HEQ5 Pro Vs. Meade LXD-75

[toryglen-boy]

am looking at these two mounts, as both have goto, and both have autoguider ports.

Has anyone used both? can anyone comment on them, mainly from an astrophotography slant, although visual use to.

was one easier to use than the other? did one have better PEC?

thanks


:thumbsup:

[Shaun]

Just from what i have read i would say the LXD75 is more like the CG-5 in weight capacity but as you say has an autoguider port, the HEQ5 is a higher grade than this but not as high as the EQ6 in terms of money Andrews has the HEQ5 at a good price the CG-5 is $400 cheaper, the LXD from Bintel is $1299 i think but i have found Bintel prices to be a bit higher than Andrews so if Andrews was selling LXD75 i think they would be similar price as CG-5.

Not exactly the answer you wanted but just the way i see it.

[marki]

I have not used a ldx75 but have used both the synscan and #497 controllers. Verdict the meade controller eats the synta for breakfast.


Mark

[troypiggo]

Just out of interest - can you use EQMOD with the LXD-75?

[rider]

have not used the Meade, but the specs for the HEQ GO-TO accuracy look much better.

anybody done a real sky comparison?

[toryglen-boy]

i guess thats basically what i am after

:thumbsup:

[Fox]

Hi Duncan

No, I have no direct comparison experience, but I do have an LXD75. To be honest, I think the HEQ is definitely the far better mount mechanically, much more solid and certainly much more quiet.

From an AP viewpoint, both mounts are significantly less than the next tier up such as Vixen/Losmandy, but I would rate the HEQ as a better option than the Meade. Let's face it, the LXD is just plain crude its for visual only. It doesn't take much to see that those cheap plastic motors with the most wobbly coupling to the gear/axis has no finesse or precision whatsoever - sure Meade.com shows some fantastic pictures with this mount, but to me it seems more like fantasy unless you have years of AP skill. The gear cog/screws never seem to stay in place, even with loctite, they just eventually work loose over time and need tinkering.

Oh yeah, did I mention the noise... don't start me, I wonder why Meade doesn't go all the way in cost cutting and start using egg-shells to house the motors... it's a shocker.

Depending on your use and taste, the difference in the software and HC is an issue. The tree-menu in Autostar 497 can be an real pain at times, and IMHO I think the short-cut buttons in the Celestron, Synta and Meade Autostar II are a major advantage compared to Autostar 497. If you are into it (as I have started), the ability to write customised tours in Autostar is great, and I don't think even the Synta HEQ has that. But then the Autostar HC memory capacity for customised tours is only around 64kB (!!!) which is utterly pathetic - even if they gave you 1MB it would make the world of difference.

In summary, I think the HEQ is much better, the Meade is fantastic for a rough and ready throw-around visual goto mount, but that's all. Fox

[toryglen-boy]

Thanks Fox, thats exactly what i was after HEQ5 it is


:thumbsup:

[marki]

Fox if you think the meade controller is bad wait until you try a synta. They are absolutely void of any features and are as basic as you can possibly get. They can also be a real pain if you try to upgrade the software. I got a real shock the first time I used one. That said the HEQ5 pro which I do own and use regularly is a nice little mount and you certainly will not go wrong by getting one Duncan. Just remember the max Newt tube size is about 8" (depending on who you talk to) and you would struggle if you tried to load it up too much. They are pretty robust and easy to adjust. Pity you cant marry the meade controller to the synta mount because the result would be a damn fine rig indeed. There have been a few people asking if it could be done on the forum from time to time.

Mark

[Fox]

Hi Mark, thanks for that!

Yeah, I completely agree with you, if we are not talking about taking a PC/Netbook into the field, then the question of software and capability of the HC may well be a deciding issue. In terms of set up and auto-aligning, the Meade AutoStar really shines out - they make it so easy, and for what its worth, I really like the PAS and its very handy illumination control in the LXD75. With the HEQ HC, I believe it's pretty manual all the way, you've got to know your alignment stars.

From this perspective, I assume that NextStar has it all over the Synta/Skywatcher handcontroller. I also assume that the 'Tonights Best" tour in Autostar, NextStar and SkyScan are roughly similar. The "Constellation" tour of NextStar however, seems like a great idea, although I am curious as to how "extensive" it actually behaves, does it 'tour' 20 or 30 deep sky objects in say Sagittarius/Scorpio or just 6 or so bright ones...?

My wish-list entry-level mount would be the HEQ5 Pro but with the choice of Autostar II or Nextstar on top of it...! I wish Meade had used the money spent on developing the Meade Max & LightSwitch instead into simply giving us a real no-plastic upgrade to the LXD75, but I guess that ain't going to happen the way Meade is going. Maybe Celestron will give the CG5 a CGEM type upgrade soon... ? Fox

[toryglen-boy]

yeah, thanks for that mate, it will have an Orion ED80, a Skywatcher ST80, and a Canon D450, it should handle it just fine


:)