SynScan EQ6 vs. Losmandy

[mick pinner]

Spot on Alexander. What really gets me going is the way some people throw around all these obscure theorums that try to prove that they are smarter than the next guy, (see earlier posts), and because of this they must be better astrophotographers.
IIS is an amateur forum l assume formed to help us newbies (as we all were once) increase our knowledge and if wanted our photographic skills.
l love Peter Wards images and a lot of others peoples too but this forum in itself is not an imaging competition, we look or at least l do, at the pics submitted and relating them to the gear used judge them on that.
Are Peters images spectacular when compared to his gear? l don't know.
Are EzyStyles images spectacular with his gear? you bet your a**e they are, how do l know? because l can relate to the gear and other images taken with similar gear, and let it not be forgotten these two probably have about a 30 year gap in experience. l use Eric as an example only and could have used many others, hope Eric dosen't mind.
Many of us didn't know a thing about astrophotography 2 years ago and l for one am more than happy with my progress as other are no doubt happy with theirs Ken, Barb & Dave as examples, if those that think their knowledge is superior want to banter amongst themselves fine but do it privately please, this is l think still an amateur forum.

[Peter Ward]

Indeed this thread seems to have lost its point...i.e how does a EQ stack up against a Losmandy G-11/8 ?

For short focal length imaging (up to say about 1200mm) an EQ6/5 will work well. In skilled hands extremely well.

The Losmandy product costs more, and performs better. Question is: how much better? The answer lies on the sort of imaging you want to do.

Web/Cam planetary work. Admittedly very long FL, but really only the seeing matters with fast frame rates at that image scale.

Short focal length imaging. Tracking can be very loose, and is often hidden in the camera pixel size.

For long focal length deep sky imaging (2500mm plus) IMHO tracking accuracy really matters.....for this I am considered pompous?.... aye currumba...but no matter, I'll just go back to trying to hack out a few more images when time permits.

Cheers
Peter

[mick pinner]

Pompous? l don't think so, you are spot on.
lf l may ask a question about something that has not been mentioned yet, l find that the f/l of the guide scope if one is being used as opposed to an OAG has a great bearing on tracking accuracy, any thoughts?

[Aster]

Mick, If I may, 35 years ago when I started in deep space photography I was told, by the then amateur experts, that 2x the focal length of the instrument used for taken photos is a must.

My instrument in them days was a 12.5" F6 Reflector. Guiding was done offaxis with a 12mm plus 2.5x Barlow. Any movement was detected and corrected before it was picked up by the mainscope.

Someone from IIS saw some of my old black/white prints from that time, not so long ago, and their first comment was on the pin point images of the stars. Guiding and good focus.

[Dennis]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

>snip.....for this I am considered pompous?.... aye currumba...but no matter, I'll just go back to trying to hack out a few more images when time permits.

Cheers
Peter

Peter, having read your posts, my pomposity meter has yet to register a reading - not even a flicker so far!

I have enjoyed the discussion and like others, have learned much.

Cheers

Dennis

[Peter Ward]

Mick,

Guider FL only needs to be a good proportion eg 75% of the main OTA.

Even less if you are using an autoguider. I have used just a 250mm lens to accurately guide a 1200mm scope.... This is due to the fact many autoguiders make sub-pixel corrections.

More of a problem is differential flexure which may become apparent after just 5 minutes of guiding with long FL system.

Have a good one
Peter

[Zuts]

Peter,

Since this also seems to be a Q&A thread

When I drift align for imaging through my FL 480mm D 80mm scope i use it to do the drift aligning. I use a 9mm reticle which gives me roughly 50 mag and if i am not too lazy do a second round of drift aligning with a barlow.

My EQ6 manual says to drift align properly i need around 300 mag, but clearly this is a big ask for a small scope.

If i drift align through the barlow is this good enough, is non barlowed good enough given my imaging focal length, i only want 5 to 15 minute subs at most and generally guide through a 70mm achro using PHD.

Thanks Paul

[Prickly]

Most photos I see arent at 2.5m focal length. Sure you need good tracking at that focal length and a G11 would deliver - even then though perhaps it might be pretty tricky I would have thought (what scope and f ratio by the way - would that be getting heavy for even a G11??).

For what its worth Ive seen some great photos with Eq6s and VC200Ls (1.8m focal length).

Adding an autoguider to a Eq6 will have a big impact on a Eq6s performance still at a much lesser cost than a G11 which may suit some people. Have a friend who tells me his Eq6 pro has quite gradual changes in periodic error and autoguides well. If my scope were just an ED80 I would find it hard to justify the cost of a G11.

Personal views only.

[Prickly]

By the way since we are posting images I did a quick search on Eq6 and VC200L and found this chaps images. Little details provided but I think taken at 1.8m fl. Pretty good.

http://picasaweb.google.com/espeluznante33

Also found this on guiding at 2.5m focal length (yes I guess you could use a 10inch SCT at f10 - slow but certainly ok on a G11).
"
If reducing the guiding focal length seems counterintuitive, consider that
for a long focal length the limiting factor in the ST4's guiding is the
seeing limit. For example, at 2500mm each ST4 error unit is only 1/4 of an
arcsecond, and a seeing error of only 2.5 arcseconds will cause an "E"
indication. If the seeing is 3 arcseconds (fairly common) just the seeing
errors will cause continual "E" indications on both axes. In effect you are
trying to make the ST4 guide to a finer resolution than the seeing will
allow, which is not only useless but makes it harder for the ST4 to
recognize and respond to drive-generated errors. If you cut the guiding
focal length in half (with a reducer) then each error unit will be 0.5
arcseconds, still plenty of accuracy to achieve all the resolution the
seeing will allow, but without generating E's all the time."

I havent even tried to calculate it all out to check but my gut feeling is that while possible on a great night it might be hard at the best of times to guide at 2.5m fl. Couldnt find any examples of shots at 2.5m fl with an Eq6.

Cheers
David

[Hagar (Doug)]

WOOOW, I'm tired ready this, but isn't it great to see such a wealth of knowledge and for it to be readilly available to us mear beginners in this wonderful pastime. It looked like the hackles went up for a while but the teeth weren't exposed. Sometimes to get to the bottom of a subject a little heat can make the difference. Great to read, great to learn and at times comical.
Thanks
Doug

[Prickly]

In the end we can all understand why anyone would like a G11. Ive no doubt the chap who bought one will be thrilled. But an Eq6 is still very nice too and not to be underestimated.

Another example of what can be done at quite high focal length of 1.8m with a modded Eq6.

http://qhyccd.com/ccdbbs/index.php?P...ic=309.msg1871

I suspect there are others out there with Eq6s looking on who are quietly watching on aware of their great potential. Terry B from this site has posted images using a VC200L (what a great scope) on an Eq6.

Cheers,
David

[Comet Hunter]

I've found this discussion very interesting! I'm currently debating the EQ6 vs G11 issue myself. While I know the issues both sides are presenting, it often helps to hear others point them out to keep things in perspective.

I know I'm better off getting the best mount I can - and eventually I will! All this time in acquiring my new gear I've intended on a G11 (atleast), however, recently things have changed slightly and I find myself considering the EQ6/EQMOD route. I've come very close to pulling the trigger either way on a number of occasions - I just wanna get out there!! I've even found myself in times of weakness looking at Titans/AP mach1's, 900, 1200's etc!!!Yeah, I know, how can you go from a EQ6 to a AP? Same way I went from a 80ED piggybacked on my LX to a FSQ/ST2k I suppose!.... It's all Jase' fault!!

Ultimately for me, it's a matter of either risking it and getting out there now with a EQ6 that I 'may' be happy with and clock some time up and upgrade later to a Losmandy, or, wait a little while longer and to do it right/better/easier(??) the first time round with the G11, knowing I'll probably have an easier/happier time with it. Given the time/investment I've had this paperweight sitting on my desk for so far, another month or three wont hurt! I just need to fight these impulses to go the quick route!!

[jase (Jason)]

Originally Posted by Comet Hunter

... It's all Jase' fault!!

You'll thank me later Andrew. Trust me.

Was trying to avoid re-entering this thread as it seems to have been bantered around a little too long and ultimately the poll is conclusive. Get a quality mount, the best you can afford. Nothing more, nothing less.

Don't overlook image processing software and skills folks. As Ken indicates, having great equipment doesn't automatically mean you'll produce great images. As you advance, you'll soon realise that acquiring the data at the telescope is only a small percentage of producing a great image. The real work begins extracting the most from the data you've obtained. If you can't image process, your imaging equipment investment will be wasted.

Know the tools and more importantly when to use them.

[multiweb (Marc)]

Hi all, thanks a lot for all the feedback. Just one thing I thought I'd point out as a lot of the info I was asking in the original post got lost in the heat of the thread.

I've asked: "Am I better off getting a Losmandy G-8 or an EQ6 for roughly the same price" which I believe was around the $2.5k ball park. My argument was that I'd rather go lighter with better tracking than being able to handle more load with not so good tracking. This thread went on into comparing an EQ6 to a G-11.

I heard a lot of people saying you just can't afford a G-11 first time. Hey, I'm in the same boat. Who's got $5k+ to put in a mount first time? Not me.
The only reason I got the G-11 is that it was for sale second hand with Gemini and I'm stoked I got it. Tha wasn't part of the plan.

Now you guys are comparing something that's worth $5-6k to something that's worth $2.5k. If I wanted to bear heavy load of course I'd get the EQ6 for my budget.

As far as the mount goes only time will tell and I'll make sure I'll post some photos when I'm all up and running, weather permitting. I also heard you have to do the best you can with what you've got. And I will. I just got lucky to get a G-11 when I wasn't even contemplating the idea of getting one. It's Xmas now!

[Peter Ward]

FYI....Current price of G-11's with dual axis drive and arguably the best tripod on the market is $A3450...not a whole lot more than an EQ6....

Peter

[avandonk]

Multiweb

My original post said it all.

Sorry to get so excited. At my age you are down to three w---s a day.

A good outcome for you.

Bert

Originally Posted by avandonk

I have managed to get very good tracking, lack of backlash etc on both a HEQ5 and EQ6 as they both have belt drives and much beefier stepper motors that eliminate the spur cut gearboxs. I think that these gearboxes are what let them down.

My first mount a HEQ5 had random 'microjumps' that only showed up at long focal lengths ie 1800mm. I replaced the motors and gearboxes with Astromeccanica motors with belt drives. The difference was amazing.

I am Happy with my EQ6 with belt drives and Mel Bartels system (see pic below). But I should have bit the bullet and gone for a 'quality' mount from day one in hindsight.

At least the cheaper mounts give you experience and if you are really still keen just simply upgrade as then you should have some idea of what you need rather than what you want.

Here is a pic of Omega Centauri taken with the Tal200k at 1800mm f/9 on the EQ6.
http://avandonkbl.bigblog.com.au/dat...1017145329.jpg


Bert

[Prickly]

G11 base cost may be around 3.5K but still approx double an Eq6 without computerisation. Dont forget to factor in accessory plates etc to mount the scope.

As mentioned previously need to look at needs and whether you really plan to be taking photos at 2.5m focal length.

A previous post showed an autoguider used with an Eq6 gave around 3 arc sec error which seems pretty good.

Also in my opinion compared to $2160US for a G11 at Anacortes in the US I think they seem overpriced at that amount. Woudnt buy one at that price personally out of principle.

[multiweb (Marc)]

You're right. By the time you add the bits and pieces and the Gemini you're a bit over $5k incGST. Wishing you all a merry Xmas and hoping Santa brings you all the "bits and pieces" you need for your rigs including a patient and understanding wife (sort of).

[Gerald Sargent]

There is no substitute for a quality mount, my route was
C8 on fork mount > G8 with steppers, which was quite good,
G8 + FS2 which was excellent > G8 + Gemini about which the
less said the better, > Atlux with SS2KPC which out of the box
was superb from the word go > AP Mach1

I suggest that aspiring imagers get onto the AP webb site and
put their names down for the 2 year wait for a Mach 1, at
the asking it is a steal. My (costly) experience

[rumples riot]

Peter,

while I can see your points on the accuracy of the mounts I think you may have overlooked the accuracy needed for planetary imaging. You simply are making assessments in a field you are not practicing or indeed have much knowledge about (I am not trying to insult you, just you need to understand).

I always say, you either decided to go full on into DSO or Planetary. You cannot really do both well. They require good mounts, but equipment and techniques differ from each field. Like yourself I am striving to achieve the best image possible and will go to any length to achieve this, including gutting a new C14 and installing peltiers, using guiding to hold the planet on the chip when it is the size of an orange, spending enless hours working up new processing ideas. In other words like yourself.

Admittedly up until 4 years ago planetary imaging was considered as a bit of joke. The Techniques that Damian, Bird, Pete Lawrence, Dave Tyler, Mike and myself (just to name a few who are dedicated to this) have brought this part of imaging into the 21st century. Many people marvel at the images obtained, but they do still require the same gear you are talking about.

Now back to my point. At 11,000mm + (going up to 23,000mm) you need a very accurated mount to image the planets. I can say that at 11,000mm the EQ6 worked well, but would have needed guiding to stay on top the situation at much higher focal lengths. This is more than 4x the FL you are suggesting. Yes the major difference is that the planet can move a bit, because we stack hundreds of frames and DSO imagers cannot do this. However, when imaging at 17,000mm my CGE holds the field quite well and simply needs some corrections to keep it centred. The point being that the accuracy of the mount must be as good for what you describe Web/Cam planetary as DSO work. If the mount is not solid and stable you will not get good results in planetary imaging either. A 14,000mm Jupiter (near opposition) looks the size of the 640x 480 viewing pane. If the EQ6 was not a good mount it would not be able to produce the goods. It does need some work to get it great, but it does not equate to $4000.00 worth of difference.

In addition the EQ6 mod group have and are producing really nice images from this mount. Yes you get what you pay for, that has always been the case, but the tools are not always at fault with the tradesman.

You images are a credit to your level of committment, but you should not disregard the level of expertise that other imaging requires these days. Nor the level of excellence that an accomplished imager could achieve with an EQ6 if they put their mind to it.

Winning awards can be easy when there is no competition. Winning does not guarantee perfection and should not be the bench mark for a conversation on the merits of equipment. There are too many other factors involved than just the equipment.