7.33
#...
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Hello fellow ABers! I have been doing Astrophotography for just shy of a year now and have learned quite a bit in this time. Moving into galaxy season has made me think about the gear I own and the ability to image galaxies. I currently have a Skywatcher EQ5 pro Synscan mount that will give me about 1.3-1.4 Total RMS for guiding, this is just about fine for my Vixen ED80SF and Camera with 3.8 microns but I now own an RC which would give a pixel scale of 0,52 microns with the same camera. The question I have is with this pixel scale, can the Skywatcher EQ6 R PRO handle such a setup. I have heard stories where imagers have been happy with 1.2 Total RMS and I have heard stories of consistent Total RMS of 0.5-0.6. Can I manage with such a scope or should I look at something else? I dont really want to spend more than £2000. Thoughts and comments needed as I understand that many stockists of the Skywatcher EQ6 R PRO will have this back in stock very soon and I want to be setup for Galaxy season. Thanks and looking forward to your thoughts. CSBrad |
2.41
#...
·
3
likes
|
|---|
|
Hi Bradley, I got the EQ6R last year for my 10 inch f5 Newton. Everything included, my setup has a weight of 19.3 kg which is only slightly below the recommended maximum of 20 kg. However, I use the most simple guiding solution with PHD2 + ST4 cable. Nevertheless, I always get <1 arcsec total RMS error in all the image sessions I did so far. It's definetly a good mount. CS Steve |
|
7.33
#...
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Thanks Steve. At best what do you think you are able to achieve? That’s a heavy load! 20kg is recommended for visual. Your TRMS is very good then. AP is a bit of a rabbit hole regarding money and I don’t want to be buying another mount in 12 months time, hoping to have the next mount for a few years and maybe mount in a concrete pier in my obsy. It’s a comfort to hear that you are happy with it.  |
|
2.41
#...
·
3
likes
|
|---|
|
Hi Bradley, Unfortunately I don't have an idea about what might be achievable with my setup because I don't care actually. Unless you have extremely good seeing conditions every night, you will not be able to use the theoretical resolution of your scope anyway. As always, my advice is not to overthink such things. My scope has a theoretical resolution of 0.45 arc seconds and my setup a resolution of 0.6 arc seconds per pixel. In my eyes I'm oversampling here, so I simply do a 50% resample of my images anyway during post processing. I barely loose any detail doing this, but what I get is a much less noisy image. Doing this at the end of a post-processing session also helps you to remove most processing artifacts (especially around bright stars). So, instead of thinking about theoretical improvements and working on the guiding precision for several hours per imaging sessions (which will probably cause lots of frustration), I use the time to capture more data. After doing the 50% resample, I end up with a resolution of 1.2 arc seconds per pixel, which is good enough in my eyes. Maybe in 1 out of 10 nights I would have gotten more fine details by not doing it, but what I know is that in 10 out of 10 nights, I get a huge improvement in noise, applying the resample step. Of course, I fully understand that some people enjoy to squeeze out the last bit of performance, but I think this often might be the reason for people quitting astrophotography, because it can cause massive frustration. Regarding my setup and image acquisition, I always prefer the easy way, that's also why I use a simple ST4 cable instead of controlling my mount via USB. If you google "EQ6 ASCOM" you will find dozens of examples (in many different forums) for what I mean by "frustration". Why not keeping it easy?  CS Steve |
|
7.33
#...
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Hi Steve, I get you. The thing I really want, are just round stars when I image, the rest I can worry about another time. I ask this in such a way as with the EQ5 I throw around 50% of my images and I have balanced the mount. This is doubling my efforts which is what I want to avoid. Literally I image one night very very well then the next with no changes, my scope is doing an all sky survey! This is really frustrating. I really use the T RMS as a guide, I always check my subs and I often keep subs that theoretically I should throw. I just want round stars I have a Skywatcher MAK 127 (FL 1500) that I started out on and used it with the EQ5 and my stars were more like maggots than stars! Lol. I will look into resampling. I like the sound of this. Anyway the long and short from your perspective is that you are happy with capacity and ability to track with accuracy. Have you tried without guiding? |
11.24
#...
·
4
likes
|
|---|
|
Hi Bradley! I don't want to throw a wrench into your works and Steve obviously has a very effective routine going that works perfectly for him, but if I was in your position looking to upgrade mounts and concerned about accuracy and round stars, I would go for the best upgrade I could afford. It looks to me that the EQ5 and EQ6 are good mounts and very similar to each other in cost and performance. Maybe too similar? If I had to do it all over again from scratch, I would anyway I could, invest 3x as much money in my mount than I did originally. I understand everyone is different and has different budgets but any upgrade movement in AP should be UP not lateral, especially in the mount department. scott |
18.84
#...
·
6
likes
|
|---|
|
Never ever try to save money on the mount. This never pays off. A less good optics on a good mount will deliver fair to good results. But good optics on a poor mount will always deliver poor results. Usually the mount is the limiting factor and the best optics can never deliver its performance. In my opinion too many APs long for excellent optics instead for a good mount, which is the foundation. Once a wise man said: spend as much money you can afford on the mount - and he was right. |
|
2.41
#...
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
Hi Bradley, I could just retrieve a website that could help. Check this out: Link. It features a nice comparison of different mounts and their tracking precision, both guided and unguided. However, you are right, I'm pleased with the EQ6-R. For my DSO images taken with this mount (see my gallery: M42, NGC7023, IC1805, M33, M27) I could use between 97.5-100% of my lights, which was quite impressive for me. Are my stars round? I guess that depends one ones individual standards. For me, they are round enough. Despite using a CC, I still suffer from a bit of coma at the outer edges of my images. However, I'm pleased with the star "roundness" at the center, especially considering that I mostly used 5 min subs with more than 19 kg of payload, still being able to keep >97.5% of my subs. Another recommendation. I have a good experience using median stacking methods when having mixed quality subs. With my former wide-field setup (Omegon LX2 or Skywatcher Star Adventurer) I often got mixed results. Some subs with pinpoint stars, some with slightly elongated stars. By using a median stacking method, the slight star trails will be considered outliers and will not make it into your resulting image. Only the center part that is available in all/most of the selected subs. This might allow you to keep more of your individual subs without compromising your star shape. Of course this only works if the majority of your subs have good star shapes. CS Steve |
|
7.33
#...
·
2
likes
|
|---|
the EQ5 and EQ6 are good mounts and very similar to each other Ruediger: @MichaelTeewsGH I thought it maybe said that if you are going to spend money it should be on the mount. This I agree with wholeheartedly and I made that mistake when I first got into AP with the EQ5 Pro. The EQ6 R Pro seems to be quite a bit better than the EQ5 and I hadn't really considered it a lateral move. @Ruediger who was the wiseman? There is a balance between it being affordable and performance. I have in my mind the £2000/$2800/€2300 spend. I could push this. I suppose what I should really do is research the difference in performance between the 2 mounts rather than go by hearsay. Thanks for the input guys. |
|
7.33
#...
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Steve Ludwig: Hey Steve, Part of the reason I love AP is the community and everyone's spirit for sharing knowledge. Very useful bit of info regarding the stacking method, it's priceless. Part of the issue of starting AP is that many (as I have done) do the "Monkey See, Monkey Do" routine and don't really understand why something is being done. I am at a stage where I have quite a bit of control over my gear and can spend more capacity thinking about what I am doing. I see that you are using DSS, I started out using this. I think I might try this again and look at playing around with the different stacking methods. This could save me a lot of time if done correctly. It's funny, as the skies have cleared (not forecasted) and I am imaging now. My guiding is about 0.8 total RMS but it has its moments - I literally rolled the roof off and pointed my scope at my target and was off, no changes to the previous session, where it was pretty bad. Its soooo inconsistent. I am going to check out the link you provided now. Thanks for chipping in Steve CS Brad |
2.11
#...
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Hello Bradley, I have been using this mount now for almost 18 months. My last image of IC410 with my Esprit 120, total weight of 35lbs, i was guiding at .55 to .6" rms all night long. I had exceptional seeing that night, but the average I can guide is .75"rms. It is balanced with 33lbs of counter weights (3x11). I take 10 minute narrowband subs with no problems. I generally don't have anything more than a light breeze to contend with so I can't speak to its wind fighting ability. When I load my Esprit 80 on top, 21 lbs, i typically guide at .5" rms and easily take 20 minute narrow band subs. The only thing I have done to the mount is clear up dec and ra backlash by tightening up the worm gears just a touch. I run guide assistant in phd as well to measure what backlash I have left and to correct for it while guiding. CS Dan. |
 #...
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
I've got one and have been pretty happy with it. Unlike some of the folk here my RMS error is closer to 1 arc sec than 0.5. Good enough for me and I generally don't worry about the weight I'm loading onto it because its a pretty stout mount. Its heavy at 45 lbs or so and some older people have trouble carrying it. The native Synscan software is like something from the 1980s, with no simple way to incorporate plate solving or any way of making sure your camera doesn't hit the mount other than getting up at 2 am and checking. I run my with EQMOD through an ASI AIR Pro and that has worked real well. A couple of pointers. 1. It doesn't like low voltage. If you run it off a lithium battery you'll need a voltage stepper because lithium batteries fall below the minimum EQ6R voltage as they run down. https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/622876-ordering-an-eq6-r/?p=9019121 2. IF you use the native software, getting the polar alignment very accurate will dramatically improve GoTo accuracy. I recommend either the ASI AIR Pro or SharpCap for this. |
|
7.33
#... |
|---|
| @John Tucker This is great feedback. Exactly what I am looking for. I have heard about voltage and a requirement for consistently high voltage. Re the weight, this will end up sitting on a pier in my garden so should have no need of moving it at all. I use SharpCap today and I wont be using the native Synscan software, was never a fan of it. If I can get consistency between 0.5 and 1, I think I would be happy with that. Thanks for the info, most helpful CS Brad |
|
7.33
#... |
|---|
| @Dan Kusz Thanks Dan, its great to hear that many can guide below 1", I think the stories I have heard where its been 1.3¨" etc. must be outliers. 10 minute subs would be very very nice to be able to attain. Out of interest, tightening the gear worms, is this a big job? Thanks again and CS Brad |
|
2.11
#...
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
Hey Bradley, Watched this video by Cuiv, the lazy geek...adjusted mine in 5 minutes and it was a big improvement https://youtu.be/1hzAh6ro8YU Dan. |
|
0.00
#...
·
1
like
|
|---|
| Lurking here as a newbie and enjoying this conversation as I ponder my next purchases. Currently only using a SWSA and Nikon/300mm lens, I was also comparing the HEQ5 and the EQ6-R, both of which seem to be made of unobtanium, giving me time to research further or look at other options. |
1.81
#...
·
3
likes
|
|---|
|
I have had my EQ6-R Pro since NEAF '19. Fantastic mount with incredible performance for the price. I couldn't recommend it more. It's normal load was around 32lbs., made up of my ES ED127 Triplet, Moonlite focuser, EFW, 1600MM Cool, plus an Orion ST-80 with a 290MM Mini as a guider on top. It's a champ of a mount. CS, Ara |
|
7.33
#...
·
1
like
|
|---|
John Harper: Lol. Indeed @John Harper , there is a waiting time of around 2 months on these scopes right now. Part of the reason I wanted some feedback. While I have thoughts on the EQ6-R Pro my mind can be changed, and I have time to look into it. I have done a load of research already but there is nothing better than hearing actual user experience. CS Brad |
3.77
#...
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Hi Bradley, I started my astrophotography journey in 2016 with the same Synscan EQ5 Pro mount. My typical guided TRMS was similar to yours, or even worse, and it required a lot of babysitting. 5 minute narrowband subs were doable but very inconsistent, and I had to throw away a lot of subs due to jumps in DEC or elongated stars. Performance of the EQ5 was usually fine for 60 sec guided subs. I can't blame the mount because the EQ5 was designed for visual use. I've been using the EQ6-R since mid 2019 and it was probably the best purchase I made since starting out. The EQ6-R is a staple of the community, mainly because it strikes a very good balance between performance and affordability. You can read my full review of the mount on my wordpress blog if you're interested https://astrovirusblog.wordpress.com/2019/06/23/new-eq6-r-mount/ On nights with good seeing, the EQ6-R achieved 0.5 - 0.6 arcsec TRMS with my big 8" newt, OAG guiding and PPEC. However, I switched to a guide scope setup this winter and performance has reduced down to 0.7 - 1.0 arcsec in the past months. Not sure if this is due to flex in my guidescope, poor seeing in winter, or worm tension. haven't tried to adjust the tension but Cuiv's video looks very interesting. Still, performance slightly below 1 arcsec TRMS is very usable for all but the smallest objects. Sampling of my Newt setup is 1.0 arcsec/pix and this is IMO perfect for typical seeing in Belgium (2-3 arcsec). I agree with the previous post, where you can likely downsample the RC data in post, to improve SNR without loss of detail since that setup is very likely seeing limited no matter what mount you're using. |
|
7.33
#...
·
1
like
|
|---|
Dan Kusz: Hey @Dan Kusz thanks for this. Have actually seen this video. Cuiv is pretty good. Cheers Brad |
|
7.33
#... |
|---|
Victor Van Puyenbroeck: Hey @Victor Van Puyenbroeck, you understand exactly what I am going through. Babysitting is exactly the right term, I am doing it as we speak, running to check guiding, having to stop and restart etc. I don’t want to do that anymore, I just need consistency that allows me to keep at least 80-90% of my subs at least. I am really glad to hear your feedback as I am fully aware the Skywatcher have done a pretty good job on marketing so it can be difficult to see the wood from the trees. Going to read your review with a cup of tea while I run back and forth checking my guiding CS Brad |
|
7.33
#... |
|---|
I have had my EQ6-R Pro since NEAF '19. Fantastic mount with incredible performance for the price. I couldn't recommend it more. It's normal load was around 32lbs., made up of my ES ED127 Triplet, Moonlite focuser, EFW, 1600MM Cool, plus an Orion ST-80 with a 290MM Mini as a guider on top. It's a champ of a mount. Thanks Ara, great to hear. Out of interest, was it something at NEAF that convinced you about the mount and if what was that? Thanks and CS Brad |
0.00
#...
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Another EQ6-R Pro user here. I have recently gotten a GSO RC8 CF, and have used a Orion XT8 scope and WO ZS81 scope. No issues with any. I use EQMOD via the USB port on the mount, which I love and have not used the controller after the first 2 nights of having it. Being able to control, plate solve, and guide all while sitting inside on my laptop over USB is great. I get anywhere from .55 TRMS to 1.8 TRMS, but its all dependent on my seeing conditions. |
|
1.81
#...
·
1
like
|
|---|
Bradley Watson: I had gone to NEAF to look for a better mount for DSO AP. I was coming from an AVX. I was looking at all the usual suspects (CGX, iOptron, A-P, 10Micron, Paramount, etc.) except for SkyWatcher; I simply didn’t know much about it. I saw it in the SW area and started to ask about it. Everyone at NEAF who had one or used one had only good things to say about it. Even the owner of ADM mentioned what a terrific mount it is. So, I decided to save a few thousand dollars over the other brands and bought it then and there. It’s been reliable, powerful, and simply a great purchase. CS, Ara |
0.00
#...
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
Hi Brad! I use an EQ6R pro, and I love it. Over the mount I have a SkyWatcher ESPRIT 120 ED (840mm focal), my camera is a QHY 16200A, an autofocuses Armadillo 2 and a guide telescope and camera (60/240mm). You was asking about RMS? In my case between 0.4 and 0.8, depending on the seeing, polar alignment, diferencial flexure....... For this money, the best mount you can buy. CS Christian |
