EQ3 Pro vs EQM 35 Pro vs EQ5

[chubster1302]

Afternoon/evening, bit of advice please

I was going to get the Star Adventurer GTi, plan to do milky way, dso photography, but it is out of stock everywhere.

I don't need massive load capacity, probably getting a redcat 51 or similar in the future, so I won't be going Heq5

Out of the three mentioned above which would be the sensible option. 

Been out of the game for a while, I now the EQ3 and 5 have been around awhile l, haven't heard of the EQM 35 Pro before, do they share all the same internals?

The EQ5 and EQM 35 Pro are similarly priced....argh confused 

 

Edited February 2, 2023 by chubster1302
Spelling

[malc-c]

Compared to the EQ3 and EQ5 the EQ35 has more payload capacity and the internals are different, offering more precision with the steppers having twice the microsteps (64 as apposed to 32).

Just browse the full specs on FLO's website

 

[chubster1302]

32 minutes ago, malc-c said:

Compared to the EQ3 and EQ5 the EQ35 has more payload capacity and the internals are different, offering more precision with the steppers having twice the microsteps (64 as apposed to 32).

Just browse the full specs on FLO's website

 

So the EQ35 is an updated EQ5, would that be correct ?

 

[ONIKKINEN]

2 minutes ago, chubster1302 said:

So the EQ35 is an updated EQ5, would that be correct ?

 

No, absolutely not.

The EQM35 is an EQ3 in disguise, the EQ5 is a completely different mount from its technical specs.

[ONIKKINEN]

36 minutes ago, malc-c said:

Compared to the EQ3 and EQ5 the EQ35 has more payload capacity and the internals are different, offering more precision with the steppers having twice the microsteps (64 as apposed to 32).

Just browse the full specs on FLO's website

 

This is just not true. The payload limit on the EQM35 is based only on the counterweights it is supplied with. True photographic payload is 0-5kg, visual maybe towards 10kg depending on how much wobble you tolerate.

The Skywatcher stated specs are pure hallucination.

 

[malc-c]

2 minutes ago, chubster1302 said:

So the EQ35 is an updated EQ5, would that be correct ?

 

No not really.  On paper the load limits would suggest that, stating the imaging, and visual being more than the EQ5, and the internal gearing and stepper motors suggest that the EQ35 is a better performer.   I think what they have done is taken the EQ3 and changed the gearing and steppers to make it perform better than the EQ3.

[malc-c]

6 minutes ago, ONIKKINEN said:

This is just not true. The payload limit on the EQM35 is based only on the counterweights it is supplied with. True photographic payload is 0-5kg, visual maybe towards 10kg depending on how much wobble you tolerate.

The Skywatcher stated specs are pure hallucination.

 

If they are untrue than that would suggest that the retailers such as FLO would be selling them under false pretences and could lead them wide open under UK consumer laws.. 

[ONIKKINEN]

6 minutes ago, malc-c said:

If they are untrue than that would suggest that the retailers such as FLO would be selling them under false pretences and could lead them wide open under UK consumer laws.. 

Well, they are technically correct. It is possible to put a 9kg scope on the EQM35 and take an image. It will never be reliable and have proper guiding though, but no such claims are made so no legal issues with the statement of payload either. Neither will the EQ5 be good in that role, but it has potential to be much better so it is less of an issue IMO.

Some details on the 35:

It has no bearings on either axis, just plastic shims (yes, plastic!) and somewhat competently machined sliding surfaces for the axis to roll in. As such it will be impossible to adjust the wobble and backlash away, since when you approach the area of decent backlash you bind the axis in place creating other issues. The only real difference to the EQ3 is that the RA gear is a little bit bigger so it has a chance to have an easier to control RA periodic error. Doesnt matter though since the housing for the axis is bearingless, nullifying whatever gain the larger gear brought, and you will autoguide anyway so the periodic error is of little concern.

For comparisons between the 35 and 5 the 5 will be a bettet mount 100% of the time.

Take with a cartful of salt, sincerely a very unhappy previous owner of the scam that is the EQM35.

[chubster1302]

Thanks for the detailed response @ONIKKINEN

So considering the price of the EQ5 vs EQM, the EQ5 wins hands down.

I assume that will be the same with the regards the Star Adventurer GTi, considering that's £600 with a tripod and bearing in mind what I intend to use it for 

Edited February 2, 2023 by chubster1302

[ONIKKINEN]

1 hour ago, chubster1302 said:

Thanks for the detailed response @ONIKKINEN

So considering the price of the EQ5 vs EQM, the EQ5 wins hands down.

I assume that will be the same with the regards the Star Adventurer GTi, considering that's £600 with a tripod and bearing in mind what I intend to use it for 

Your plan of a redcat51/milky way is very forgiving on kit so you have choices, the main differences are in bulk/price/reliability and future wiggle room for another scope if one day you want one.

The SA GTi has had some growing pains being a new product. In various cloudy nights threads you read a not so great story so might be a risk. The price is a bit too high too IMO. Looks less bulky than the EQ3/35/5, but not by much if you couple it with a decent tripod.

Have you considered an AZ-GTi with an EQ wedge? Cheapest option and will work with lens setups just fine. Least bulky too, but will not be exactly high performance or have much room to grow. Choices choices...

One thing i am certain of, the EQ3 or the EQM35 are neither what you are looking for just because one is overpriced and one is just bad with more convenient options available.

[chubster1302]

28 minutes ago, ONIKKINEN said:

Your plan of a redcat51/milky way is very forgiving on kit so you have choices, the main differences are in bulk/price/reliability and future wiggle room for another scope if one day you want one.

The SA GTi has had some growing pains being a new product. In various cloudy nights threads you read a not so great story so might be a risk. The price is a bit too high too IMO. Looks less bulky than the EQ3/35/5, but not by much if you couple it with a decent tripod.

Have you considered an AZ-GTi with an EQ wedge? Cheapest option and will work with lens setups just fine. Least bulky too, but will not be exactly high performance or have much room to grow. Choices choices...

One thing i am certain of, the EQ3 or the EQM35 are neither what you are looking for just because one is overpriced and one is just bad with more convenient options available.

Many thanks again and no, I hadn't. So you mean this? https://www.firstlightoptics.com/alt-azimuth-astronomy-mounts/sky-watcher-az-gti-wifi-alt-az-mount-tripod.html

[ONIKKINEN]

1 hour ago, chubster1302 said:

Many thanks again and no, I hadn't. So you mean this? https://www.firstlightoptics.com/alt-azimuth-astronomy-mounts/sky-watcher-az-gti-wifi-alt-az-mount-tripod.html

Yes, or more specifically that mount but converted to equatorial mode like this: https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/skywatcher-az-gti-wifi-goto-equatorial-mount-head-package.html  . The EQ conversion thing has to be done to get rid of field rotation from an alt-az mount, so just the mount wont do for imaging purposes.

You can also buy all the accessories needed to do that separately (wedge, counterweight bar, counterweight).

There is a lengthy thread here in SGL for users of the AZ-GTi, lots of information there. Take a seat though, the thread is quite long .

 

[chubster1302]

Cheers....Im rapidly remembering how beautifully frustrating this hobby is. There always another way 🙈😃

[TerryMcK]

I have the EQM35 Pro as well as a HEQ5 Pro and use the former solely for my Redcat51.  It is a nice lightweight-ish mount and I can recommend it for portable use.

If the Sky-Watcher Goto Star Adventurer GTi had been available last year 2022 (it was as rare as rocking horse waste matter back then) then I might have bought that instead. Although that only has a capacity of 5kg it might be close to the limit for the Redcat 51 when all its ancillary components are mounted on it. As a rule of thumb imaging capacity is roughly 2/3rds or even less of a mounts rated capacity unless the manufacturer states differently. I measured the mass of my Redcat with camera, filter wheel, focuser, mini guide scope and camera at around 3.4 kg. The EQM35 which has a capacity of 7kg in that case is much better suited. But I still may have considered the GTI.

However if you are using a DSLR, Mirrorless or even a dedicated cooled camera along with a lens like a Samyang 135 F2 then the GTi is a much better proposition for lightweight portable goto rig. Combine the mount with a carbon fibre tripod and you are on a winner.

Other alternatives are the similarly priced iOptron SkyHunter AZ Goto Mount Package with Tripod and Extension Pier - again 5kg capacity with a carbon fibre tripod for an even lighter rig. I am tempted by the iOptron.