10" Newt on EQ6???

[NorthernLight]

Hi Guys,

Has anybody got experience in imaging with a DSLR on 10" Newton f/4 on a NEQ6 mount? The max payload is about 20kg for that mount and I think good practice is to stay at about half that. But I am keen on more aperture and wonder whether I'm limited to 8" or could go 10". I would like to use it with a 2.5x Powermate and a Paracorr plus miniguider and a DSLR.

Too ambitious for that mount? I'm after Galaxies.

Cheers,

[traveller]

Hi Max,
It is possible to mount a 10" f/4 on an EQ6 mount. HOWEVER...
You will need an extra counter weight (3x5kg), and most likely an extension bar for your counterweight shaft. See this thread
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=131740
Bo

[glend]

I used to image with my 10" f5 imaging newt on my NEQ6 with no problems, BUT my 10" Imaging Newt was hand built by me to be very light (circa 12kg, with carbon fibre struts, open tube with a shroud). My all up imaging setup weight was just under 15kg, which is the max I would suggest for any NEQ6. My NEQ6 was hyper tuned and had the Rowan Belt mod, so it was as good as I could make it. I would not stick a 10" GSO Imaging Nwt on that mount but others do.

I still have the 10" f5 Newt but it rides on my CGX mount these days.

[cometcatcher]

I have a mate with a 10" F5 on an EQ6. I think he said it's pretty maxed out with guiding gear.

I better not mention I have a 10" F4 on an HEQ5 Pro :lol:. I am getting away with it because it's in a sheltered observatory, and I've shortened the legs. Lower to the ground reduces vibration.

[Anth10]

Hi Max,
I too have a 10"Newtonian telescope than has a thick premium glass primary mirror hand ground. Let me say it is heavy and awkward. With my canon 60d DSLR it's combined payload is 17.5kg. It's a 1250mm focal length Scope making it a long tube at F5. It sits well on my Neq6 no probs however I do have it very well balanced which is paramount. The mount does have 4 counterweights on the extended counterweight rod. I have the tripod legs low to keep the system as solid as possible eliminating vibrations setup on concrete paving as Kevin rightly mentioned.
I do need the conditions to be favourable so little to no wind helps. A little tip I can suggest is too keep the balance of the scope marginally east heavy. This reduces backlash in the motor. I haven't got any guiding equipment on the OTA so I can't comment beyond what I currently have in terms of performance. Although I'd like to at some stage. I think with a small finderscope and guiding camera it may add close to another kilogram which is stretching the limit of astrophotography for my system. Many would say it's well over but I'm happy enough with the shots I've taken. I'm still honing my skills with the Newt and I understand that my images aren't perfect but improving I hope.

Overall Max if it's galaxies you're intererested in then the large aperture is the way to go. You won't be disappointed with its light capture that's for sure which is all important for imaging faint objects. I'd say give it a go.
One final tip is that I found a good steady power source keeps the motor running consistently with no lagging which can happen on colder nights if using a small portable battery.

Good luck,
Anth

[NorthernLight]

Thanks guys, seeing the 10" on the eq6 looks indeed a bit scary. I almost think 8" or a Cat might be my way to go.
Clear skies!

[Atmos]

My first telescope was a 10" newt on an EQ6, only used it for visual, wouldn't ever consider doing it for imaging :P

[photonmaster]

Hi Max,
I'm a noob who's just setup an 8in newt on an AZ-EQ6 so for what they're worth, my thoughts...
8in or 10in won't make much difference to the mounts performance. The issue is more the general one re using a newt for AP. I suspect that keeping the weight of all the attachments to a minimum is essential and limiting.
The mount itself has impressed me so far but of course there's been no sight of octans yet to polar align accurately. Setup to work from Stellarium was pretty easy (once I changed the cheap blue tooth to serial port).
I say go for it considering the price for the aperture. Or wait til the sky clears and I'll post some pics.
Cheers
Clint

[Atmos]

I'd have to disagree with the difference between an 8" & 10". A quick look at the Bintel site shows the 8" F/4 weighing in at 8.9kg while the 10" F/4 is about 15kg.

That extra 2" adds a considerable amount of weight.

[Camelopardalis]

Something nobody else has mentioned, so I'll bring it up...

Try a lighter camera with smaller pixels, something based around a mono chip such as the IMX178. Sensitive, low noise, 14-bit. If you're chasing galaxies, you'll mostly want luminance, so the small mono pixels will give you good detail/resolution but you'll have the benefit of imaging at f/4. As a result, your subs won't need to be too long.

Of course it doesn't get around the need to balance your scope carefully. I've taken shots with C11+reducer+OAG+DSLR...probably not much shy of 18kg...it's doable, but a breath of wind and it upsets the guiding :lol:

[doppler]

jsmoraes a member here at iceinspace captures some nice images with a 12" GSO on an neq6. With a fast fat newt you can get away with short subs and not worry with all the extras involved in auto guiding.

[cometcatcher]

That sounds like me. I'll have to keep an eye on that one.

[NorthernLight]

Mmmmh, not as straight forward as I thought. But I believe that a 9kg 8" Newton plus guidescope, DSLR with extra battery grip and a parracor plus a powermate will weigh in at about 14kg, wich is probably the max amount I want to balance on that mount. Currently I can do 12.5min exposures with subarcsecond guiding and that's a 6" f/5 Newton power mated to 1875mm f/12.5. The 8" f/4 would come out at 2000mm f/10, wich should reduce the length of subexposures, fill the frame a little more and be easy to guide. The 10" would be a game changer regarding focal length but I am seriously worried about straining the mount and introducing issues I never had to deal with (vibration, flexure etc.)
Thank you all for your valued opinion. If I'm going with a Newt. it will be the 8".
Clear skies!

[doppler]

If it's focal length around 2000mm that you are after you would be best to go for an 8" or 10" RC scope. Putting a barlow on a fast newt defeats the purpose of a low f ratio, but I suppose with the newt you can have high mag but still change to rich field for larger objects.

[glend]

God no, don't mention the budget GSO RCs! I had one, and fought with it for a year trying to get it setup right, bought all the suggested extras (collimation ring, Moonlight Focuser, TAK Collimation scope, etc), and still it drove me crazy. I sold it. I am sure some people find them great value performers, but imho they require real dedication and extra expense to tune them correctly. Newts are so simple by comparison. If your after a 2000mm focal length, have a look at the Celestron Edge HD8 (fl 2032mm); easy to collimate but slow photographically at f10, but with the reducer f7; corrected for flat field, a nice all round performer. However, at that focal length guiding requires good mount performance, a good guide setup (likely OAG), and more time for subs.
Fast Newts have a lot going for them. My MN190 f5.3 Mak-Newt (1000mm fl) is an absolute gem.

[Somnium]

it has been said before but i will say it again, i ran a 10" f4 newt on a NEq6, you will need additional counterweights and/or a extension bar. i also ran a 2x barlow with my dslr and a QHY9 ccd which all worked well.

[NorthernLight]

And you didn't have to deal with bad guiding, vibrations etc.? My proposed setup would still be f10, so it would require 10min exposures with dithering.

[Somnium]

f10 might be a bit difficult, you are pushing the limits there. at f4 i was able to get some good images.
https://www.facebook.com/618688161540178/photos/a.734031263339200.1073741833.618688 161540178/756281284447531/?type=3&theater

long exposures would be touch and go, there would be a few i had to discard but i was largely limited by the seeing conditions. having said that, it was definitely on the limit of the mount's capacity and i did upgrade to a paramount (other reasons such as remote controlling factored in though)

[Paullus]

Slight thread resurrection.


I'm in a similar predicament to the OP. I'm choosing between a 8" and 10" f/5 for my NEQ6 (w/ extension bar and 3x CWs). Initially looking to a do a mix of visual and imaging with a DSLR and small guiding setup but no doubt the camera and guide scope will be upgraded down the track.

I'm torn between the two sizes and am chasing some updated/recent experiences since this thread was created over a year ago. My instinct is to over-engineer so I'm leaning towards the 8" but if the mount will handle the 10" with a few addons from time to time then I'll go bigger. I'm hoping to keep the mount for some time.

Cheers

[Andy01]

IIS user and imager, Al Sam - had a handbuilt CF tube f10” f4 Newt on his EQ6.
It was belt modded & hypertuned, and he regularly did 1hr subs with it and the results were perfect!
When he eventually upgraded to a Paramount, I purchased his old EQ6- which I’m delighted to say is still going strong with all of my scopes, punching well above it’s weight for $ value. :thumbsup:

[xelasnave]

I come from an era where one tried to keep weight down so I lean to the eight inch, as I have done.
I may consider ten inch if a permanent set up for a variety of reasons.
I like to baffle my tubes have extended baffled dew tubes, four scope rings in stead of two...plus I will add something to beef up areas of perceived flex in time, add camera and filter wheel, guide scope and a optical 70mm finder viewer with a illuminated reticle...my point is it all adds up.
But these days one seems to get away with the help of guiding and short exposures.
Heck...buy the big one you know you wont be happy unless you do.
Good luck.
Alex

[xelasnave]

Over a decade ago my eq6 carried a 12 inch 1200 mm fl. A steel tube that came on a dob mount ..so heavy.. It worked ok but I kept to objects directly above and moved it manually... it tracked fine.
A great mount.
Alex

[doppler]

Go the 10", I have been using one on an HEQ5 for over a year now and haven't had any issues yet. If you want to beef up the load carrying put it on a pier. I put an extension bar on mine and only need 2 counterweights now.

[astronobob]

I all for the 10" on any EQ6, been doing it for yrs, mind you out at dark skies with an off-axis-guider 'cutting weight & gaining more guiding accuracy' tho the last year doing in suburbs needing the seperate guide scope for more guide stars, I have also added an extra two tube rings for stability - meaning I also needed to make a custom near 1 meter long Dovetail bar, plus I have two finders, one with camera , other for visual ? ?

So my payload is over 20kg maybe 22-23,, but I believe the most important thing is BALLANCE, meaning, the mount will carry the weight no probs, but if you are Not Ballance well, than the risk of OverLoading is the possibility of damage to the drive motors &/or gear stripping/binding etc !

My motors, gears & bearings run very quietly & smoothly - hence, not overworking due to excessive load !
But in saying this, I have tweaked the worm gears, motor gearings and my bearings are cleaned and well greased.

Tho, this is not quite a beginners task, Paul, but all in all if your confident with ballance , you will be ok, and as mentioned in other's replies, getting out & into a club is very beneficial, and it is there where you can learn about balancing you scope nicely - it is like adjusting the 'camber & pitch' of the wheels of a race car, if it is way off, your tyres are going to scrub, heat up excessively, strip the treads or rip the walls apart, hehaha :eyepop: OK, we are not powering our scope mounts with V8's but the stresses on the moving-parts (where it counts) are similar :P

My bob's worth

Over :evil:

[cometcatcher]

That looks ready for an observatory to cover it up Rick!

[Paullus]

Thanks for the feedback folks. I was *almost* sold on the 10" but I've gone against the tide and opted for the 8". My reasoning is below.

Advantages of 10" over 8" (both f/5):
- extra 200mm of focal length
- ~60% more mirror area

Advantages of 8" over 10":
- less weight (for me and the mount)
- short tube/less surface area (less prone to vibrations caused by wind?)
- lower price
- secondary correctly sized (the SW 10" has an undersized 58mm secondary. Upgrading this adds to the cost of a 10")

There might have been a couple of more reasons but I can't think of them right now. It's not to say I won't put a bigger scope on the NEQ6 but the 8" will suit my needs for now.

Cheers

[Startrek]

Paul,
Have you looked at the Bintel GSO 8” f5 newt ?

I currently have a Bintel 6” f6 and it’s a great little scope

I use it both for visual and imaging ( see photos )

There is a post in “beginners equipment”comparing the Skywatcher 8” f5 black diamond photo newt with the Bintel GSO f5 newt

I’m buying a second scope ( 8” f5 newt on a NEQ6R mount ) early next year to use at my holiday house (semi dark site ) I will leave the existing 6” in Sydney

I will more than likely choose the Bintel GSO over the Skywatcher at this stage

Good luck with your purchase