Skywatcher CQ 350 Mount - First Impressions Review

[Roy Foreman]

Skywatcher's first center balanced mount with 35Kg load capacity.  Not had a chance to use it yet but the attached first impressions review may answer some questions that prospective purchasers might have.  I have to say that so far I am very impressed.

 

CQ350 Review.rtfCQ350 Review.rtfCQ350 Review.rtf

 

CQ350 Review.rtf

 

 

[vlaiv]

Interesting read.

I do wonder about guide performance.

If mount is smooth enough and offers 0.3-0.4 RMS guide performance, then it could be very interesting indeed.

[Roy Foreman]

Once I get clear skies and the chance to do some imaging I will report back. Thank you for your response.

[HizerKite]

Hi, I have the same mount and tripod.  Not used it yet (due to the usual British weather).  I really like the clutches as they lock completely.  However, I did wonder what would happen if the scope accidentally hit the tripod leg - would the clutch somehow slip or would the motor keep trying to move?

 

Interested to hear your thoughts.

 

Regards

Richard

[Tomvictor]

Any news regarding tracking and use?

[rorymultistorey]

On 24/01/2023 at 13:40, Tomvictor said:

Any news regarding tracking and use?

HI,

 

I've done a review. 😁 https://astrobiscuit.com/2023/02/07/cq350-mount-review/
I think its pretty good.

Tar Rory

[SteveA]

Thanks for your review and I look forward to hearing more as you get this mount outside and test under some clear skies.

I’m on the verge of upgrading from my 15 year  old EQ6 Pro, which I’ve seriously struggled with when loaded with a 250mm Quattro. On paper the EQ6 should cope with Quattro, but cameras, paraphernalia and it’s 1000m physical focal length have been a significant challenge in the guiding department😞. 
My finances just stretch to an EQ8, but clearly at £1k less the CQ350 clearly appeals. My gut says EQ8 which would easily cope with my setup, but if I could save a grand I would be seriously happy. I await your subsequent review…and thanks again.

Steve

[Tomvictor]

On 07/02/2023 at 15:37, rorymultistorey said:

HI,

 

I've done a review. 😁 https://astrobiscuit.com/2023/02/07/cq350-mount-review/
I think its pretty good.

Tar Rory

Thanks for a nice review, well done. Looks like a decent mount for the price. I would have liked to see how it preformed with a lighter load (60-80mm scope) also. Some big mounts can struggle with light loads.

Question: what was the image scale on the Horse head neb?

[Roy Foreman]

On 06/01/2023 at 10:54, HizerKite said:

Hi, I have the same mount and tripod.  Not used it yet (due to the usual British weather).  I really like the clutches as they lock completely.  However, I did wonder what would happen if the scope accidentally hit the tripod leg - would the clutch somehow slip or would the motor keep trying to move?

 

Interested to hear your thoughts.

 

Regards

Richard

 

Hi Richard and sorry for the very late response - for some odd reason I am not getting notifications on this one !

As you may have discovered by now, when the scope hits the tripod leg the motor just keeps on going until the resistance gets so great the worm lifts away from the gear under spring pressure and makes a horrible clicking noise. Long before this happens equipment gets damaged - I have several trashed cables and extension tube to prove this !

Although this is a great mount, I would never buy a center balanced mount again as the scope sits too low.  An SCT with imaging train at the back runs a real risk of the camera hitting the tripod legs, and my 6" refractor just cannot be used with this mount as it is too long !!!  I plan to make some rising blocks to try an compensate.

Hope you are having fun with your mount.

[Roy Foreman]

On 24/01/2023 at 13:40, Tomvictor said:

Any news regarding tracking and use?

Sorry for the long delay in reply, for some weird reason I am not getting notifications on this thread.

The CQ350 tracks and guides really well - 0.25rms is regularly achievable.  I get nice round stars at 3m focal length.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I would not buy a center balanced mount again as the scope sits too low, and I am having real problems with camera gear hanging off the end of an SCT nearly crashing into tripod legs.  I cannot use my 150mm refractor with this mount at all, and I plan to make some 150mm raising block to get the scope further out from the mount - which defeats the point of center balanced in the first place !

Other than this it is a lovely mount and will hold 20-25Kg of equipment rock solid without even breaking a sweat.

Two other problems - the mount doesn't track very far past the meridian which makes imaging objects at culmination a bit awkward.  And the inbuilt USB and power outlets are in totally the wrong place causing me a few trashed cables !

[Roy Foreman]

On 06/03/2023 at 19:43, SteveA said:

Thanks for your review and I look forward to hearing more as you get this mount outside and test under some clear skies.

I’m on the verge of upgrading from my 15 year  old EQ6 Pro, which I’ve seriously struggled with when loaded with a 250mm Quattro. On paper the EQ6 should cope with Quattro, but cameras, paraphernalia and it’s 1000m physical focal length have been a significant challenge in the guiding department😞. 
My finances just stretch to an EQ8, but clearly at £1k less the CQ350 clearly appeals. My gut says EQ8 which would easily cope with my setup, but if I could save a grand I would be seriously happy. I await your subsequent review…and thanks again.

Steve

Hi Steve,

Once again I have to apologise for the late response due to my not getting notifications on this thread !

I have a 10" Quattro which I used very successfully on an EQ6, but is was the AZ-EQ version which will carry significantly more load than the EQ6-R and has better clutches, alt-az adjustments, tracking accuracy and is quieter.  I have both of these mounts so I am speaking from experience.  I can put a 20Kg RASA 11 on the AZ-EQ6 and it will work adequately, but I wouldn't dare try this with the EQ6-R.

So, the AZ-EQ6 might be a suitable upgrade for you, but the CQ350 is way more solid, much less bulky than an EQ8 and cheaper, but please read my earlier responses for details of it's shortcomings - mainly due to it being a center balanced mount. If it was a conventional GEM it would be perfect.

Cheers

 

Roy