Cookie consent

AstroBin saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to deliver better content and for statistical purposes. You can disable the usage of cookies by changing the settings of your browser. By browsing AstroBin without changing the browser settings, you grant us permission to store that information on your device.

I agree

EQ6-R vs CEM60 for an 8" Newtonian

Lasastard
17 Oct, 2019 07:53
Hi,

so it's that time of year again, the nights are getting longer (in the Northern hemisphere anyway) and I am thinking about buying astro gear smile

At the moment, I am using a 4" APO on an older NEQ6 - which works fine'ish, although I am getting the impression that the mount is starting to show its age a little bit (weird guiding errors on rare occasions). In any case, I recently bought a new F4 Newtonian (200/800) and am thinking about putting together a second setup to use in parallel with the APO/NEQ6.

Two mounts caught my eye here - the "new" EQ6-R as well as the iOptron CEM60. These are not in the same weight class, exactly, as the CEM60 can carry up to 27kg/60pound - whereas the the EQ6 is probably maxed out at just under 20kg/40pount. For the Newtonian, which should come out at >13kg with camera and guide scope attached, the EQ6 seems to be "ok", but with little headroom left for windy nights and such.

Anyway, I guess I am looking for a justification to go for the CEM60 even tho it costs around 70% more (would be getting the tri-pier too, which adds another couple hundred bucks…smile.

Any thoughts/experiences?

Cheers,
Marc
lucam_astro
17 Oct, 2019 12:55
I use a EQ6R Pro mount with a FSQ106 and accessories (just shy of 30lbs load). It's a good mount and on most nights it is seeing limited with my setup, imaging between 1 and 2 arc-sec/pixel. A 8in f4 Newt starts being a bit of a sail. The EQ6R will not have any problem with weight but if wind is a concern. my guess is that neither of the two mounts you are considering will offer usable performance in windy conditions. For reference, I also image with a 10in f4 Newt on a AP Mach1GTO mount. Even the Mach1 struggles with the Newt in windy weather.

I think under realistic imaging conditions both mounts will handle your planned OTA fine. The CEM60 is a more refined mount. I believe it can achieve more precise balancing of the OTA due to reduced stiction. You should consider not only the weight and length of the OTA but also what imaging scale you are targeting. The requirements on the mount are more stringent, the higher the spatial resolution you are trying to achieve.

I believe both mounts you are considering are appropriate and under realistic sky conditions, you are unlikely to see profound differences in the quality of the data. If you have the money to spend, you can never have too much mount. If you don't, you will be able to create wonderful images with either piece of equipment.
Lasastard
18 Oct, 2019 06:08
Thanks Luca, this was helpful. My concern was mostly that my setup might be pushing the capacity of the EQ6-R beyond what I thought was reasonable for long-exposure astrophotography. I was always told that a good rule of thumb is to take the theoretical capacity of a mount and divide it by 2 - so ~20lbs for the EQ6.

Fortunately, both the CEM60 as well as the tri pier are currently out of stock in these parts, so I have a few more weeks to think about it smile It would be an easier decision if the CEM60 was a lot harder to handle/carry around, but it seems the opposite is true. So as you said, it's a better mount, but wether it's '1000$ better' is subjective, at the end of the day.
koten90
18 Oct, 2019 14:06
I must suggest you for the CEM60. CEM's axis seem to be suspended in the void!
I actually own a CEM25 and I mount on it more than 22lbs (max visual payload 25lbs) made of TS100Q with its 14inch Losmandy bar and motorfocus, CCD KAF8300 and its 7 filters, 50mm guide scope with ASI120, cables and accessories. Balancing it at my best, I can shoot 30mins subframes without problems. You can see in my gallery I only had 1800s subframes in the last year.
Bobinius
18 Oct, 2019 18:51
Hi Marc,

I am using an AZEQ6 pro with a 10inch Newtonian (carbon) and it works fine. I would say that dividing the capacity by 2 is an underestimation,  you have to subtract 5kg from the 20 announced for the EQ. I agree that windy nights can represent a problem with a big newtonian. Another advantage can be obtained by using OAG guiding less weight than a Losmandy + a guidescope . An 8" should be ok for a EQ6R imo.
kingjamez
18 Oct, 2019 18:53
I ran the CEM60 with an 8" imaging newtonian for a long time and it handled it with ease. I'm currently running my CEM60 with a C11 @2000mm which is much heavier and requires much better tracking. So far so good.

Jim
LarsSt
18 Oct, 2019 19:09
I also recommend the CEM60. When setting the pole heigh, the mount rotates in the center of gravity ;-)
I use it with a refractor 130/1000. The guiding works fine.
Ivandn
19 Oct, 2019 22:19
I just got a ONTC 8" F4 and it works amazingly well on the CEM60. I used to have an older Orion Atlas with a 6" f5 and it was always hit or miss. The CEM 60 is slightly lighter so tearing down and setting up is a breeze. Some big pro's for the CEM60 include the internal usb and power for your camera and accessories and the design makes it very easy to balance. I think the CEM60 could still easily handle a 10" newt or an 11" SCT if you really want to push it. The atlas/EQ6 would be at its limit with an 8" scope.
lucam_astro
19 Oct, 2019 23:41
I am not saying the CEM60 is not a more capable mount than the EQ6R Pro, but before making categorical statements about the limits of the mount take a look at the work by Jarrett Trezzo, for example, including his IOTD today with a RASA 11in in the Atlas.
kingjamez
19 Oct, 2019 23:49
Luca Marinelli
I am not saying the CEM60 is not a more capable mount than the EQ6R Pro, but before making categorical statements about the limits of the mount take a look at the work by Jarrett Trezzo, for example, including his IOTD today with a RASA 11in in the Atlas.

The RASA 11” has a 620mm focal length and is shorter than an 8” newt. It’s easier all the way around.

-Jim
Edited 19 Oct, 2019 23:50
lucam_astro
20 Oct, 2019 00:05
Jim McPherson
Luca Marinelli
I am not saying the CEM60 is not a more capable mount than the EQ6R Pro, but before making categorical statements about the limits of the mount take a look at the work by Jarrett Trezzo, for example, including his IOTD today with a RASA 11in in the Atlas.
The RASA 11” has a 620mm focal length and is shorter than an 8” newt. It’s easier all the way around.

-Jim

take a look at the weight and length of the RASA 11.
kingjamez
20 Oct, 2019 00:11
Luca Marinelli
Jim McPherson
Luca Marinelli
I am not saying the CEM60 is not a more capable mount than the EQ6R Pro, but before making categorical statements about the limits of the mount take a look at the work by Jarrett Trezzo, for example, including his IOTD today with a RASA 11in in the Atlas.
The RASA 11” has a 620mm focal length and is shorter than an 8” newt. It’s easier all the way around.-Jim

take a look at the weight and length of the RASA 11.
Ok.
Edited 20 Oct, 2019 00:13
 
Register or login to create to post a reply.