Upgrading a mount - pros and cons

[stargazerlily]

Hi everyone,

I'm thinking of upgrading my EQ3/2 mount to something a bit better. As I'm currently interested in astro-photography (SW150PL with web cam and hopefully DSLR) the HEQ5 appears to be the 'mount-of-choice'.

I was just wondering why ...

For example, would a deluxe heavy duty EQ5 be just as good? Even with separate dual axis motors, it's over £150 cheaper than the HEQ5.

Also, what makes a good mount? Is it the tripod (weight, size of legs) or the actual mount (weight etc) or a combination of both?

Would getting a better set of legs (tripod) for the EQ3/2 mount just be false economy? What about vibration pads ... or filling my existing tripod legs with sand to increase the weight?

Any thoughts ... comments ... good or bad.

Many thanks

Pete

[jgs001]

Pete, The options you mention for the EQ3/2 will help, but they won't really make all that much difference in the grand scheme of things. The EQ5 would definitely be an improvement, but... if you're wanting to get into imaging, you need the sturdiest platform you can afford, with the best drives and controllers. The HEQ5 is a lot heavier and sturdier, and comes with the best set of drives and controllers from SW fitted in place, and you get the ability to add autoguiding into the mix for longer exposures, and you will be wanting to do that at some point (but that's for another time...

If you can, go for the HEQ5.

[lw24]

I've been wondering about this myself, what actually gives the mount+tripod it's overall strength, and what needs to be improved to make a mount+tripod better.

Im going to watch this thread with intent

[stargazerlily]

Thanks John.

My feeling is the same, go for the best available as it would be more economic in the long run. Was just exploring other options.

Cheers

Pete

[ismangil]

Sorry to hijack the thread, regarding HEQ5 I can see that there are several versions: Standard, Syntrek, SynScan.

I know Synscan is a goto one, but why have standard and syntrek since both only tracks? And standard is cheaper than syntrek with sama capabilities?

[jgs001]

Syntrek is the same as the Synscan without the goto handset. I have the SynTrek and use it with laptop control for both goto and guiding. Not sure on the standard, I'd guess it's standard motors and controllers and no guide capabilities.

[Carbon Brush]

Hi. For what it's worth, my thoughts on mounts are....

Buy the biggest/best your wallet will take. This hurts once and you hopefully recover.

Combine this with the biggest/heaviest you can handle. This hurts your back every time out, unless you go for a fixed installation.

With a good solid mount, you have a wide choice of scopes for the future.

[NickK]

I'd agree with David. The NEQ6 is built like a tank, and weighs about the same!

I went with the NEQ6 SynScan because you can use both laptop control (as per the syntrek) and for times when you just want to go visual with minimal stuff to port around then I'll use the Synscan handset.

[zcapp96]

Standard has cheaper motors and handset and is not possible to autoguide and INHO a false economy - To upgrade you need to buy new motors, motherboards and handset. Syntrek is a Sysnscan without the handset and when used with a pc is able to do all the functions a synscan can do.

[Bizibilder]

Its all down to rigidity and quality of bearings. Two other areas which are often overlooked are the base attachment and the altitude setting bearing (HEQ5 is MUCH bigger and stronger than the EQ3 & 5 in this department) and the dovetail attachment (the HEQ5 & 6 both have two bolts and a longer dovetail holder than the single bolt arrangement of the EQ3 & 5).

For photography you need to consider the maximum design weight that each mount can carry. For the best results photographic kit should weigh 50% or less of this design maximum.

[Bazzaar]

I think its a matter of future proofing, the EQ5 would probably be OK for now with the 150p. But if your interest in astrophotography grows you will reach the limit of what that set up can do and want to move on. And as soon as you look at bigger better scopes, you will NEED a bigger better mount. Get the better mount now, and you get the benefit of better rigidity and better tracking right away. Probably enough to see it with your current scope.

Regards

Barry

[NickK]

Not forgetting you can sell your old mount when upgrading.. alternatively you could keep an eye out for a newish secondhand mount that fits the bill.

[ollypenrice]

What do you want a photographic mount to do? Carry the weight without wobbling and track accurately. In the real world you will need an autoguider to make the mount track accurately so you need one that accepts autoguiding commands and responds well to them. The HEQ5 and NEQ6 are fairly good at this and to do better you have to spend a bomb. You can indeed do better but it gets expensive.

There is always talk of weight on these threads and this is a factor. A more important factor is focal length. Don't ask a straight-from-the-box EQ6 to deliver round stars, even with an autoguider, at 2 metres or more of focal length. If you are dead lucky it just might. Neither of my two have a snowflake in Hell's chance of doing so even if the scopes themselves weighed half a gram.

Accuracy in the gears and motors is what makes people pay five to eleven grand for Takahashi, AP, Paramount etc. We really are asking the earth of our mounts in modern imaging. All credit to SW for making shorter FL imaging possible on a budget.

GoTo is essential in imaging in my view. The time lost without it (framing, saving the same flats, finding objects not visible at all in the eyepiece etc) would just be too much.

I would put our Takahashi Baby Q, all three and a half K's worth on it, on an HEQ5 for the rest of time. Why pay more? I love the handset, the GoTo and the autoguided tracking falls within the resolution of the system. But I would not put a C11 on an NEQ6 because I don't believe it would reliably guide at the focal length required, though it would have no trouble with the weight.

Olly

[Ad Astra]

Hi Pete,

I have got to echo many of the things Olly just said. Most scopes are undermounted, and designed for visual use only. Imaging is very demanding on a mount's capabilities, and NO, weight is not the only factor.

My scope is an f/12 monster (all 7-feet of it) and tips the scales at 22 kg before you put an eyepiece, diagonal, or finderscope on it. I spent Fourteen Years fighting weak sauce mounts that would indeed track (sort of) but the wobbling, vibration in the wind, and errors in visual and photo work drove me nuts. This spring, I took the big plunge and purchased a CGE Pro mount from Celestron. It is a MONSTER - but the first night out convinced me that the only mistake was waiting so long and messing about with cheap solutions that didn't really solve my problem. It was a classic case of "Penny wise - Pound foolish!"

Now, my 7-footer moves with all the grace of a ballet dancer and stops on a dime. There is no wobble, no drift, no backlash, and no mount problems of any kind! Is it a pain to lift and set up the mount - yes, I'll admit that it is a bit. But the payoff is worth it. Once I'm done setting it up - my problems are over and my enjoyment begins. I've noticed I'm not going bald as fast now - much less yanking of the hair in frustration late at night!

I won't tell you that I didn't swallow a bit hard when I wrote the check for 5K - but I have no regrets.... only envious admirers! (For the scope that is... everyone else says Mrs. Astra's taste in men is terrible! )

Dan

[ismangil]

Olly, Dan, thanks a lot.

I learned a lot just from both your post, especially the fact that weight is not the only factor.

Cheers,

[neilmack]

Hi everyone,

what makes a good mount? Is it the tripod (weight, size of legs) or the actual mount (weight etc) or a combination of both?

Unfortunately any telescope mounting is, like a chain, only as good as its weakest link. And, if you want to do imaging, that extends to the quality of gears and bearings, and the sophistication of drive electronics. 9 out of 10 won't do!

There are only three rules in buying a telescope : buy the best mount you can afford, buy the best mount you can afford, and .... you've guessed it .....

best of luck

Neil

[stargazerlily]

What do you want a photographic mount to do? Carry the weight without wobbling and track accurately. In the real world you will need an autoguider to make the mount track accurately so you need one that accepts autoguiding commands and responds well to them. The HEQ5 and NEQ6 are fairly good at this and to do better you have to spend a bomb.

Olly

Wow ... so many brilliant replies. Thank you to everyone for your comments and suggestions.

I think Olly summed it up with his questions quoted above ... what do I want the mount to do? Thankfully ... he answered them for me ... a stronger, sturdier mount that can track accurately without wobbles and can also be upgraded to bigger and better things (e.g. autoguilde)

I can see the logic of getting the best mount that I can afford ... now where did I put my plastic card.

Cheers

Pete

[roundycat]

David Valentine has it right. I had a G11 which is sturdy and comes with a massively heavy tripod. After cussing its performance with a 44lb load in the wind (long refractor) I upgraded to an AP 1200, never looked back. The financial pain only hurts once.

Dennis

[ollypenrice]

David Valentine has it right. I had a G11 which is sturdy and comes with a massively heavy tripod. After cussing its performance with a 44lb load in the wind (long refractor) I upgraded to an AP 1200, never looked back. The financial pain only hurts once.

Dennis

Dennis, since I would have to rob a bank to buy an AP1200 I think the pain of all those years in a light polluted prison might be quite lingering...

Olly

[twotter]

I don't know if it's simply that Skywatcher have the largest market share when it comes to mounts, but I'm surprised not to see more mention of the Celestron CG-5. It strikes me (no expert admittedly) as an upgraded EQ5, but sturdier tripod legs, better bearings and at a reasonable price.

[Carbon Brush]

Twotter raises an interesting point about the CG5.

A few months back I was thinking about a garden/car boot mount. EQ5/HEQ5/EQ6 size were contenders, along with something to drive or goto. I went to Rother Valley Optics to have a lift of the mounts and clear up the very confusing synscan/syntrek/deluxe/better labels and features. I wanted to try lifting an assembled mount as they are an awkward shape. Lifting a heavy box or bag is easy enough. But an awkward shape mount is something else.

RVO actively sell Skywatcher & Celestron. The bottom line was that there were no Skywatcher mounts in the shop to look at or lift. But they could be delivered usually for next day. I was not even offered a Celestron mount, or a comparison of Skywatcher vs Celestron mount/goto features. So much for trying to support an Astro retailer.

In the end I found a very nice 2nd hand CG5 goto and have been really pleased with it's performance. As a visual mount, or photo to 30sec it is fine with an 8" reflector. I am just geting the bits together to have a go at guiding on this mount. Though I expect to be using a smaller and lighter scope.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I am also pondering getting a new mount (not that I will sell my GP-2, it is brilliant with my 80mm ), and apart from load and precision, weight is an issue as I do not have a permanent observatory. In that regard, the iOptron iEQ45 seems interesting: capacity of an (N)EQ6 but a lot lighter. It is more expensive (of course ).

I do not know if anyone has any experience with it.

[zcapp96]

I would agree that the CG5 is a 'pimped' EQ5 but is, IMHO, way behind the HEQ5. the name would suggest an improved EQ5 but really the HEQ5 is a completely different mount and has over 6kg more capacity than the CG5.