Travel tripod recommendations for EQ5 + 105mm refractor?

[GTom]

I am looking for a solid photo/video tripod that fits in the usual checked airline luggage and doesn't break the bank. As per title it should support approx 20kg's of AP gear (including mount and counterweights). Weight restrictions are much more laxed for checked luggage, if it reduces the bill, aluminum is sufficient.

Figured, that 3/8" (tripod) to EQ/GP (mount) adapters are a real thing, eg: https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005003568428275.html. Will do some research if any of these are coming in taller, "mini-pier" style.

Edited February 26 by GTom

[Elp]

Innorel carbon fibre NT364 or RC90. But my AP load is around 7-8Kg imaging train and 5Kg mount head, no CWs.

 

Edited February 26 by Elp

[GTom]

Thank you! My useful payload will be about the same as yours, maybe a tad lighter, but heavier on the mount. Checked the two on Amazon, reasonably priced bits !

[Ratlet]

I've got the same tripod as @Elp pretty decent tripod for the cash.

I used mine with a 130pds, az5 or azgti.  Did a pretty good job but at higher could get a bit wobbly with legs almost fully extended and used standing, however shortening the legs and using a stool made big difference to stability.

[Elp]

I usually use them with the first set of leg extensions only. Similar performance to my Berlebach Uni 4. The other benefit is for me anyway, its tall enough to go over head height fully extended (not as stable this way though), so viewing high altitude targets with a long refractor will be no problem. I wouldn't image with the legs fully extended though. They do have centre hooks for weighing them down though.

Edited February 26 by Elp

[GTom]

Sure, visual and AP are two different worlds. For AP I'd collapse the legs. Will do some research on the bigger, RC90 model how it compares to e.g. the old Manfrotto 055 silly me sold 10 years ago.

[Elp]

If you look on YT people try the hanging off them with their bodyweight test and it holds. I've found it depends how tight you lock the locks down in order to attempt something like this, though I've never tried it. Placing my bodyweight over the top and pushing down, its certainly similar to the Uni (the RC90).

Edited February 26 by Elp

[GTom]

The ZWO TC40 seems to share the same specs but I'd spare the hunt for (not the Red October) a 3/8"->Astro mount adapter. It claims 50kg payload but I doubt that it's any stronger than the RC90:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/zwo-mounts/zwo-tc40-carbon-fibre-tripod.html

[Elp]

An adaptor is how I use my gem28, I can use any 3/8 tripod as a result.

[GTom]

Some more on Aliexpress:

Hercules (basically a photo tripod with their adapter attached. Interestingly I read "Bexin" on the tripod, however, I don't know about any 40mm Bexins):

 https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005005450005401.html

Sharpstar (more robust but the top plate doesn't seem to be SW or ioptron-compatible): 

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005005964628668.html

Instead of a short adapter ideal would be a ~200mm minipier, photo 3/8" on tripod side, EQ5 or CEM26 on the mount side.

Edited February 27 by GTom

[Celerondon]

19 hours ago, GTom said:

The ZWO TC40 seems to share the same specs but I'd spare the hunt for (not the Red October) a 3/8"->Astro mount adapter. It claims 50kg payload but I doubt that it's any stronger than the RC90:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/zwo-mounts/zwo-tc40-carbon-fibre-tripod.html

I agree that the two tripods are fairly similar but I think that the two section legs of the TC40 are both a bug and a feature in this case.  Their disadvantage is that a TC40 will need a pier extension to reach a marginally usable height for visual use.  The corresponding advantage is that the RT90C is definitely weaker when you extend those additional leg sections for more height.  So, with a built in spreader, the TC40 is slightly more robust but the RT90C is certainly more versatile. 
 

Don

[GTom]

For astrophotography, where vibrations matter more, I'd use any tripods fully collapsed. I fear any kind of twisting on the baseplate or a 3/8 to astro mount adapter could be a problem trough if the system is not perfectly balanced.

[Celerondon]

I also like to use my larger tripods fully collapsed.  However, the TC40 and compact photo tripods like the RT90C have such short leg sections that the tripod footprint gets disturbingly small when you don’t extend the second section of the legs.  Tripod stability is enhanced by footprint and mass and hampered by height.  I generally use my weighted TC40 at its maximum height. Does it seem like a weighted TC40 would provide adequate support without extending that second leg section?  

[GTom]

Good question, it boils down to the overall geometry and the height of your center of mass. I see the RT90 (and its relatives...) have 3 angles to choose. Collapsed + minipier I'd definitely go for 37°, that's roughly the same footprint as using 2 sections. Question if it's still OK with the counterweight. Adding a too long minipier will put the center of gravity too high.

Edited February 28 by GTom

[Celerondon]

That is another difference between those two CF tripods.  At first glance they seem similar but the TC40 is a single angle two section tripod with a leg spreader while the RT90C has three angles and four leg sections.  Of course, just as a pier extension or extended center column will degrade stability those flatter leg angles should degrade carrying capacity.   In particular, that 9° leg angle looks like it might be a good way to turn a fundamentally rigid tripod into a carbon fiber trampoline.  

Don

[GTom]

Good Point. The 37 degrees option, fully collapsed, considering the 40kg spec should be still fine I guess for any kind of airline-portable telescope gear...