Skywatcher EQ6-R or Celestron CGX ?

Ice (Ivan) · #1 14-03-2019, 05:36 PM

Hello again Everyone, Advice needed

I am soon in the market for a new mount and I'm torn between the SW EQ6-R and the Celestron CGX.
I like both mounts but I am leaning towards the CGX, more expensive but because of the all star alignment feature, it will only be supporting a Skywatcher Esprit ED 80 so weight is not an issue, I'm more wondering about reliability than anything.
so if there's anyone with first hand experience with either of these mounts I would love some feedback.

Many thanks Ice..

casstony · #2 14-03-2019, 06:20 PM

I think the Skywatcher mounts have a similar feature to the Celestron ASPA.
(Edit: I checked the manual and Skywatcher has essentially the same all star polar alignment feature - section 11.3 Polar Alignment without Polar Scope)

For a permanent setup the CGX looks good, especially the spring-loaded worms.
If you're setting up each session look at the AZ-EQ6 - I think it's a better mount than the EQ6-R because it's a few pounds lighter and has a better latitude adjuster.

I've added Starsense for Skywatcher to my mount so I'm using the Celstron controller. (starsense for skywatcher costs 1/2 aussie price if purchased from the UK).

glend (Glen) · #3 14-03-2019, 07:10 PM

Ok I have owned both, well had a NEQ6 Pro for years, modded it with a belt drive, etc, used it both in the field and pier mounted. I sold it and bought a CGX in late 2016. The CGX is a much better mount in my opinion. It has a true 25kg imaging capacity, whereas the NEQ6 would struggle with over 15kg on it. If your only visual then the NEQ6 is fine. Just because your present gear is under the NEQ6 weight limit, think about the futurw. Always buy the best mount you can afford, it is an investment. The CGX tracks and guides much smoother than the NEQ6. Early CGXs had some factory setup issues but that was sorted out long ago, have not heard anything concerning in a long time. Great mount in my opinion, but it is not what i would call portable. It is much heavier than the NEQ6. Mine is in my observatory on a pier, where it shines.

Ice (Ivan) · #4 14-03-2019, 07:45 PM

Thanks Glen, I do really like the CGX mount, It's probably overkill for a short tube ED 80 but you are right when you say, think future !!
I have had skywatcher mounts in the past and they proved to be reliable. I haven't had much to do with Celestron, but I probably will soon

that_guy (Tony) · #5 14-03-2019, 08:17 PM

I'd go with the skywatcher. Especially if you're not going to be loading 20+kg of weight in ti. The CGX cannot be controlled as easily via PC compared to the EQ6 which can be controlled quite easily through ascom. I think CGX was supposed to get their own proprietary software through software bisque but I think that fell through.

Startrek (Martin) · #6 14-03-2019, 08:47 PM

I have both a Skywatcher HEQ5 Pro and a EQ6-R Mount
Both are controlled beautifully via Ascom / EQMOD and my planetarium Stellarium
Tracking , Goto and guiding is excellent
The HEQ5 carries my 6” f6 newt plus imaging and guiding gear ( payload about 9kg )
The EQ6-R carries my 8” f5 newt plus imaging and guiding gear ( payload about 13kg )
Extremely happy with these mounts
I’m only a light weigh guy at 69kg and nearly 60 years old and can easily manage the EQ6-R Mount
Cheers

Ukastronomer (Jeremy) · #7 14-03-2019, 08:53 PM

"If you're setting up each session look at the AZ-EQ6"

PLUS 1

That is what i am getting after months of checking reviews

that_guy (Tony) · #8 14-03-2019, 09:11 PM

i think the az eq6 is a bit of a gimmick and a waste of money imo. most everyone I know that owns one never (or hardly ever) uses the az mode. Better to save a few hundred bucks and buy the NEQ6 or the EQ6R if belt drive is that important.

Camelopardalis (Dunk) · #9 15-03-2019, 09:13 AM

Really depends on your use case.

In my experience, the GoTo accuracy tends to be a bit better for visual with the Celestron mounts, especially after performing a 2-star alignment with 4 calibration stars...you'd probably expect it to be better after a "6-star alignment"

Both have some form of polar alignment assist. Again, OK for visual.

For imaging...which given you're talking about an Esprit 80, I'm assuming is your use case...I honestly can't imagine there's a practical difference. Both work well under computer control. Both have their (minor) pros and cons. None use conventional gears (like the good ol' NEQ6). With good polar alignment, you should expect excellent tracking/guiding from either when the seeing permits. And the GoTo thing pales into insignificance if you're using plate solving.

If you're a mobile imager, i.e. you take your mount out to a dark site and set-up, the CGX is quite a beast, so that may be a (slight) con. The EQ6-R and AZ-EQ6 aren't _quite_ so beastly.

But as Glen alluded to, the CGX is a bit more of middle step between an EQ6 and an EQ8, and that's reflected in the price tag...

casstony · #10 15-03-2019, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camelopardalis

Both have some form of polar alignment assist. Again, OK for visual.
..

The ASPA is also fine for imaging up to the 640mm focal lengths I've been using; I'm sure PA would need fine tuning over 1000mm though.

I mostly get away with carefully positioning the tripod legs on marks on the ground, only occasionally checking PA.

casstony · #11 15-03-2019, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by that_guy

i think the az eq6 is a bit of a gimmick and a waste of money imo..

The extra money gives a much better altitude adjuster and a few pounds lighter weight. The AZ version is easier to hold as well; with the base acting as a handle the mount sits conveniently under one arm.

Ice (Ivan) · #12 15-03-2019, 06:43 PM

Thanks for all your feedback, I still have a few weeks to research said mounts, The CGX still appeals to me and yet I still like the EQ6-R.
I suppose this is all part of the adventure of Astronomy

Cheers Ice..

tvandoore (Tim) · #13 21-03-2019, 03:05 PM

I went through this about 6 weeks ago, I had an neq6 and was thinking that it was time for something new. I considered the neq6-r, the azeq6 and the cgx, and ended up with a cgx. I figured that if Im feeling like visual I'd use my manual altaz mount or dob, and the neq6-r was just a refresh of an old (albeit tried and tested) design. What lured me towards the cgx was that it was a "forward thinking" design. Things like the new approach to the alt az bolts, how the head didn't move (where the cables plug in), spring loaded worms, impressive guiding results from others, etc.

They are currently activly developing their CPWI software (you can be a part of their beta testing on teamcelestron.com), and the devs are very responsive to feedback. I had a few issues with it(expected with a beta that is being re released every month or so), so ended up going with plugging through the handset and using the celestron ascom driver, which is easy to use and is rock solid. I find the gotos with the cgx far more accurate than the neq6, and it has a lot more load capacity for not a great increase in mount weight.

Last thing to note - it's rediculous that it took this long for the manufacturers to realise that carry handles are both a simple addition and a huge quality of life improvement. Both the cgx and neq6-r have these, so more just a comment rather than comparison. Eq mounts are awkward to carry.

Ice (Ivan) · #14 22-03-2019, 07:29 PM

Thanks for the reply Tim, Tell me , did you use the CGX with the standard configuration before the Beta software ? If so, how was it out of the box ?
What I like about it is 1: Handles 2: All star alignment 3: spring loaded worm drives. Cheers Ivan

Wavytone · #15 22-03-2019, 09:48 PM

FWIW There’s a superb bag for the EQ6/AZEQ6 mounts from GEOPTIK. Carrying it is a doddle with this.

Ice (Ivan) · #16 23-03-2019, 05:04 PM

Hi Nick, It's not so much transporting the mount's it's more carrying the mount outside and placing it on the tripod, the handles just make it a little more secure, and there's less chance of knocking things out of level.

But I do like the look of those cases

tvandoore (Tim) · #17 24-03-2019, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ice

Thanks for the reply Tim, Tell me , did you use the CGX with the standard configuration before the Beta software ? If so, how was it out of the box ?
What I like about it is 1: Handles 2: All star alignment 3: spring loaded worm drives. Cheers Ivan

I used the beta software straight away, seeking to avoid having to plug through the hand controller. It is promising, and I had some good conversations with the developer, but it isn't quite there yet. I had one particular issue that I suspect had to do with being in the southern hemisphere, and it wouldn't solve and sync in Sgp. Once changing to the standard ascom driver through the hand controller it's been rock solid.

One other nice feature is the home switches - it will find its way to the home position even after you put it in a random spot using the clutches. Seems like a little thing but comes to be quite handy and also seems like magic the first few times it does it.

Ice (Ivan) · #18 24-03-2019, 10:54 AM

Thanks Tim, I'll play with mine in its standard config for a while, I'm in the disturbingly faint polar star region, or "South" as well, so I'll see how I go, I mainly do wide field with short tube refractor's so I'm hoping to be relatively successful with all star alignment, plus I tend to stack multi short 30 second to one minute exposures rather that try for long exposures. Anyhow, once I'm setup and running I'll post a full report

Cheers for now Ivan

tvandoore (Tim) · #19 24-03-2019, 01:21 PM

No probs.

It sounds like you're doing similar work to myself (shorter FL/exposures). I'm at 682mm focal length at the moment, (TS130 w/ .75 reducer) and the ASI1600 OSC. I'm experimenting a bit with different gain and exposure lengths, but nothing over 90s.

The all star polar works well, but if I can get pointed towards the SCP I still use sharpcap (as I did with my EQ6). If you need to set up where you can't see south, it's a thing of wonders.

robomort (Robert) · #20 28-03-2019, 10:56 AM

just went through this same dilemma. Was leaning toward AZEQ for the dual encoders but it seems the encoders are only good enough for visual acquisition not for tracking accuracy. It had some nice mechanical design in there too, pity the EQ6R did not inherit them. I also agonised over the lack of EQmod for the Celestron mounts. sure does limit what you can do unless you keep the hand controller in the loop. In the end I coughed for the CGX for the extra capacity, home sensors, soft/hard axis stops. Mount arrives today