Should I upgrade my mount and, if so, what to?

The EQ6 R Pro has a very good reputation as a true workhorse for moderate payloads. That seems like a great choice. If your RMS guide error is over 1" and your seeing isn't absolutely horrible, something needs to change. It's not necessarily the mount that is causing the issues, but that's the single most likely culprit. Before you go spend a bunch of money, though, I would want to confirm that your guide settings are reasonably well optimized, that you are able to get good polar alignment, that the scope is well balanced, and that PHD2 (assuming that's what you are using) has been properly configured; it has an auto calibration routine where it will do things like measure backlash, determine best exposure length for your set of guide stars, etc.

So, are you sure it isn't user error? I don't mean to insult your skills, just don't want to tell you, "Yes, a mount upgrade will fix this" without looking at other things. Is your polar alignment decent? Not perfect, just pretty good? You know to balance your scope in both axes? Backlash is configured properly in PHD2? You're using multi-star guiding? Tweaks to your guide setups can make a difference, but they aren't going to get you from >1" to <0.5" unless you have done something really wrong, so just want to rule that out.

The only down-side I am aware of to the EQ6R Pro is that it's a little on the chunky side. That isn't at all a bad thing when it comes to performance, but it can be a concern as far as portability and setup.  I believe it's a touch under 20kg for the head which is nearly double what you are used to with the HEQ5. If you're good with that, I have friends using the EQ6R Pro and they love it.

Steve Argereow:
I've heard Andy a general rule of thumb is for Astrophotography your mount should be rated for twice the payload of your actual payload. 
That includes OTA, filter, camera etc...  For example: if your total payload is 20 pounds you should get a mount rated at least for 40 pounds.
It looks like your really cutting it close with your setup. Even if your balance is perfect, your probably overloading the mount for Astrophotography.
For visual Astronomy your probably fine, mount rating are usually for visual.

                   Andy I looked at some of your images.  The stars in some of them are only slightly elongated.  Your M27 is not a bad image for only
1 hour 10 minutes integration time.  at 5 minutes subs the stars have only the slightest hint of elongation.  More integration time and I think
star reduction in processing would improve this image.

               Of course the points that Mr. Jared Wilson has stated are also great suggestions.

Thank you for the feedback.  FWIW:  the Crescent nebula photo is probably more representative of my current setup, so any thoughts on that would be appreciated:


Quick and dirty Crescent

Andy Wray:

Steve Argereow:
I've heard Andy a general rule of thumb is for Astrophotography your mount should be rated for twice the payload of your actual payload. 
That includes OTA, filter, camera etc...  For example: if your total payload is 20 pounds you should get a mount rated at least for 40 pounds.
It looks like your really cutting it close with your setup. Even if your balance is perfect, your probably overloading the mount for Astrophotography.
For visual Astronomy your probably fine, mount rating are usually for visual.

                   Andy I looked at some of your images.  The stars in some of them are only slightly elongated.  Your M27 is not a bad image for only
1 hour 10 minutes integration time.  at 5 minutes subs the stars have only the slightest hint of elongation.  More integration time and I think
star reduction in processing would improve this image.

               Of course the points that Mr. Jared Wilson has stated are also great suggestions.

Thank you for the feedback.  FWIW:  the Crescent nebula photo is probably more representative of my current setup, so any thoughts on that would be appreciated:


Quick and dirty Crescent

I know your asking about mounts but in zooming into your stars even in the center of the image resemble triangular shapes. This is a good indication that you have a pinched optic and I’ll say looking at them its the primary mirror cell clips. Just thought I’d point it out for you is all.

As for your mount the EQ6 is a solid mount but its payload is 44lbs or at 50% 22lbs. (Celestron CGEM II equivalent) You may if things are very well balanced get 30lbs but I’d say thats pushing the mount a tad. I’m not a Sky Watcher user so others could give you more guidance then I can. If you were going to consider a Celestron mount, I’ve used many and I think the CGX is a pretty good setup that can handle 55lbs. However its a $2500 mount so it goes back to what @andreatasselli mentioned as to how much you want to spend.

My thoughts are that if you can push your mount to accomplish the imaging you want, then stay with it. I had issues with my ATLAS EQ-G and decided to tune it grease it up. When I took it apart I found two broken Teflon shims. I replaced them an everything works well. When there is a problem I test the mount. I have found issues such as a loose counterweigh shaft or a dry bearing, needing grease. Joe

Hi Andi,
since I am somewhat in the same situation as you (but I only come from a Star Adventurer)…
have you also looked at iOptron mounts? I myself, think about a CEM26 or probably a CEM40…. maybe the CEM40 (18kg payload) or GEM45 is something for you?

the advantage of an iOptron is the mounts are way lighter but with a better payload ratio… people say they use the payload up to 75% for imaging…