Eqm 35 v Eq5 pro v EQ3 Pro

[AstroNebulee]

Hi
I like the look of the eqm 35 mount and thinking of maybe upgrading my az gti mount in the future (whenever funds recover) to with the eqm 35 or eq 5. For me portability is key so that rules out a heq 5 completely so please don't suggest one 😉 as I live in a 1st floor flat and need to be able to carry my setup down and up 2 flights of stairs. The eqm 35 looks quite portable indeed, I've read that the RA and Dec is quite stiff, can anyone support this or had no issues. My sw 72ed, 294mc pro, 30mm guidescope with zwo asi120mc-s and asiair pro all come to 3.9kg. So it's doable with the eqm 35 and Eq5 pro What are your thoughts on your eqm 35 please. Both are roughly same price so that doesn't come into it, mainly its the weight of it all. I also looked at the EQ3 pro but the gears were a bit inferior compared even though its light. I will not be upgrading my scope anytime soon so no worries in upgrading to an 80ed or bigger, I'm happy with my 72ed. 

Cheers Lee

 

Edited April 10, 2022 by AstroNebulee

[Elp]

I think I had similar thoughts prior to buying another mount. I looked into the eqm35 too as it seemed the next step up but many owner reviews kind of put me off. I'm sure it's capable with persistence as I refuse to give up on things so easily. Previously I owned an eq3-2 after an eq1 and it was a major step up in terms of build, I certainly wouldn't doubt it's capability for added payload weight and the gearing seemed smooth Dark Frame optics think it's a good mount too (see video with astrobiscuit), I added the dual motors too. The steel tripod, larger bulk mount, motors, hand controller and battery pack was jarring to have lying around and it sat around with little use so I later sold it. That's when I got the azgti as it also had goto in a compact convenient unit as you will know.

Think the eq5 will be larger still. I ended up with a gem28 as doing some research it seemed a good alternative to a heq5 (I was initially leaning towards a cem26), and one came up at an offer I couldn't refuse, if I had the free funds I would probably have bought one new if not the cem26. In terms of performance I have a future proof payload of 12kg odd, it's dead quiet and smooth in operation (really it's literally silent), though I haven't had the chance to try it too much, whenever I do I usually default to my azgti setup as that's one bag to carry out. With the gem it's an additional tripod and the mount case (which weighs 10kg+ but still manageable).

Maybe the eqm35 will be suitable, but I suspect you will some years down the line will want a larger scope which will mean a bigger mount.

[AstroNebulee]

2 hours ago, Elp said:

I think I had similar thoughts prior to buying another mount. I looked into the eqm35 too as it seemed the next step up but many owner reviews kind of put me off. I'm sure it's capable with persistence as I refuse to give up on things so easily. Previously I owned an eq3-2 after an eq1 and it was a major step up in terms of build, I certainly wouldn't doubt it's capability for added payload weight and the gearing seemed smooth Dark Frame optics think it's a good mount too (see video with astrobiscuit), I added the dual motors too. The steel tripod, larger bulk mount, motors, hand controller and battery pack was jarring to have lying around and it sat around with little use so I later sold it. That's when I got the azgti as it also had goto in a compact convenient unit as you will know.

Think the eq5 will be larger still. I ended up with a gem28 as doing some research it seemed a good alternative to a heq5 (I was initially leaning towards a cem26), and one came up at an offer I couldn't refuse, if I had the free funds I would probably have bought one new if not the cem26. In terms of performance I have a future proof payload of 12kg odd, it's dead quiet and smooth in operation (really it's literally silent), though I haven't had the chance to try it too much, whenever I do I usually default to my azgti setup as that's one bag to carry out. With the gem it's an additional tripod and the mount case (which weighs 10kg+ but still manageable).

Maybe the eqm35 will be suitable, but I suspect you will some years down the line will want a larger scope which will mean a bigger mount

Thank you 👍, I've seen the astro biscuit video and did see Daves comments on the eq 3-2 and eqm 35. I used to have a eq 3-2 in a previous set up then sold it. That's why the EQ3 pro caught my eye too as its essentially an eq3-2 with goto and lighter but kit with steel tripod. 

The eqm 35 looks a step up from that and as you know I'm not scared of tweaking mounts, I will very much doubt I'll choose to upgrade my scope to larger as I'm very happy with it. My az gti would then be paired with a 102 or 127 mak for planetary and lunar work. 

Still got many months yet until I'd like to get an Eqm  35, EQ3 pro or eq5 though. 

Edited April 10, 2022 by AstroNebulee

[George Gearless]

I've used my EQM 35 Pro for quite a few years now and am extremely satisfied with its performance. However, a couple of months ago I upgraded to EQ6 because I had a wish to use bigger (heavier) telescopes. Not because I was dissatisfied with the EQM.

The load capacity of the EQM is 10 kg's. This is the only limitation to this mount. It performs beautifully compared to my new EQ6. I usually used the EQM in combination with my Skywatcher ED80, DSLR, 50mm guidescope and a ZWO 120 miniguide scope.  The closer you get to the 10kg mark, the more care you have to take with your polar alignment as well as star alignment and balancing. 

I did 'stress test' it with my 180 Maksutov which weighs in at 8 kg's (I think). It wasn't happy about it, but soldiered on none the less and allowed me some excellent planetary views. Tracking was spot on. But I doubt it would have kept alignment very well, had I done some star hopping in larger arcs. 

For your purposes, which includes mobility, I think the EQM is a good choice. You can do 5 min exposures easy peasy, when the target warrants it. Telescope wise, you still have a little bit of wiggle room, although not much. But it handled my ED80 flawlessly, even with all the bells and whistles (cameras, heatbands, guidescope, automatic focuser, Stellarmate with the weight of several connecting cables). For a 'serious' mount, that still has reasonable mobility, I can't really think of a better mount.

Even as I've upgraded to the EQ6, I'm not getting rid of my trusty EQM workhorse. I still use it on occasion when I go to our summerhouse (really dark place). Transporting the EQ6 is do-able ofcourse. But it's soooo much easier with the EQM. And with smaller scopes, it's just as capable. My vote goes to the EQM. No doubts at all.

Edited April 13, 2022 by George Gearless

[AstroNebulee]

8 hours ago, George Gearless said:

I've used my EQM 35 Pro for quite a few years now and am extremely satisfied with its performance. However, a couple of months ago I upgraded to EQ6 because I had a wish to use bigger (heavier) telescopes. Not because I was dissatisfied with the EQM.

The load capacity of the EQM is 10 kg's. This is the only limitation to this mount. It performs beautifully compared to my new EQ6. I usually used the EQM in combination with my Skywatcher ED80, DSLR, 50mm guidescope and a ZWO 120 miniguide scope.  The closer you get to the 10kg mark, the more care you have to take with your polar alignment as well as star alignment and balancing. 

I did 'stress test' it with my 180 Maksutov which weighs in at 8 kg's (I think). It wasn't happy about it, but soldiered on none the less and allowed me some excellent planetary views. Tracking was spot on. But I doubt it would have kept alignment very well, had I done some star hopping in larger arcs. 

For your purposes, which includes mobility, I think the EQM is a good choice. You can do 5 min exposures easy peasy, when the target warrants it. Telescope wise, you still have a little bit of wiggle room, although not much. But it handled my ED80 flawlessly, even with all the bells and whistles (cameras, heatbands, guidescope, automatic focuser, Stellarmate with the weight of several connecting cables). For a 'serious' mount, that still has reasonable mobility, I can't really think of a better mount.

Even as I've upgraded to the EQ6, I'm not getting rid of my trusty EQM workhorse. I still use it on occasion when I go to our summerhouse (really dark place). Transporting the EQ6 is do-able ofcourse. But it's soooo much easier with the EQM. And with smaller scopes, it's just as capable. My vote goes to the EQM. No doubts at all.

Hi George 

You've confirmed what I was thinking. The more I look at it the more the eqm 35 suits my needs (when I can afford it). With my set up coming in at just under 4kg should suit the mount very well. Thank you for your thoughts and feedback. Can I ask did you suffer with any of the stiffness in RA and dec or did you tune it out. 

Cheers 

Lee 

[George Gearless]

2 hours ago, AstroNebulee said:

*SNIP* Can I ask did you suffer with any of the stiffness in RA and dec or did you tune it out. 

Cheers 

Lee 

It was a little tight in the beginning which made balancing a little more tricky. But after one or two nights of use, it fazed out on its own without any intervention on my part. I ascribe it to possibly being on the shelf a bit too long before being sold to me. My theory is that the internal silicone lubricant was 'clumped up' during a long time on a shelf in a warehouse somewhere and needed a good vigerous exercise to be distributed evenly around the moving parts. I'm not expert, but that's my theory. My short answer would be 'no, I didn't have any problems'.

In fact, feeling a bit guilty now as I'm writing this. It could propably use a good cleaning and relubrication.

Even so, I never went above 2 arcsecs when guided (unless I'd completely messed up my polar alignment) and was usually running around 1 to 1½  arcsec in deviation. You just can't ask for more. 5 min exposures are a doddle. I'm sure it can go longer without trails, but I've just never had any reason to. Balancing, leveling and polar alignment is key here.

If I may make one suggestion: Get a polar angle scope . Adjusting your mount while not-quite-standing and not-quite-crouching is a pain in your back. Literaly. If you're straining while adjusting the scope, you're tempted to go "oh, that's good enough" and kick yourself the rest of the evening when realizing it wasn't. From your setup picture I think I can see an ASIAIR. If I'm not mistaken it has a polar alignment function? In which case my suggestion is moot. Just thought I'd mention it.

[ONIKKINEN]

I would personally not recommend the EQM35 for anyone, for any use, with any size of scope. Sure, i think it can be used for visual with relative ease up to the hallucinated advertised limit of 10kg but i really dont see why anyone would, considering the EQ5 is just around the corner in terms of price, and has more or less the same weight if given equal counterweights so the mobility point flies out the window with it.

For imaging, it will be nothing but trouble if you try to get anywhere close to the weight limit. I would not buy the mount if an imaging resolution of greater than 3'' per pixel is in mind. But the comment above stating up to 2'' RMS guiding error is reasonable to expect from the mount. But do keep in mind that this is a show-stopper amount of error even in lower resolution imaging setups that will mask most of the small details that would otherwise be captureable. Below is my typical guiding performance. Notice the aggressive RA periodic error that guiding is not able to flatten out because the mount is mechanically fighting against itself with guide corrections (the sawtooth thing). Also, hilariously declination has a periodic error too even when it is not being guided at all. This is just normal behavious because of the McDonalds toy quality innards flopping around how they please.

Now why am i saying this? The EQM35 has no bearings in it what so ever. The design is inherently flawed and there is no amount of relubrication and cleaning that will make the mount run reliably time after time because the innards are supported by plastic and paper washers and poor quality lube. If you replace the lube with better stuff, like a lithium based grease you will find that the mount actually has more backlash and wiggle in it because the thick stuff Skywatcher puts there eats part of the backlash away and just hides it. The declination axis is the same as in the EQ3, which most call junk. There is no way to get rid of the backlash and even if you could it would not be consistent and guidable reliably time after time. For best use case you would either guide in one direction, or not guide at all in DEC (i had to do this). The RA axis is decent though as it is a bit improved over the EQ3, but it still does not have bearings so its not reasonable to assume it will perform reliably.

The EQ5 has bearings in both axis and its not so much of a hallucination to try to put closer to the limit of 10kg on it from what i read. For a difference of almost nothing at all in price, it really does not make any sense to get the EQM35...

All of the above is personal experience and opinion but i was once like you, looking for a mount that looked convenient to me and ended up buying what i believe to be a borderline scam built to just be "the first mount" which you then sell and replace with a functioning mount later (and line Skywatchers pockets with more money). Take with a mountain of salt, since i am very salty about this mount but none if the above is a lie! Dont buy it, you will regret it one day!

[AstroNebulee]

11 hours ago, George Gearless said:

If I may make one suggestion: Get a polar angle scope . Adjusting your mount while not-quite-standing and not-quite-crouching is a pain in your back. Literaly. If you're straining while adjusting the scope, you're tempted to go "oh, that's good enough" and kick yourself the rest of the evening when realizing it wasn't. From your setup picture I think I can see an ASIAIR. If I'm not mistaken it has a polar alignment function? In which case my suggestion is moot. Just thought I'd mention it.

Yep I have the asiair pro so pa is done all through it an easy just sitting in a chair. 

10 hours ago, ONIKKINEN said:

I would personally not recommend the EQM35 for anyone, for any use, with any size of scope. Sure, i think it can be used for visual with relative ease up to the hallucinated advertised limit of 10kg but i really dont see why anyone would, considering the EQ5 is just around the corner in terms of price, and has more or less the same weight if given equal counterweights so the mobility point flies out the window with it.

I have read in places about the eqm 35 not having bearings but bushes and the eq 5 does have bearings and watched numerous videos on stripping both down to do maintenance. 

So is the eq 5 any heavier than the eqm 35, as you say and I've noted that they are the same price. I will put the counterweights in my backpack and hopefully carry the scope attached to the mount and tripod out to my imaging area. 

Cheers 

Lee 

[George Gearless]

45 minutes ago, AstroNebulee said:

Yep I have the asiair pro so pa is done all through it an easy just sitting in a chair. 

I have read in places about the eqm 35 not having bearings but bushes and the eq 5 does have bearings and watched numerous videos on stripping both down to do maintenance. 

So is the eq 5 any heavier than the eqm 35, as you say and I've noted that they are the same price. I will put the counterweights in my backpack and hopefully carry the scope attached to the mount and tripod out to my imaging area. 

Cheers 

Lee 

From the datasheets the EQ5 (23,4 kg total) is heavier than the EQM (17,5 kg total). I'll let you decide if it's much or negligable difference.

To be honest, carrying the scope attached to the mount and tripod is probably not a good idea for more than a few meters. Although I'm sure you can carry a weight of say 25kg's, the weight distribution of scope, mount and tripod is going to be unmanageable. You're bound to break something during transport.

Edited April 14, 2022 by George Gearless

[AstroNebulee]

40 minutes ago, George Gearless said:

From the datasheets the EQ5 (23,4 kg total) is heavier than the EQM (17,5 kg total). I'll let you decide if it's much or negligable difference.

To be honest, carrying the scope attached to the mount and tripod is probably not a good idea for more than a few meters. Although I'm sure you can carry a weight of say 25kg's, the weight distribution of scope, mount and tripod is going to be unmanageable. You're bound to break something during transport.

Thank you. 

I'm hoping to put the cw in my back pack with the rest of my gear. Then maybe carry the tripod and mount down first, then carry scope down, reattach and connect the wiring up. Just thinking logistics of carrying it all down and back up 

It's not easy living in a first floor flat and having astronomy and astrophotography as your hobby and passion. Really envy people with their own back gardens 

I'm definitely going to go with the Eq 5 as my next mount, thank you. 👍

Edited April 14, 2022 by AstroNebulee

[Cosmic Geoff]

21 minutes ago, George Gearless said:

From the datasheets the EQ5 (23,4 kg total) is heavier than the EQM (17,5 kg total). I'll let you decide if it's much or negligable difference.

To be honest, carrying the scope attached to the mount and tripod is probably not a good idea for more than a few meters. Although I'm sure you can carry a weight of say 25kg's, the weight distribution of scope, mount and tripod is going to be unmanageable. You're bound to break something during transport.

I totally agree.

[ONIKKINEN]

The EQM35 comes with 2 3,4kg counterweights whereas the EQ5 has 2 5kg ones so the real difference in mount weight is about 3kg.

Both have the same tripod so the extra weight is all in what counts the most: the mount head itself.

[AstroNebulee]

21 minutes ago, ONIKKINEN said:

The EQM35 comes with 2 3,4kg counterweights whereas the EQ5 has 2 5kg ones so the real difference in mount weight is about 3kg.

Both have the same tripod so the extra weight is all in what counts the most: the mount head itself.

Thank you, I may just need to use 1x5kg cw with my setup. 👍

Edited April 14, 2022 by AstroNebulee