The EQ5 with the Skywatcher 8” Newton

[SK_ SLO]

Hi all,

I got the EQ5 mount (GOTO) for a reasonable price from a friend… I know that the Skywatcher 8” Newtonian is a bit on the upper limit for this mount but would it work primarily for visual observing with a DSLR attached (now and then…) or would it be too heavy for the mount to handle? Or would the 150 (6”) be a better choice for the EQ5 (it weighs a lot less).

 

Than you…

[vlaiv]

I think that you'll be much more happy with 6" scope on that mount, especially if you see yourself attaching DSLR at some point.

[almcl]

Skywatcher sell the 200P with the EQ5 mount and it's fine for visual. 

I also attached a DSLR to my 200P on its EQ5 mount and, with guiding, it usually managed about 1 arc second or just over oscillation.

You might want a coma corrector eventually but it was a good combination for the DSOs that I wanted to record.

Here are a couple of images taken with DSLR and SW200P mounted on my EQ5 (my capture and processing skills have improved since then):

 

 

[malc-c]

Depends on a lot of factors, like how heavy the DSLR is for one.  Some of the older Canons are quite a lot lighter than modern models.  Your lactation, is it exposed as wind will act upon the 200P like a sail. 

The EQ5 / 200P (an 8" f5) combination is sold as a package, and I started with this when I got back into astronomy some 13 years back.  Back then we had lots of LP from sodium lights, so I bolted an old Canon 400D to it and ventured into imaging.  It wasn't long before I purchased an HEQ5 mount as the EQ5 was stretched to its limits to cope with the extra weight of cables etc.  I would always recommend the 150P (6" scope) with a EQ5, especially for imaging unless your budget runs to an HEQ5. 

[Carbon Brush]

Welcome to SGL.

I agree with the above on EQ5 with 8" performance.

I have used this combination for photography - a few years ago. Very good for visual.

If you are able to get hold of this combination at a good price, go for it.
The 8" scope will delight you with the light gather.
The photo limits will come later as you learn more.

Photography is very tempting at the outset. But can easily make an evening unenjoyable and take a very long time to learn.
Just look at how much effort both outside, and post processing, goes into the images posted on SGL. Read the small print about how many subs and processing effort🤔
Eyepeice views are instant. Good photos take a lot of time and money. Something to be wary of.

Keep asking the questions,

David.

[SK_ SLO]

Thank you all!

The DSLR is at around 500g ( 1.1lb with battery and 2 SD cards). The adapters would add another ~100g… So overall sub 1kg (2.2lb) for everything I would put on the 8” telescope. The HEQ5 (new) is more than double the money than my used EQ5 GOTO and there are no used on offer around…

[vlaiv]

32 minutes ago, SK_ SLO said:

Thank you all!

The DSLR is at around 500g ( 1.1lb with battery and 2 SD cards). The adapters would add another ~100g… So overall sub 1kg (2.2lb) for everything I would put on the 8” telescope. The HEQ5 (new) is more than double the money than my used EQ5 GOTO and there are no used on offer around…

Look at it this way.

Specs for EQ5 mount are:

"Payload Capacity: Approx 6.5kg for imaging and 9kg for visual"

(according the FLO website specs)

8" PDS OTA from SkyWatcher is 8.8Kg.

Add few accessories - like eyepiece, finder scope and such and you are already over 9Kg limit for visual. You can never reach recommended limit for astrophotography with that scope as scope itself is already heavier (and you'll want to add DSLR or camera, adapters, guide scope and guide camera and so on).

I personally don't like newtonians on EQ mount for visual. This is because you either have to be very bendy to get into right position as eyepiece orientation moves as OTA slews around the sky - or you have to rotate OTA to have eye piece at comfortable position. This means undoing rings - rotating OTA - fastening rings back - every time you change target and slew considerable distance. 6" Ota is much more manageable for this than 8".

EQ5 is light weight mount. I know it looks sturdy compared to something like EQ2 or EQ3, but in reality it is just light weight mount - almost being lightest weight mount worth using. (EQ3 is good for some grab and go visual and imaging with just camera and lens).

For large OTA that is susceptible to wind - you want massive mount. Reality is - I would not use 8" F/5 even on HEQ5 - I'd put it on EQ6 class mount.

I have Heq5 and I have 8" scope on it - but it is RC - and that is shorter and more compact than 8" F/5 scope - and I consider that to be on limit. I've put 8" f/6 on HEQ5 and imaged with it - once (that was enough to show what's what).

 

[Carbon Brush]

When thinking about weight on a mount, the maximum is not set in stone. It is not a limt which if exceeded by 100g causes the thing to collapse.
Yes there is a point at which things collapse but in practice it is performance that suffers.

I have used different 8" newts on different EQ5 sized mounts (made by different companies).
Visually they are fine. I have had many hours of good viewing. You need to consider balance - especially when motors get involved.
A big scope does blow in the wind. The mount parts flex and the tripod twists.

My first proper scope was an 8" newt on an EQ5 manual mount. I got on well with it.
Rotating the tube to reposition the eyepiece isn't that bad and you can add a slip mechanism (using cheap components) to ease the chore.

As you are buying used, give it a try. Learn the limits, decide if you want to go for photo, etc. etc.
Usually you can sell on a used mount for little or no loss.

HTH, David.

[pipnina]

20 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

Look at it this way.

Specs for EQ5 mount are:

"Payload Capacity: Approx 6.5kg for imaging and 9kg for visual"

(according the FLO website specs)

8" PDS OTA from SkyWatcher is 8.8Kg.

Add few accessories - like eyepiece, finder scope and such and you are already over 9Kg limit for visual. You can never reach recommended limit for astrophotography with that scope as scope itself is already heavier (and you'll want to add DSLR or camera, adapters, guide scope and guide camera and so on).

I personally don't like newtonians on EQ mount for visual. This is because you either have to be very bendy to get into right position as eyepiece orientation moves as OTA slews around the sky - or you have to rotate OTA to have eye piece at comfortable position. This means undoing rings - rotating OTA - fastening rings back - every time you change target and slew considerable distance. 6" Ota is much more manageable for this than 8".

EQ5 is light weight mount. I know it looks sturdy compared to something like EQ2 or EQ3, but in reality it is just light weight mount - almost being lightest weight mount worth using. (EQ3 is good for some grab and go visual and imaging with just camera and lens).

For large OTA that is susceptible to wind - you want massive mount. Reality is - I would not use 8" F/5 even on HEQ5 - I'd put it on EQ6 class mount.

I have Heq5 and I have 8" scope on it - but it is RC - and that is shorter and more compact than 8" F/5 scope - and I consider that to be on limit. I've put 8" f/6 on HEQ5 and imaged with it - once (that was enough to show what's what).

 

Both my 8" F4 newt and 130mm f6.6 triplet are impossible to balance on my HEQ5. the 10KG of counterweights is simply not enough for either of them.

I still get sub-arcsecond guiding (typical between 0.5-0.8RMS total) with both, but the refractor is definitely more stable with fewer wobbles, probably on account of having a lesser wind profile.

I have wanted a mount upgrade for a while, but the market seems to be moving a fair bit at the moment and the choice is not as clear cut as i think it was when I bought the HEQ5 in 2017, many more options in the £1500-4000 price range than just stepping up to a higher tier skywatcher mount.

[vlaiv]

5 minutes ago, pipnina said:

Both my 8" F4 newt and 130mm f6.6 triplet are impossible to balance on my HEQ5. the 10KG of counterweights is simply not enough for either of them.

That is interesting. I would have thought that at F/4 with shorter tube - it is lighter scope.

I balance my RC8" with 10Kg counterweights with no problem - I even add 1Kg at the front because scope is back heavy.

That OTA weights 8.5Kg according to FLO.

I think that some of it has to do with how close scope is mounted to the center of mass. RC8" has dove tail attached directly to OTA - so it is sort of "low profile".

[pipnina]

2 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

That is interesting. I would have thought that at F/4 with shorter tube - it is lighter scope.

I balance my RC8" with 10Kg counterweights with no problem - I even add 1Kg at the front because scope is back heavy.

That OTA weights 8.5Kg according to FLO.

I think that some of it has to do with how close scope is mounted to the center of mass. RC8" has dove tail attached directly to OTA - so it is sort of "low profile".

The tipping point was probably that my 50mm/f4 finder was mounted on a 30cm dovetail on the top of the tube rings, about as far away as it could possibly be. This was to get it off of the tube itself as I suspected it was causing flexure when guiding. Plus I had a losmandy dovetail on the main scope which was heavier and a big flexible dew shield on the front of the scope to try and cut out some of those off-axis reflections.

quite possible I simply added more accessories to mine / further away etc. The newt wasn't far off balance though, a piece of string with my star adventurer's 1kg weight on it hanging off the counterweight bar mostly fixed it.

[SK_ SLO]

The 8” is a lot more hefty than the 6” one… Probably going to stick with the 6” Skywatcher its going to be more easy to move around and transport and still fine for me. Would like to put a refractor on But they are not in the same ballpark

[Mr Spock]

I use an EQ5. It's perfect for a 4" apo or a 6" Mak. I wouldn't put anything bigger on though.