CG5-GT vs EQ5pro vs HEQ5

[toc]

Hi all :)

Im looking to upgrade my mount, I am torn between the Celestron CG5-GT mount, and the Skywatcher EQ5pro or HEQ5. I realise that the CG5 is identical to the EQ5, but from what I have read the Celestron handcontroller software is a lot better than Synscan, allowing for a much easier alignment procedure.

I will be using a Celestron C8, and possibly a 100mm refractor at a latter stage :)

I think it would be mostly visual observation, but I will dabble in imaging...

[bmitchell82]

if you where only using it for visual the a HEQ5 or similar would be fine since you will "dabble" in imaging go the next step as a minimum to a EQ6 or G-11, anything less then don't bother unless its dead still and quiet.

[TrevorW]

Definitely an EQ6 for that line up

[mill]

As is said, a minimum of a EQ6 for that.

[toc]

Thanks everyone - I should add that I wouldnt be using them together at the same time - one or the other. :)

Anyone have any thoughts on Nexstar vs Synscan?

[mill]

A synscan can be computer controlled so you can use a laptop later on.
And also a computer controlled mount will outdo any hand controller because you have a very large database on the computer that would never fit in any hand controller.
I dont know if a nexstar mount can be controlled with a computer.

[seeker372011]

The CG5 has the wonderful any star polar alignment feature, and in general some very handy software features.. starting with a greater choice of alignment stars.

since your original question asked about a comparison between a CG5 and an EQ5, the CG5 has clearly superior software-much better features. Mechanically The EQ5 is clearly better-less PE and the amplitude of oscillations when autoguiding is significantly less

(I dont have a EQ5-but do have a EQ6) because of the superior software I find myself using my CG5 more often-even though I know the EQ6 is superior mechanically.)

[seeker372011]

I should add I dont use EQMod and find the database on the CG5 hand controller more than adequate for what I can see and image-and you can always add user objects. I also find the Goto more accurate with the CG5 compared to the EQ6-I occasionally have trouble finding objects on my QHypro 2 with the EQ6 , less with the CG5 (same scope and similar alignment technique-I use an illuminated reticle)

But the EQ6 is obviously rock solid with my scope-the largest of which is an ED 127

[toc]

Thanks Narayan - thats exactly the sort of feedback Im after.

[Waxing_Gibbous]

A little pip for the HEQ5. Despite having a less-than stellar rap, I find mine works almost perfectly. It tracks beautifully and it has seemingly responded to PEC in only two sessions. I'm not sure where the "clearly superior" software comes from as it takes about a minute to align on any 2 stars and hasn't failed once to put a target at the centre of a 20T5.
It was out in a 20-25km/h wind the other night with a WO 110, a guidescope and DSLR without a problem and has handled a SW 180 Mak, same attachments without drama.
However I would say this would be its limit, with a little to spare. According to the "book of words" it will hold 17kg, but I try to keep it around 13-15.
They're both equally "well" built internally, but IMO, the HEQ5 has a better finish.
If money is a factor: Which is cheaper? Buy That one! :D
Can't speak for the EQ6/PRO, it seems to have a following, but its a HEAVY beast!
Happy Hunting!
Peter

[AlexN]

Im a big fan of the HEQ5 Pro... I have one, and whilst I've not loaded it up with a C8 or similar, I have had 10kgs on it and it tracked and guided perfectly... with my small APO on it, 30 minute exposures come out looking great, I ran a 45 minute exposure once without a problem also, though I'm too impatient to run them regularly... The EQ6 Pro is also a great mount... As Peter said, they are heavy..

I use computer control of the HEQ5 sometimes, sometimes not. It all depends on what I am planning to image.. If its not in the database of the hand controller, then I'll use computer control...

Goto accuracy, well.. with a good polar alignment I can do a 2 star alignment and land targets smack bang in the centre of my CCD every time. even if I do a 2 star alignment on two stars in the west, then slew to a target in the east, provided the polar alignment is accurate, it will centre the target every time.

As Peter said, the manual claims 17kg capacity... Robin (Tandum) on the forums used to image on a HEQ5 with 17kgs load on the mount and he always got nice results, however I have had a maximum of 10kgs on mine, and regularly image with about 8.5kgs on it.

The EQ6 manual claims a 24kg capacity.. I had one with 22.5kgs on it and results were flaky at best.. some nights it would perform, some nights it wouldnt... it is a big mount, but easily portable..

I have no experience with the EQ5 or CG5, so I can't offer an opinion on those...

Alex.

[toc]

Cool - To be honest, the only thing that is really pushing me towards the Celestron is the idea of an automated polar alignment routine - personally I find doing an accurate polar alignment a huge pain in the butt (I have enough trouble trying to remember which direction button I should use on a hand controller, let alone doing drift alignment :D) , but then again Ive probably not really tried it long enough to work it all out.

[andrew2008]

While i haven't used the celestron mounts and software i do own a HEQ5 and it is very easy to setup and use as Alex and Peter have said. I use it with a SW 8" SCT and ED80, though not at same time, and it handles the SCT with ease. 2 star alignments are more than enough for visual with a few mins to get polar alignment pretty good. If you only ever wanted to stay with visual i'd look more at CG5 but even then i'd buy the HEQ5. For very similar cost the HEQ5 is much more capable at astrophotography. Skywatcher also have a 5 year warranty rather than 2 with Celestron.

[toc]

just FYI - I bought the HEQ5 (non goto) off someone here on iis. :D