Hi,
I’m looking to buy my first decent mount. I think I understand some of the main differences between the AZ-EQ5 Pro and HEQ5 Pro mounts. I see some merit in the AZ version for me (mainly visual use now but definitely interested in trying photography later).
What I was wondering is that if I chose the AZ version am I compromising anything performance wise? Does the regular HEQ5 Pro mount do anything better than the AZ version?
Thanks
Last edited by Roo; 21-12-2024 at 06:22 PM.
Reason: Typo
Do you mean the EQ5 Pro or the HEQ5 Pro? They are different mounts with different capabilities.
The AZ-EQ5 is a big step up from the EQ5, and less a step over the HEQ5. I would certainly take it over the EQ5, even just for the additional payload (15kg vs 10kg) without taking other things into account.
The differences with the HEQ5 are much less, though the AZ-EQ5 still has an advantage in payload, specified at 15kg for astrophotography so possibly higher for visual while the HEQ5 tops out at 13.7kg, though you probably wouldn't want over about 10kg for astrophotography.
I liked my AZ-EQ5, but moved it on to fund a larger mount. Both the HEQ5 & AZ-EQ5 are decent mounts and either will serve you well. But the HEQ5 won't do anything better than the AZ-EQ5 which also has a few advantages over it. And the advantage of the AZ-EQ5 for visual is huge in terms of setup time.
For me, I would go with the AZ-EQ5, and avoid the EQ5 Pro if that was what you were comparing it too. Just my thoughts.
Hi Roo, I don’ t do visual much any more. I have an EQ6R. If I were to do visual, I would use plate solving via my finder/guider and guide camera to find the object and observe through the main telescope as the equatorial mount tracked the object. You could probably do this with the HEQ5 pro and maybe the AZeq5 pro. The eq6r is a good astrophotography mount and larger payload. I use a 10 inch F4 Newtonian successfully ( some would say this is too heavy). It is heavier than the HEQ5 if weight is an issue for you.
Cheers, Rob
What's your gear? You might consider the EQ6 if not over-budget or too much overkill. Nonetheless ,the sky watchers seem to have good resale value if want to later upgrade.
Imaging is all about the mount - I've learnt this from my own struggles!!
I currently only have a lightweight 100mm refractor but an 8” Cassegrain is in my sights for ~January. It’s a bit over 8kg.
I think the EQ6 is a bit heavy for me at the moment. I’d like to be able to carry it around easily. The resale value does appear good if I decide I need heavier stuff later.
The AZ-EQ5 will handle both of just fine, even for astrophotography. Used to run a 102mm triplet on mine without an issue & you have plenty of leeway for the C8.
Another plus for this mount is it's portability, the mount head is a couple of kilos lighter, despite the greater capacity. And if you're feeling adventurous in AZ mode, you could run both at once on the mount. I used to do that with EAA.
I'm beginning to wish I had kept mine now & saved longer for the EQ6-R, but I was going to newtonians so wanted the extra capability of the bigger mount.
I have the AZ-EQ5 and it has been a very fine mount and bought as a travel toy - The pier version packs up really small and works great with SCT's and Refractors.
Pictured is un-boxing with my C8, the image of omega cent is from an Esprit 100, about an hours worth of subs, none rejected, and shows just how well it guides using an ASI-air.
I’ve read that the pier mount version of the AZ-EQ5 is less rigid than the regular tripod version. I can see how that would be the case but is it really an issue in reality?
I had the non-pier version and it worked fine, but I did end up buying a pier extension for it as well - my 102mm f7 refractor would get too close to the legs at times. But I found it too long and yes, slightly less stable, mainly due to the centre of gravity being so much higher. I actually purchased some 3mm aluminium tube I was going to use to make a shorter version but never got around to doing it before selling the mount.
I think someone like Jonathan may be better to talk about stability of the pier version as he has one. But I can't see it being too big an issue.
I think the pier version an the pier extension are two quite different beasts mechanically. I can certainly see how mating the extension onto the standard head could be less than solid but fortunately the pier version is very well engineered and solid as a rock.
One thing to note, the Pier tripod is really optimised for astro-photography over visual and is somewhat shorter overall. I never extended the legs, so the telescope is only belly height. Not much fun if you plan to look through a refractor, but a nice sitting height for an SCT.
The only potential negative I would see to the AZ-EQ5 over the older style EQ only mount is that it looks like the clutch design is the same as the AZ-EQ6. They are not a problem in themselves, but for astrophotography use the design makes them harder to balance as the payload sits on the Dec clutch and to a lesser extent on the RA clutch.
For my Orion Atlas Pro (An AZ-EQ6 with a coat of black paint) I found that to balance the Dec it needed to be rotated to a counterweights high position to keep the clutch from dragging, and the RA needed the mount set to 0 elevation to get as much weight of that clutch as possible. Nothing impossible to manage, just a little more fiddly than the EQ clutch design.
