Skywatcher EQ6 R PRO, is this a good mount?

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

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

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

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

Steve Ludwig:
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

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

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.

@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

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.

John Harper:
made of unobtanium

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

Dan Kusz:
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.

Hey @Dan Kusz thanks for this. Have actually seen this video. Cuiv is pretty good.

Cheers
Brad

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

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

Bradley Watson:
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

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