SkyWatcher AZ/EQ5 GoTo Pier vs HEQ5

[Mokusatsu (Australia)]

I'm really struggling to make up my mind about a mount.

I bought from IceInSpace a nice Televue NP101, without a mount. I'm quite keen to get a goto mount.

The weight of an NP101 is just under 7kg. With Powermate and Ethos eyepieces let's round it up generously to 10kg.

The SkyWatcher AZ/EQ5 has stated max payload of 15kg, but I'm assuming that's for visual use and for best results I'd want something even beefier for long exposure photography.

The AZ/EQ5 is $2K at Bintel.
http://www.bintel.com.au/Mounts---Tr...oductview.aspx

I'm currently purely a visual observer and the alt-az mode appeals to me a lot, but with a scope like this I would be sorely tempted to do astrophotography.

I'm weighing this up against an HEQ5, second hand. It'll cost less than half as much, but not have alt-az mode. Also, it's a used mount with no warranty etc etc.

Another option would be the Sky-Watcher AZ-EQ6 SynScan, $2.6K at Bintel. It'll take 20kg, weighs a lot more.

http://www.bintel.com.au/Mounts---Tr...oductview.aspx

Can anyone comment on whether for a light-ish scope like an NP101 the AZ/EQ5 and the HEQ5 would be adequate for my needs as a visual guy who might want to try photography?

It's not just the extra $600, that's relatively insignificant over the life of the product, I'm concerned about the AZ-EQ6's weight, I wonder if such a heavy thing might make it a pain to transport and set up. I might want to take both my scopes out with me stargazing, and there is only so much room in the back of a Yaris. (My other scope is a Skywatcher 12" goto Dob.)

I guess my questions are:

1) how much better is the AZ-EQ6 for a visual+photo dabbling application than a AZ/EQ5?
2) My primary concern about the HEQ5 is that being a solely equatorial mount it might be a hassle to set up for visual use. I want to use this thing maybe even as a "grab and go", and I'm not sure how convenient an equatorial mount is for that since I've never owned an equatorial mount before. How "grab and go" is a HEQ5?

[casstony]

Reading between the lines I think a Celestron Advanced VX might be the best compromise between hassle free/grab & go/beginner imaging.

The AVX is solid but portable and has an all star polar alignment (ASPA) routine that makes polar alignment easy, all done with the hand control. With your short focal length scope you can put a dslr on the focuser and take 30 sec exposures - no guiding, no laptop. Then you can step up to using a laptop and guiding later on, later on progress to a better mount, better camera, etc.

The HEQ5 is a good choice too but I don't think it has the polar alignment feature in the hand control.

The heavy weight of the EQ6 may be a deterrent to setting up which is the last thing you want. Keeping set up as convenient as possible gets me out observing, rather than sitting in front of the TV thinking about all the gear I have to set up.

[raymo]

The HEQ5 Pro Go To would easily handle a NP101 for both visual and
imaging, plus it has a polar alignment function, and PEC, just like the
NEQ6.
raymo

[The_bluester (Paul)]

I have the Orion version of the AZEQ6 and I don't find it a problem to move about and set up/tear down. The Alt Az mode is certainly great for visual work and is how I mostly set it up.

[Wavytone]

Mokusatsu,

The problem with the AZ/EQ5 is that sticking a pier on top of a very squat tripod seriously weakens the mount - it is flimsy.

It suggests Skywatcher really lost the plot in comparison to the isostatic altaz mounts which are far stiffer.

If are really determined buy the AZ-EQ6, not the AZ/EQ5.

[Mokusatsu (Australia)]

Originally Posted by Wavytone

Mokusatsu,

The problem with the AZ/EQ5 is that sticking a pier on top of a very squat tripod seriously weakens the mount - it is flimsy.

It suggests Skywatcher really lost the plot in comparison to the isostatic altaz mounts which are far stiffer.

If are really determined buy the AZ-EQ6, not the AZ/EQ5.

The AZ-EQ5 is available in both the pier type AZ-EQ5 GT-P and the tripod type AZ-EQ5 GT-T. Andrewscom sells them both. The T is $100 cheaper.

They say the advantage of the pier is that it folds up to a much more compact package for transport and that it works at latitudes 0-90 degrees, whereas the tripod version only works south or north of 28 degrees.

I raised the stability issue. Andrewscom are going to do some dampening time tests and get back to me in a couple of days. I'll pass along what they tell me.

Travis

[Adox (Adriano)]

I had the chance to use a SkyWatcher refractor 102/500 with the HEQ5 on its tripod and on its pier. They seems to offer the same stability as the vibration dumped in roughly 0.7 second for both.
The advantage of the pier is that you can use any type of telescope has the optical tube would not hit the legs of tripod. However, the pier is 15.10 kg while the tripod only 5.35kg.
I would suggest to use the pier for an observatory and the tripod if you observe in more than one location.
The AZ-EQ6 is much bigger and stable of the HEQ5 but I would buy the AZ-EQ6 only if you have in mind to use on it a heavier telescope.