Starting again

[seriousfun (Allan)]

I am rekindling my interest in AP after an absence of about 20 yrs. I used to run a C8 on a wedge and use stuff called photographic film. Now it seems to have all changed.

This time I have decided to go down the refractor route and have bought myself a Sky Watcher short focus 600/120 mm. I have had one nice night so far and really like the views. Just as nice as I remember the C8 to be. The mount is an AZ3 which is obviously not suitable for AP so here comes my question..... what mount should I get.

I have been looking at the following: EQ3, EQ5, Ioptron ZEQ25 as they all fall into my price range. I am sort of leaning more toward the last two as they may allow a larger scope to be fitted in the future . The other thing I need to consider though is the portability of the thing so don't want something I cannot lug around.

Would appreciate the thoughts of you learned folk on this matter even it is a mount I have not yet considered.

Thanks in advance.

[raymo]

I Have the same scope as you, and have it on an EQ3-2 with dual axis drives.
This handles the scope well enough, but if you want to go up in size a bit
in the future, I would definitely get a larger mount. If you want to get a
decent amount of imaging done in any one session I would recommend a
Go-To mount; no star hopping looking for your targets. I have no idea if your budget would stretch to one of those, of course.
I am getting on in years, and have got this scope/mount as my last
because I can carry it complete with battery, and be up and running for
visual in just a few moments. The EQ5 with dual axis drives is the smallest
mount that I would recommend; it is easily portable, and would carry a
C-8 easily for visual, and be at about its limit for imaging. An HEQ5 or
equivalent would be better, but is much heavier and more expensive[they come up quite often here for around $700-800 used.]
raymo

[dannat (Daniel)]

if it were me id go the zeq25, its quite small & light, innovative design, folks on cloudy nights seem happy with it -its a fair bit more portable than heq5

[seriousfun (Allan)]

Originally Posted by dannat

if it were me id go the zeq5, its quite small & light, innovative design, folks on cloudy nights seem happy with it -its a fair bit more portable than heq5

I presume you meant the zeq25 ? If so its the way i am leaning as it also carries a but more weight, the draw back though is that its a fair bit more money than the eq5 which is currently available on a good special. Oh decisions.....


Many thanks for the feedback guys.

[silv (Annette)]

another thing to consider:
the way astrophotos are taken has also changed.
From film to DSLR to ... webcams-straight-into-computer!

And with the direction obviously going towards "webcam"-like cameras: they get better and better and need less and less long subs.

On the other hand: the storing computer needs more and more space.

Or/And: computers nowadays can actually manage to stack subs on the fly allowing for real-time video astronomy.

What does that mean for your new mount?
You won't have to calculate with heavy guidscopes, OAG or DSLR body.
The 4kg OTA plus 1kg of stuff is really all the mount would have to carry if you go down the webcam path.

If your subs are 30 seconds, you can even make do with a motorized Alt/Az mount.

[seriousfun (Allan)]

All good valid points silv. The changes in astro photography over recent years has been 'astronomical' .

I see the main advances from this point onwards being computor based rather than optic based, and that includes cmos cameras ( And ccd ) as part of the computer side of things. Cmos imho will take over from ccd, at least in the amateur field, if no other reason than the cost to benefit ratio.

It is indeed, an interesting time in which to live and pursue a highly technological hobby.

[Merlin66 (Ken)]

Allan,
IMHO for your sanity.... go for a HEQ5 mount.
This will get you started and give room for "growth"
( I, like you, started many years ago with C8 and hypered Kodak)
The real issue becomes the choice of camera and computer......

[seriousfun (Allan)]

Regrettably, as good as the heq is it falls outside of my budget. I am already having to part with a guitar to buy a lesser mount, and to part with two guitars is simply not going to happen lol.

[RobF (Rob)]

HEQ5pro is as low as you should go however to do decent astrophotography. Will cost more and cause regret in the long run if you buy less. Better to hold off if possible.

[sil (Steve)]

Originally Posted by RobF

HEQ5pro is as low as you should go however to do decent astrophotography. Will cost more and cause regret in the long run if you buy less. Better to hold off if possible.

Exactly! Part with asecond guitar or make groceries stretch a bit longer and save the extra, keep an eye on the forum sales area and you should be to pick up the right tripod from the start. Growth in astronomy has been astronomical but so has buyers regrets. It all starts with the tripod and mount and going for something now that might just do the job wont be suitable for any growth in future and its drawbacks might just hamper your enjoyment right now too. Hold off and buy the right tool for the job mate.

[seriousfun (Allan)]

I note that the HEQ5 is rated for 13.5kg and the mount itself weighs 15.5kg

The AEQ25 is rated for 12.3kg and the mount itself weighs in at 4.7kg.

From this I don't see any difference of consequence in the rated loading, however the weight of the mounts are hugely different. The advantages of the ZEQ25 would be the portability of the mount but I wonder if the lighter weight would impact on the mounts stability?

I should add, I have serious heart issues and the lower weight of the mount is an attractive feature if its not going to impact on stability.

Can anyone advise on this aspect?

[raymo]

Are all the figures the same for both mounts? for instance the 15.5kg
includes the tripod; the mount is about 10.6kg. Does the 4.7kg include the tripod? if it does the mount/tripod setup must be flimsy. Is the 12.3kg
the payload max, or is it the max load including the counterweights?
so the max actual payload would be around 6 or 7kg.

raymo

[seriousfun (Allan)]

Originally Posted by raymo

Are all the figures the same for both mounts? for instance the 15.5kg
includes the tripod; the mount is about 10.6kg. Does the 4.7kg include the tripod? if it does the mount/tripod setup must be flimsy. Is the 12.3kg
the payload max, or is it the max load including the counterweights?
so the max actual payload would be around 6 or 7kg.

raymo

The mount weights I have quoted are total weights of tripod and head, the load weights do not include the counterweights.

The zeq is a very compact head with a very centralised centre of gravity and i beleive it is this which enables it to carry loads well in excess of its weight.

I have had no experience with german mounts as my celestron was a fork mount design. I can only judge from others comments. This mount has been receiving some favourable comments on cloudy nights.

[RobF (Rob)]

I can't comment on ZEQ25 (Ioptron). My remarks were that you need to buy above EQ5 (i.e. HEQ5Pro or higher) in the Skywatcher/Orion mounts.