imaging kit I could have spent many hours photon collecting at a remote site. However, a large part of the enjoyment for me is the challenge. There is probably enough publicly available data without even the cost of imaging. But to me that's like watching sport. I could just watch, but I enjoy the challenge even if my personal results are of a dubious standard.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is fortunate for me given the UK weather, that I derive a great deal of enjoyment from researching equipment, choosing components and then assembling and optimising their performance to produce images which sometimes at least for me, justify the investment in time and money. 
 

Everytime we get a run of poor weather (so that’s often) I reconsider the remote imaging option, but to date I have not been persuaded.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bukko said:

In the early part of this thread, it is mentioned that newcomers to AP sometimes have limited budgets and no sound idea what they would like to concentrate on...

And we need to think "out of the box" to come up with ideas and possible solutions.

I am interested in where the forum is with regards proposing the use of a remote imaging site instead of purchasing hardware?

Different scopes, good cameras and mounts and with a budget of a few hundred pounds, could probably get quite a lot of quality imaging runs for the money -  good value for money, compared to how few clear nights we often get in a year..

Gordon.

 

 

I think one of the best parts of astrophotography is the part where i can look at an image i took and say "i did this". Every step of the way was something i learned to do through research online, trial and error by myself, nights spent out with the telescope. Pack all my stuff into my car, drive to a location, setup the gear as best as i have learned, start the session, troubleshoot at least 1 unforeseen issue per night, its always a lot of work. Sometimes the trip is a complete waste and i feel like a clown for doing this, but when the result gets put to an image in the end its all worth it, i still cant believe its possible for me to take pictures of galaxies with amateur gear in very much amateur conditions.

Buying results taken with some other persons equipment in a desert somewhere out of my reach wouldn't feel the same to me at all and i doubt i would really care about the data quality then since it wasn't mine to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Bukko said:

In the early part of this thread, it is mentioned that newcomers to AP sometimes have limited budgets and no sound idea what they would like to concentrate on...

And we need to think "out of the box" to come up with ideas and possible solutions.

I am interested in where the forum is with regards proposing the use of a remote imaging site instead of purchasing hardware?

Different scopes, good cameras and mounts and with a budget of a few hundred pounds, could probably get quite a lot of quality imaging runs for the money -  good value for money, compared to how few clear nights we often get in a year..

Gordon.

 

 

Remote data come in two flavours, either from your own gear controlled remotely at a dark site or from time bought on a remote observatory. In this discussion I think only the latter is relevant.  Setting up your own gear remotely is more expensive than keeping it at home because you have the cost of the installation and the rental to add on and you also need better equipment.  The last time I looked, time bought from commercial observatories was very expensive indeed.  I remember calculating that renting time on a 14 inch scope/premium mount/premium CCD with filters would equal the cost of buying that equipment after about five photos.  Yes, we weren't messing about with the photos we were taking, most having between 10 and 20 hours' exposure, but I don't think renting scope time is any kind of budget solution unless the situation has changed.

Back on the 'HEQ5 as minimum,' question, I've just looked at the first twenty images on the deep sky imaging board. The HEQ5 would have been the minimum mount for every single one of those images.  

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours 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?

Work out your image scale in arcseconds per pixel. Record your guide RMS in arcseconds. If your guide RMS is less than half your image scale you do not need a different mount. That's about it if you want a rule of thumb.

Olly

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

45 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

Work out your image scale in arcseconds per pixel. Record your guide RMS in arcseconds. If your guide RMS is less than half your image scale you do not need a different mount. That's about it if you want a rule of thumb.

Olly

This is exactly my point... for me.... IMO... the cheapest way to a great astrophotograph is spending your money on pixel scale, not guiding accuracy. It's heresy I know but I believed it with CCDs and CMOS has just cemented my opinion.

I really, really believe the default advice for newcomers to this fabulous hobby should be "keep your focal length short and buy a good camera"  NOT  "You need a HEQ5". 

Edited by wuthton
punctuation
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree the HEQ5 Pro used to be the default answer, however things have changed over the years, and with the advent of the Star Adventurer, Skyguider Pro, AZ GTI (in eq mode), and the EQM35. It's easier to get good results with less expensive equipment.

Plus there's the advances in software and camera sensors too.

We now live in good times for AP, I remember struggling with an EQ3 that performed about half as well as my current Star Adventurer :) 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

Back on the 'HEQ5 as minimum,' question, I've just looked at the first twenty images on the deep sky imaging board. The HEQ5 would have been the minimum mount for every single one of those images.  

Olly

Interestingly, looking at the first 10 threads in the DSO imaging section that state the equipment used your statement is spot on.  With two HEQ5's being used,  half used the EQ6, and one with an EQ8 class mount retailing close to $5000.  Only one was taken with a tracker type mount which retails around $3800....  Looking at the pricing, in that list the HEQ5 is the cheapest which would place that at the bottom of the list, making it the "entry level" mount.   Also a lot of these images were your more popular targets such as M31, M42 and IC434... which most of those looking to get into imaging will be familiar with and likely to make their first targets.

Here's the list

Quote

The Heart Nebula  - Skywatcher EQ6-R
IC405 - Auriga  -   Mount: AZ-EQ6
NGC 2239  - HEQ5 PRO
IC 434, Barnard 33 - Rainbow Astro RST-135
Bubble Nebula - NEQ6 Pro Mount
NGC2024 - EQ6-R Pro
IC 1848, The Soul Nebula - i-Optron CEM60
Andromeda - EQ6-PRO, EQ6R-PRO
M42 - HEQ5
IC410 - CEM120

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27/01/2022 at 19:52, wuthton said:

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.

 

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.

I have an sw 72ed on az gti mount in EQ mode, with my zwo asi294mc pro and I'm delighted with the images from my set up, 3 minute subs, guiding can range from 0.6-1.5 rms and I'm happy with that for what my mount can push. Yes I'd love a more sturdier tracking mount but I live in a first floor flat and have to take my setup and gear down 2 flights of stairs to an outside communal area to image so portability is key to me. The az gti mount can perform very admirably indeed and is a revelation in the astrophotography world. 

Edited by AstroNebulee
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm probably not the only one to suggest shorter focal length (more forgiving) setups to beginners, and I feel you don't need an HEQ5 at shorter focal lengths/larger pixel scales.

I've personally had bad luck with second hand mounts, it's the one part of an imaging rig I'd recommend buying new. The HEQ5 Pro currently retails for around £950. 

Putting yourself in the shoes of someone starting out it's hard to jump to the suggestion of an HEQ5 pro sometimes when they say I want to do AP my budget is 300 quid.  

You need to find a middle ground :)

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm late to this, but isn't it as simple as telling people what will work at each price point. 

The advice to get an HEQ5 is usually given when someone is interested in a Newtonian to get started. Having tried (against the advice) to use a 130PDS with an EQ5, I can safely say it's a good way to encourage people to move to a different hobby. The focus was immediately on why the DEC axis ruined all my subs, and I had to take it apart, and in a few months I gave in and bought a better mount.

On the other hand, the second hard AZ-GTI I got, with a wedge, is a great starting point for anything less than 250mm. It could perhaps go longer, but I'd be wary of making recommendations based on performance that is either a lottery (if bought new) or requires tuning. But if you're saving money, who's spending £500+ on an APO refractor and field flattener to go with a cheaper mount?

 

My take is that a DSLR + a decent lens + an AZ-GTI + wedge is one route, otherwise it's a Newt + a HEQ5. 

 

I always find astrobiscuit's advice reliable, and very engaging for anyone new to the hobby - https://www.astrobiscuit.com/.

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

1 hour ago, wuthton said:

This is exactly my point... for me.... IMO... the cheapest way to a great astrophotograph is spending your money on pixel scale, not guiding accuracy. It's heresy I know but I believed it with CCDs and CMOS has just cemented my opinion.

I really, really believe the default advice for newcomers to this fabulous hobby should be "keep your focal length short and buy a good camera"  NOT  "You need a HEQ5". 

Can you explain this a bit, or even better - give recommendation of a beginner setup that "keeps ones focal length short and has a good camera" versus "dreaded HEQ5 option" :D

---------------

Interestingly enough, no one came up with recommendation for HEQ5 alternative with specs that I gave (10Kg payload, 2"/px imaging, 30" P2P PE, 1" RMS guiding)?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

Interestingly enough, no one came up with recommendation for HEQ5 alternative with specs that I gave (10Kg payload, 2"/px imaging, 30" P2P PE, 1" RMS guiding)?

 

And for £955 or less....

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, wuthton said:

This is exactly my point... for me.... IMO... the cheapest way to a great astrophotograph is spending your money on pixel scale, not guiding accuracy

But I can't see that being the case... There's not much point buying a huge mega pixel camera that weighs a few kg and then attaching it to a mount that lacks the fine accuracy and precision to take advantage of that pixels/ mm count the sensor will offer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that would stand out if people followed the advice and purchased an HEQ5 as the entry mount for an AP setup and then realised they could achieve the results with a cheaper lower spec's mount and could downsize to something else,  then surely there would be a high number of listings in the classified section for "nearly new" HEQ5's ... I've just scanned through 12 pages on the SGL for sale section  and there is not one HEQ5 listed.  Several EQ5's and a couple of EQ3's, but no HEQ5's or EQ6's.

Maybe that might be due to most people who spend around a grand or more on a mount look on it as a long term investment ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I'll get the ball rolling by listing all EQ type mounts that I could find in HEQ5 price class.

iOptron CEM26 (a bit more expensive, but let's call it same price class - if it's up to £100 above Heq5).

Celestron AVX

Bresser Messier EXOS 2

Explore Scientific EXOS-2 PMC-Eight

(these two appear to be different mounts although they have same moniker EXOS 2 and come from "sister" companies - one uses stepper motors and other servos).

Explore scientific iEXOS-100 PMC-Eight

EQ5

EQ35

EQ3-2

Out of these - first two are same price class as HEQ5 so it is worth comparing them directly for performance, however - neither will bring significant saving and will have same "Woa', that's expensive!" response from beginner.

Both EXOS 2 are interesting as they claim ~13Kg photographic payload? Yet they both look like EQ5 class mount.

EQ5/35/3 - simply lack weight capacity. Why is that when say EQ5 can handle 7Kg payload for photographic purposes? Because any scope capable of 2"/px will have at least 4-5Kg, add flattener/CC, DSLR body, guide scope+guide camera and you are already pushing those 7kg

I have to correct myself - EXOS2 can't take 13Kg photographic payload (18Kg visual) - that seems to be error on @FLO's website. On TS website both EXOS 2 mounts (Bresser and ES one) are listed at 13Kg max payload and they come with either one or two 4.5Kg counter weights (not something I'd expect from 18Kg class mount).

So there you go. Is HEQ5 realistic recommendation for a beginner or not? I'm also open to other star tracker setup examples that should be instead recommended for beginners - with explanation of use case scenarios and expected performance.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, malc-c said:

But I can't see that being the case... There's not much point buying a huge mega pixel camera that weighs a few kg and then attaching it to a mount that lacks the fine accuracy and precision to take advantage of that pixels/ mm count the sensor will offer.

I'm not sure how many people would recommend a several Kilogram camera with a huge megapixel count to a beginner? 

Your 400D weighs around 500g and has about 10MP.

My Fuji XT1 is similar to this too.

E.g. a Canon 400D with ED72 plus 0.8 flattener would give you 3.5"/seconds ish. 

To me this seems like a reasonable pixel scale and camera for someone starting out. (although the 450D would be better with live view)  

The AZ GTI in EQ mode can handle a the above, and so can the EQM35. 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Chris said:

E.g. a Canon 400D with ED72 plus 0.8 flattener would give you 3.5"/seconds ish. 

To me this seems like a reasonable pixel scale and camera for someone starting out. (although the 450D would be better with live view)  

The AZ GTI in EQ mode can handle a the above, and so can the EQM35. 

This is very good combination for wide field imaging, let's see what sort of money that will all cost and main question - how likely is for novice to upgrade from that gear in some future after purchase?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

This is very good combination for wide field imaging, let's see what sort of money that will all cost and main question - how likely is for novice to upgrade from that gear in some future after purchase?

Around 1k all in for everything, give or take : )

I'll counter that thought with how likely is a beginner to keep a portable rig if they upgrade to something larger and more capable? 

E.g. I have a Star Adventurer for portability and widefield, and a more serious rig in the obsy. 

What if they drop 2k plus on an HEQ5 pro based rig and decide it's not for them. 

We can spin this several different ways, but I don't think we can find a black and white answer to this because 2-3k is pocket change to some but an absolute fortune to others, and some will love AP and go deep into the hobby and for others an imaging rig might end up collecting dust. 

 

 

 

Edited by Chris
  • Like 2
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.