25 replies to this topic

[Splashy101]

Hello, I am wondering if getting a eq3 mount Is worth it for this telescope that i got for Christmas? I am new to astronomy and Astrophotography and have been wondering if this is better for a beginner like me?

[SeattleScott]

What scope did you get?

[scanner97]

The EQ3 will take minimal payload, especially with a camera.  Say more about:

 

- What scope you have

- What your main interest is (visual vs. photography)

- Whether you're more interested in lunar/planetary or deep sky

- If it's photography, whether you already have a camera you'd like to use

 

And, if this is mostly going to be a photography discussion, a mod will move it to a better forum.

[Splashy101]

What scope did you get?

I got a Celestron Omni AZ 102 telescope. It's a 4" refractor telescope with a focal length of 660mm. It's 9.5lbs (6.3kg) in weight. I'm planning on using it for Visual astronomy mostly.

[Splashy101]

The EQ3 will take minimal payload, especially with a camera.  Say more about:

 

- What scope you have

- What your main interest is (visual vs. photography)

- Whether you're more interested in lunar/planetary or deep sky

- If it's photography, whether you already have a camera you'd like to use

 

And, if this is mostly going to be a photography discussion, a mod will move it to a better forum.

I'm mainly gonna be doing Visual Astronomy. Just because I get a little too stressed with camera settings and more.

[scanner97]

For visual on that scope, I would use the mount that comes with to get to know it.  Once you figure out what you don't like and what you want, folks can point you to other options.  For example, if you're doing visual, you might want to stick with and alt az mount rather than EQ.  There are a ton of questions that might or might not come up and I wouldn't buy a better mount yet.

[rblackadar]

I have some experience with both Omni 102, because my brother bought one at Costco (a pretty good deal, with Alt-Az mount), and the eq3, because I got one for free and actually do use it (but with modification, see below).

 

I looked through my brother's 102 and liked it in general, despite the CA on brighter objects. As for the eq3, it's mostly not terrible except for one issue that you would probably want to work around: for some reason they put the dovetail slot off-center, so that it's impossible to get a good balance in Dec. Possibly there are mounts called eq3 that don't have this defect, but I don't know any. (Too bad, because the tripod is actually quite nice IMO.) To make matters worse, the Dec fine control is one of those cheap spring-loaded jobs (not a worm drive) that I'm decidedly not a fan of -- a heavy OTA like the 102 will be very hard to keep solidly on target, off balance as it would have to be, and bouncing on the spring.

 

(Ed Ting agrees, by the way -- see his review of the Astromaster 130. Recommended "Not to buy".,)

 

If you can get the eq3 for like $20 or less used, I'd say give it a try, otherwise I think you might be better off sticking with the alt-az, or going for a more expensive EQ mount.  My "fix" to the eq3 was to remove the Dec fine control altogether, and zip-tie the mount end to the Dec adjustment tab on the shaft, so that it's all one piece, so to speak. Now, to adjust dec at all, I have to loosen the Dec clutch and push by hand. This is acceptable, because with good polar alignment I don't have to do it often. As for the imbalance, it's not too bad for something like an ST80. For something heavier, you could consider sticking on an appropriate counterweight, e.g. a compensating asymmetric weight on the counterweight shaft, but that starts getting inconvenient.

[Splashy101]

I have some experience with both Omni 102, because my brother bought one at Costco (a pretty good deal, with Alt-Az mount), and the eq3, because I got one for free and actually do use it (but with modification, see below).

 

I looked through my brother's 102 and liked it in general, despite the CA on brighter objects. As for the eq3, it's mostly not terrible except for one issue that you would probably want to work around: for some reason they put the dovetail slot off-center, so that it's impossible to get a good balance in Dec. Possibly there are mounts called eq3 that don't have this defect, but I don't know any. (Too bad, because the tripod is actually quite nice IMO.) To make matters worse, the Dec fine control is one of those cheap spring-loaded jobs (not a worm drive) that I'm decidedly not a fan of -- a heavy OTA like the 102 will be very hard to keep solidly on target, off balance as it would have to be, and bouncing on the spring.

 

(Ed Ting agrees, by the way -- see his review of the Astromaster 130. Recommended "Not to buy".,)

 

If you can get the eq3 for like $20 or less used, I'd say give it a try, otherwise I think you might be better off sticking with the alt-az, or going for a more expensive EQ mount.  My "fix" to the eq3 was to remove the Dec fine control altogether, and zip-tie the mount end to the Dec adjustment tab on the shaft, so that it's all one piece, so to speak. Now, to adjust dec at all, I have to loosen the Dec clutch and push by hand. This is acceptable, because with good polar alignment I don't have to do it often. As for the imbalance, it's not too bad for something like an ST80. For something heavier, you could consider sticking on an appropriate counterweight, e.g. a compensating asymmetric weight on the counterweight shaft, but that starts getting inconvenient.

So should I only use it for Astrophotography? I am basically planning on doing both.

[vtornado]

Do you have a picture or a link to the EQ3?

 

I think skywatcher EQ3 = Celestron CG4 which is a good mount.

 

I used someone's celestron EQ2 or  EQ3 at a public star party.  I'm not exactly sure which and it was a shakey mess with a 114 f4.

 

If you can find a used celestron CG4 it will be very solid with your scope.

 

I do have the Celestron AZ 102, and yes it is a bit shakey on the mount.  A medium duty EQ mount like the (CG4)  would be less shakey and give you single knob tracking.

 

A CG4 can be used either for pictures (limited) and visual.  There is a simple mod that can be done that allows conversion to an alt-az.

Edited by vtornado, 20 March 2025 - 01:12 PM.

[rblackadar]

So should I only use it for Astrophotography? I am basically planning on doing both.

Hmm, I thought I was being rather discouraging for both. An EQ mount is fine for visual too, it's just that the EQ3 in particular has issues that would probably need to be addressed -- for both visual and AP, but especially for AP. One additional issue for photography is that the 102 has a pretty long focal length, 660mm, which makes issues like polar alignment and tracking speed/accuracy critical. Not so easy for beginners, especially on a cheap mount with no polar scope. It can be done, but will no doubt be frustrating.

 

Last week at a star party (visual) I set up my ST80 on the (modified) eq3, pointed at the moon at approx. 21X, and I could pretty much ignore it then, and people enjoyed looking through it. So yeah, it could be fine for something like that. But you'd need to balance the 102 with an asymmetric counterweight, e.g. vise grips or a C-clamp, most likely. For AP with a camera lens only, I made myself a little kludge plastic dovetail with the 1/4" mounting screw hole off-center on the dovetail, so that the camera is on-center on the Dec axis. That wouldn't be so cool on a 102.

[Splashy101]

Hmm, I thought I was being rather discouraging for both. An EQ mount is fine for visual too, it's just that the EQ3 in particular has issues that would probably need to be addressed -- for both visual and AP, but especially for AP. One additional issue for photography is that the 102 has a pretty long focal length, 660mm, which makes issues like polar alignment and tracking speed/accuracy critical. Not so easy for beginners, especially on a cheap mount with no polar scope. It can be done, but will no doubt be frustrating.

 

Last week at a star party (visual) I set up my ST80 on the (modified) eq3, pointed at the moon at approx. 21X, and I could pretty much ignore it then, and people enjoyed looking through it. So yeah, it could be fine for something like that. But you'd need to balance the 102 with an asymmetric counterweight, e.g. vise grips or a C-clamp, most likely. For AP with a camera lens only, I made myself a little kludge plastic dovetail with the 1/4" mounting screw hole off-center on the dovetail, so that the camera is on-center on the Dec axis. That wouldn't be so cool on a 102.

I was just thinking using a light weight camera and lens. like a 18-55mm one, but I don't have a camera adapter with a Dovetail designed or made yet.

[rblackadar]

Just to be clear, the mount I was disparaging is this one, by Celestron:

https://shopgoodwill.../item/225543853

 

(you wouldn't happen to be living in N. Georgia and hoping to buy that particular one, by some chance? Seems to be missing the CW shaft, kind of necessary, but could be worth buying just for the motor. In one of the photos you can see what I mean by the off-center dovetail slot.)

 

If you're referring to a different mount, like the CG4, then I agree with vtornado, that's a good one.

[rblackadar]

I was just thinking using a light weight camera and lens. like a 18-55mm one, but I don't have a camera adapter with a Dovetail designed or made yet.

Then cool, a cheap (or preferably free!) EQ1, 2, or 3 is a reasonable alternative to those fancy and expensive star trackers. Especially if you disable the Dec fine adjustment as I did -- it sticks out way too far and tends to hit the motor. Plus I hate that springy thing. With just a camera, you might not even need (or want) a full counterweight, just maybe some vise grips. But also prepare to endure raised eyebrows at star parties  .

 

My kludge dovetail is nothing special, just jig-sawed out of a plastic cutting board, or you could 3D print one.

[sevenofnine]

Welcome to C/N! 

 

Before you buy any equipment for AP, buying and reading this guide book is highly recommended by our most experienced astrophotographers. Just in general, it's a lot more difficult and expensive than you would think. The starting cost of equipment is between $2k-$5k. The learning curve is steep too. Many say that it's like taking several college level computer classes. Best of luck to you! 

 

https://www.amazon.c...,aps,350&sr=8-1.

[Splashy101]

Welcome to C/N! 

 

Before you buy any equipment for AP, buying and reading this guide book is highly recommended by our most experienced astrophotographers. Just in general, it's a lot more difficult and expensive than you would think. The starting cost of equipment is between $2k-$5k. The learning curve is steep too. Many say that it's like taking several college level computer classes. Best of luck to you! 

 

https://www.amazon.c...,aps,350&sr=8-1.

Thank you! I hope you have the best of luck finding new interest from dso. If you do. Please let me see your pictures of what you captured. I would love to see them or hang them on my wall. 

[sevenofnine]

The cost of equipment and learning curve using AP computer programs quelled my interest in true astrophotography. However, for snapshot quality photos there's the new smart telescopes. Basically, they are a Point-N-Shoot approach to taking photos of DSO's. This was taken with a Seestar S50. Not worthy of hanging on the wall interesting and fun none the less 

 

.

 

.

[Pierre C]

My experience is that the generic EQ3 mount on a steel tripod is much more sturdy than the AltAz mount and aluminium tripod that comes with the Celestron Omni AZ 102 telescope. It gives much steadier views and allows easier manual tracking once a target is acquired.

 

However, the EQ mount is a bit fiddly when trying to acquire objects along the right ascension and declination axes, compared to the simplicity of slewing horizontally and vertically using the AltAz mount. The additional weight and set up time of the EQ3 also make it more cumbersome than the grab and go nature of the supplied AltAz mount. Some people are very comfortable with these aspects, while some find them to be disincentives.

 

Subsequently adding a right ascension axis motor (less expensive) or a GoTo upgrade kit (much more expensive) to the EQ3 allows automatic tracking of acquired objects across the sky. This can be very helpful when viewing objects at high magnification, such as planets. It allows the visual astronomer to concentrate on the object rather than having to continuously adjust the view. The GoTo option will also assist in acquiring targets.

 

The EQ3 will open up astrophotography more, although additional accessories such as a longer dovetail plate or tube rings would also be needed for balancing this telescope with additional gear attached. People on the astrophotography forums will be better placed to comment on the best mount options for pursuing astrophotography using this telescope.

 

If you prefer simplicity as a beginner in visual astronomy, then I think gradually upgrading to a better AltAz mount and tripod (rather than the EQ3) will give you the steadier views without the complexities.

 

Happy viewing!

[Splashy101]

The cost of equipment and learning curve using AP computer programs quelled my interest in true astrophotography. However, for snapshot quality photos there's the new smart telescopes. Basically, they are a Point-N-Shoot approach to taking photos of DSO's. This was taken with a Seestar S50. Not worthy of hanging on the wall interesting and fun none the less 

 

rsz_img_2018_1.jpg.

 

rsz_1stacked_492_mosaic_m_31_100s_ircut_20241103-235411.jpg.

Yeah, I can tell. it's not very fun having a computerized telescope taking all the fun.

[Splashy101]

Do you have a picture or a link to the EQ3?

 

I think skywatcher EQ3 = Celestron CG4 which is a good mount.

 

I used someone's celestron EQ2 or  EQ3 at a public star party.  I'm not exactly sure which and it was a shakey mess with a 114 f4.

 

If you can find a used celestron CG4 it will be very solid with your scope.

 

I do have the Celestron AZ 102, and yes it is a bit shakey on the mount.  A medium duty EQ mount like the (CG4)  would be less shakey and give you single knob tracking.

 

A CG4 can be used either for pictures (limited) and visual.  There is a simple mod that can be done that allows conversion to an alt-az.

https://www.explores...tqvRLgGIo&gQT=2

[ngc6352]

I use my CG4 with a C6 and an 80mm ED APO. It is a solid mount for visual.

[vtornado]

Regarding post #19 thank you splashy.  That is  a different mount that I have experience with that was mounting the small celestron scopes.  Your linked one looks more sturdy.  There is a lot of reuse of branding EQ2, EQ3, CG3, CG4  and the one you linked ... (my brain hurts).

[Splashy101]

Regarding post #19 thank you splashy.  That is  a different mount that I have experience with that was mounting the small celestron scopes.  Your linked one looks more sturdy.  There is a lot of reuse of branding EQ2, EQ3, CG3, CG4  and the one you linked ... (my brain hurts).

Do you know what it is then?

[Pierre C]

My experience is that the generic EQ3 mount on a steel tripod...

I stand corrected.

 

The 'generic EQ3' mount (marketed by Sky-Watcher and others, and silmiar to the CG4) that I described in my post is different to the Explore Scientific EQ3 mount you have included the link for.

 

What I and some others have written here is applicable to this mount, but not necessarily for the ES EQ3, which I have no experience with.

 

It turns out there are a lot of different EQ3 mounts out there. And within the same brand there can also be differences over time.

Edited by Pierre C, 25 March 2025 - 04:20 AM.

[vtornado]

Whatever your picture shows I have not used a mount like that, so I hesitate to state if it will be better than what you have.

 

I believe below is what Celestron calls their CG2 mount.   I have used this at a star party and it was horrible.  The biggest issue is the head had a lot of flex.  When I manually moved the scope to center a new object, as soon as I let it go to lock in the clutches the scope would sag a few degrees.   I had to anticipate where the scope would move to  when I let it go.  This is despite balancing the tube on the mount the best I could.

 

https://www.bhphotov...914511156008005

 

This is a celestron CG4 mount.  It is the minimum mount I would consider buying.  It is the same as the Skywatcher EQ3 except that the legs of the CG4 are tubular steel (stronger) than the aluminum channel legs of the skywatcher.

https://duckduckgo.c...-1581272681.jpg

Edited by vtornado, 25 March 2025 - 01:08 PM.

[Splashy101]

Whatever your picture shows I have not used a mount like that, so I hesitate to state if it will be better than what you have.

 

I believe below is what Celestron calls their CG2 mount.   I have used this at a star party and it was horrible.  The biggest issue is the head had a lot of flex.  When I manually moved the scope to center a new object, as soon as I let it go to lock in the clutches the scope would sag a few degrees.   I had to anticipate where the scope would move to  when I let it go.  This is despite balancing the tube on the mount the best I could.

 

https://www.bhphotov...914511156008005

 

This is a celestron CG4 mount.  It is the minimum mount I would consider buying.  It is the same as the Skywatcher EQ3 except that the legs of the CG4 are tubular steel (stronger) than the aluminum channel legs of the skywatcher.

https://duckduckgo.c...-1581272681.jpg

I think I'm good with the mount I just got. plus I can add onstep to it.