|
The motors might have a step accuracy of 0.06” but that is not an indication of the mounts actual accuracy. So many other parts of the mount come into play when it comes to accuracy:
- Gears and worms smoothness and their exactness in size
- Strength of the machined parts, cheap mounts use casts as opposed to CNC machined
- Backlash
- Overall stiffness
- How well every comment fits together
It wasn’t until I upgraded from my EQ6 that I came to truly appreciate the awesomeness that is a premium mount. My counter weight shaft alone is of higher quality than my entire EQ6. It probably contains more metal than the tripod that came with the EQ6.
One could argue that I spent an obscene amount of money on a mount that in paper has virtually the same capacity and if you go by Sky Watchers marketing probably not that much better. Was it worth it? My god yes!
If I was doing imaging again on my EQ6 there is no way I’d put a 6” triplet refractor on it. Not on any cheaper mount with its capacity. It is not only heavy but has an incredibly long moment arm for a 6” telescope. For visual purposes yes but not for photography.
If you want to use the hyperstar at ~F/2 then it really depends on the camera you want to use as to how well the mount will handle it. It may have a 27kg capacity but I wouldn’t trust it with anything more than 20kg as an entire imaging setup. Once you go over the magic 75% capacity mark with some of the cheaper mounts it isn’t that you cannot do well, it just becomes more difficult to tame the beast.
As most will tell you, if this is going to be your very first astrophotography setup, don’t go in too hard too fast. The iOptron CEM60 may very well do you well (marketed as a slightly beefier EQ6) but I wouldn’t be throwing the biggest nastiest telescope on there as your first soirée.
|