Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

NEQ6-Pro imaging payload and focal length questions

  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 Neinball

Neinball

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 27
  • Joined: 03 Dec 2019
  • Loc: Louisiana

Posted 10 December 2019 - 05:28 PM

I know the rule of thumb is about 50% max payload for best guiding when imaging, so with my NEQ6 that would be around 20lbs. I'm wanting a scope with more reach than what I have now and have my eye on the ES127 FDC100, the CF model would put me right at 20-22lbs with imaging/guiding train attached, however the aluminum tube version would put me closer to 30lbs. My preference would be for the aluminum tubed version because weather where I am is extremely dynamic and its nothing to have a 40-50F temperature change within a few hours, and I feel there would be much less focus shift with the aluminum tube than there would be with the CF tube model, not to mention CF gets brittle in sub zero temperatures. So my questions are, has anyone used an EQ6/Atlas with a heavier than 50% imaging payload and how did the mounts handle it? And does anyone know how well these mounts handle imaging at 900mm+ focal lengths for 5min + exposures? Or would I be better off getting something in the 100mm class instead?



#2 carolinaskies

carolinaskies

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,930
  • Joined: 12 Dec 2014
  • Loc: Greenville SC

Posted 10 December 2019 - 09:04 PM

I know the rule of thumb is about 50% max payload for best guiding when imaging, so with my NEQ6 that would be around 20lbs. I'm wanting a scope with more reach than what I have now and have my eye on the ES127 FDC100, the CF model would put me right at 20-22lbs with imaging/guiding train attached, however the aluminum tube version would put me closer to 30lbs. My preference would be for the aluminum tubed version because weather where I am is extremely dynamic and its nothing to have a 40-50F temperature change within a few hours, and I feel there would be much less focus shift with the aluminum tube than there would be with the CF tube model, not to mention CF gets brittle in sub zero temperatures. So my questions are, has anyone used an EQ6/Atlas with a heavier than 50% imaging payload and how did the mounts handle it? And does anyone know how well these mounts handle imaging at 900mm+ focal lengths for 5min + exposures? Or would I be better off getting something in the 100mm class instead?

I have the NEQ6 Pro.  These are battleship mounts based on the Tak EM200 design.  I know of people who image near 100% capacity successfully.  The reason is the mount head weight acts as a dampener as it is actually more than the capacity weight itself. 

The key on any mount is proper counter-balancing, placing most weight close to the mount head on the counter-balance bar, investing in decent weights that don't shift, etc.  

Lots of people are also using the newer EQ6-R with the AR152 wide-field scopes for the same reason, and with the belt drives they are actually even better at guiding out errors. 

Your refractor choices wouldn't concern me one bit.  I have an F/8 152mm Meade refractor I use visually on my NEQ6 and it's quite stable. 

 


  • frito likes this

#3 frito

frito

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,494
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2012
  • Loc: Fremont, CA

Posted 10 December 2019 - 11:14 PM

Yep they are, i have imaged on my Atlas well beyond 50% capacity in the past with a C9.25 and an ED80 piggybacked on the C9.25 and it performed no different than it would with less of a load. the key thing about these mounts people have to realize is they are relatively cheap commercially mass produced mounts if you want them to perform as best as they can you likely will need to tune them up mechanically a bit but they are solidly built so once they are adjusted right they will perform wonderfully all the way up to capacity. 


  • EFT likes this

#4 Neinball

Neinball

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 27
  • Joined: 03 Dec 2019
  • Loc: Louisiana

Posted 13 December 2019 - 01:23 PM

Yep they are, i have imaged on my Atlas well beyond 50% capacity in the past with a C9.25 and an ED80 piggybacked on the C9.25 and it performed no different than it would with less of a load. the key thing about these mounts people have to realize is they are relatively cheap commercially mass produced mounts if you want them to perform as best as they can you likely will need to tune them up mechanically a bit but they are solidly built so once they are adjusted right they will perform wonderfully all the way up to capacitNice

Good to know and thanks, and yes I plan on breaking mine down for a belt mod and hypertune kit here in the spring, I bought mine second hand a year ago and it was averaging .05 RMS all last winter but has recently started to average .15, so I figure its time for a refresh. 




CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics