Help with Sky-Watcher EQ5 PRO Go-To Astronomy Mount

[moonzerotwo]

Good evening may I ask for some advice please

My Daughter has a Sky-Watcher Explorer-200 telescope 200mm year 2010 Newtonian reflector 8 kg and a Nikon D600 850g, which she attaches to S-W 200 to take photographs,

its now time to move up a level and I am looking for a Sky watcher Go-To Astronomy Mount with legs

Can anyone advise me in which system she needs to go for

I was looking at the EQ35 but the payload is not good for SW200 and Nikon D600.

 Would a Sky-Watcher EQ5 PRO Go-To Astronomy Mount work or am I too close to the limit. what would your recommendation be 

Kind regards Miles

[bosun21]

Not really especially for astrophotography. You should ideally be looking at the HEQ5 for a 200mm newtonian.

[moonzerotwo]

Thank you would that be ok to take the Nikon body as well 

[Budgie1]

With the scope weighing in at just over 8kg, you need something with an imaging payload of well above that figure because the main issue with the scope of that size, for imaging, is the scope acting like a sail if it's windy. 

The SW EQ35 comes in at 7kg payload, and EQ5 is just 6.5kg for imaging. The HEQ5 which @bosun21 suggested has an imaging payload of around 11kg and a nice stable tripod, which should support the Explorer 200P.

It's also worth exploring the second hand market as you can sometimes pick up the likes of a SkyWatcher EQ6 or EQ6R-Pro for the price of a new HEQ5. You don't say where you're located but, if you're in the UK then FLO have a couple of ex-demo iOptron GEM28's on their OFFERS page at the moment with good discounts.

[Clarkey]

As @Budgie1 says, you need and heq5 as a minimum with the 200mm reflector, but even that will be near its limit, especially if you start guiding. As a 200p owner I would recommend getting something smaller to start 'serious' imaging. The 200mm newt is a bit of a wind-sock and is not really designed for imaging.

[bosun21]

1 hour ago, Clarkey said:

The 200mm newt is a bit of a wind-sock and is not really designed for imaging.

The PDS version most definitely is designed for imaging, however I agree that they are a wind sail.

[M40]

Hello moonzerotwoand welcome to the site. As has been said, heq5 minimum. People do use the 200p on an heq5 but see if you can position it out of the wind. I use a slightly lighter telescope at 7kgs ish plus all the bits and bobs at another 2kgs ish and the heq5, imo, just makes it.

All the best

Edited August 22, 2023 by M40
Speling

[moonzerotwo]

Thank you all so much, maybe it's time to upgrade the telescope as well when you say smaller is that in weight? what would you recommend is there a smaller telescope that has the same focal length? and good image for astro photography.

[M40]

1 minute ago, moonzerotwo said:

Thank you all so much, maybe it's time to upgrade the telescope as well when you say smaller is that in weight? what would you recommend is there a smaller telescope that has the same focal length? and good image for astro photography.

You are right on the lip of that rabbit hole 🤣 the first question to answer is what do you want to see or image. I suggest that you look around the site at what has been achieved and how, do you enjoy visual, eaa or astrophotography or maybe some of each. All the best

[malc-c]

The PDS version of the 200P is quite a good all rounder for imaging.  At f5 it's fast enough to get nice bright images of DSO's, and with the addition of a 2x barlow, nice detail of Jupiter and Saturn.  If used in an exposed location on a breezy night it can act like a sail, but that's one of the caveats of a large aperture.  It does need an HEQ5 as the minimum for use with DSLRs or dedicated imaging cameras, not only because of the load capacity, but also because the mount has better precision stepper motors and control board.  

The combination of HEQ5/200P has been the recommended entry point for imaging for some time.  You can go smaller, such as a 150PDS on an EQ5, but whilst being more portable you lose 2" of aperture and the better precision the HEQ5 offers.

As the above posts states, imaging is a deep rabbit hole.. You can easily end up throwing thousands of pounds at specialist scopes and mounts.  There is no real one scope fits all, and where imaging is concerned, the mount becomes more critical than the optics sitting on it.  

[Clarkey]

My earlier comment was assuming the scope was a 200P, not a PDS. If it is a PDS version, then working with the scope you have is obviously a sensible option. However, for the 1000mm FL you will really need to guide for longer exposures which will be an additional cost and complication. Starting with the smaller scope, although an additional cost, might save a lot of pain in the long run.

Yes, AP is a rabbit hole......