Nice mount, but the biggest issue is the fact that the ports for power and handset and USB 3 input, are on the moving axis, and should be like ioptron and be on a fixed positions so the cables dont move, this is what pushed me to ioptron CEM70 instead, and you still have to rely on 3rd party ASCOM drivers like GSS and EQMOD to run from a PC as skywatcher don't produce there own that’s any good…so a few issues to sort before its anywhere near the ioptron CEM70 or 120…
@9:36 M51 unguided at 180 seconds? Are you sure? That mount has no encoders so I find that hard to belief, especially if that if that M51 unguided shot was using the C9.25
I’m positive. It’s using a hyperstar so we aren’t talking 2500mm of FL, but 535mm rather so a lot easier to keep tracking on. Full focal length will require very precision autoguiding.
Hi, someone on a forum is claiming there are no actual clutches on this mount. He says when he had a pier strike it ruined his gears. Can you confirm that the clutches actually exist and slip like they should? Thanks VP
Very nice overview, thanks for making the video. How is your experience now after a few months ? And how about the sound, is it nosier than an EQ6-R Pro ? And how do you experience the mounting of the cables on the front of the mount, isn't that a problem for snags ?
The mount is super solid! It tracks well. Very accurate. Guiding numbers are great. It is noisier when skewing to objects than the EQ6R-Pro but if you’re doing imaging you’re only really slewing a few times a night so it’s not too bad. Certainly nowhere as loud as a Meade or something like that. The design of the mount is a little puzzling. The cables off the front doesn’t really pose too much issue for me but it’s the need for a second power cable into the USB hub that bothers me. Like everyone else incorporates the DC outputs into the saddles by powering them through the mount, not a separate external source. So some design quirks but it’s truly a good mount.
@@MaximumAstronomy yeah cant lug it around unless you are buff. The original tripod was not light either. But this is definitely heavy. The clerance is very useful i must say.
Right on time - shortlisting mounts and this is one of the candidates! Question which seems to have no definitive answer anywhere - were you able to deploy PPEC or at least PEC with EQMOD or GSServer?
I personally didn’t get into but a friend of mine who has one has successfully trained the PEC with EDMOD and it delivers very well. But out of the box, guiding and tracking is already SO good, so that’s a huge thumbs up in my opinion!
@@MaximumAstronomy I am more and more warming up to this mount. Still looking at CEM70 as this is longer on the market and more mature but the threshold for cq350 to be in this zone too is coming up.
Hello - very nice video . Thank you ! I am strongly considering this mount . I have a few questions if you don’t mind Would you say the polar alignment s/w tool that it comes with is accurate or just adequate compared to 3rd party options ? I would like to mount my 12” Quattro to this . Do you think there is enough overhead on the mount’s capacity ? The scope alone weights 57 lbs Does this mount work with eqmod and can it interface to Stellarium? Thank you again
@@oq17 Hi there! To answer your questions…..First the polar alignment issue. There is no polar scope for this from SW as far as the US market goes. You can also do polar alignment with SharpCap, QHY PoleMaster, ASIAir, etc to achieve good polar alignment. I used it primarily for imaging so the ASIAir method was quick and easy and was very accurate. The 12” Quattro should be fine for visual. You’ve got 20 additional pounds of payload to spare. I’ve seen folks mount big scopes and do successful imaging on them. But you might still need to consider an even larger option mount just because of general rules of astrophotography. 50% of your mounts capacity is always a good number. Visual you’re fine. But photographic to be at 75% of the payload may be pushing it. I’ve seen it done though with no difference in results for guiding and such. I just don’t have an OTA big enough to try that for you. The mount works just like any other SW mount with EQMOD and drivers. I would imagine as long as you have the proper drivers installed Stellarium would run it just fine. Most SW mounts are compatible with all the softwares and I’d expect this to be no different. Hope this helps!
@ thank you for your quick and thoughtful reply . Just one clarifying question regarding polar aligning . Is there a distinction in performance between using the polar alignment tool that comes with the Sky-Watcher mount software vs 3rd party apps like the ones you mentioned ( Sharp cap etc …). ? Thanks
@ The onboard software is very good. It is a modified version of Celestron’s ASPA process which is very accurate as well. I’d say if you were imaging I’d use an electronic method as it will be more precise with a small pixel sensitivity. There really isn’t a clear pick this over that, but most people find an electronic method more convenient and time saving if you’re imaging since it’s usually integrated in your workflow.
@@MaximumAstronomy Thank you again for the help. I actually received the mount today. I noticed that when the Ra and DEC axes are locked, there still is a bit of wiggle. Is that normal? Can it be adjusted out ?
@ Mounts should have a tiny bit of backlash because they are still traditional worm gears and teeth. Try it out for performance and if it works fine and tracks like mine did then you’ll be fine. Mine had just a hair on the DEC axis and I still got fantastic numbers for tracking and guiding.
You also have the servo and stepper motor issue the wrong way round, most mounts have stepper motors and not servo motors, stepper’s are the norm, and servo are much better and fitted into high end mounts…
I believe the point I’m trying to make in the video is why the stepper motor is better in astrophotography in this class. Both motor designs are equally as good and capable for astrophotography IF done correctly which is the challenge at the cheaper price points. Servo motors like what is found on the CGX have internal reduction gears, usually made of plastic which introduced a further bit of backlash into the system. Things like the 8 SE mount for example can have horrible backlash because of the reduction gears and there is no way to adjust those things. Stepper motors have one big wheel inside that spins, reducing the need for the several reduction gears which eliminate quite a bit of the backlash. That coupled with the belt drives and a spring loaded worm almost alleviate any issues in the drive system for backlash compensation for guiding and such. No it will not be perfect, but it’s far better for backlash purposes than cheaply made servo motors with standard gears at the same price point. Power consumption the servo is better. And steppers have higher vibrations because of their design, but when you’re trying to use it for guiding on a big beefy mount, I have had and seen better results from the stepper motor than the servo motors from the CQ350 vs the CGX. Higher end mounts typically have much better resolution encoders AND much better made precision servo motors which can have their advantages. No doubt the higher end mounts have far better drives in them but that’s why you pay substantially more for them of course.
@@art473 Yes I do. The CGX and Ls are good mounts, but they’re not as friendly on the maintenance side of life. They have a poor designed wiring where the wires get pinched behind the motor block and over time it causes the motor to skip and run away. This can only be fixed by tearing down and rerouting the cables again with new ones from Celestron. CGXs are VERY hard to work on and people like Ed from Deep Space Products have stopped providing service for them because they are so difficult. I want to recommend them but the design is just a miss. The CQ350 has better bearings for easier balancing, higher payload to weight ratio, overall better ergonomics, and much easier serviceable components.
Nice mount, but the biggest issue is the fact that the ports for power and handset and USB 3 input, are on the moving axis, and should be like ioptron and be on a fixed positions so the cables dont move, this is what pushed me to ioptron CEM70 instead, and you still have to rely on 3rd party ASCOM drivers like GSS and EQMOD to run from a PC as skywatcher don't produce there own that’s any good…so a few issues to sort before its anywhere near the ioptron CEM70 or 120…
@9:36 M51 unguided at 180 seconds? Are you sure? That mount has no encoders so I find that hard to belief, especially if that if that M51 unguided shot was using the C9.25
I’m positive. It’s using a hyperstar so we aren’t talking 2500mm of FL, but 535mm rather so a lot easier to keep tracking on. Full focal length will require very precision autoguiding.
Ahhh you didn't say anything about Hyperstar on the M51 image and the start of your video shows C9.25 without Hyperstar
Good to see new faces online, seems like the regulars just aren’t producing videos anymore, I.e. Astro biscuit…?
Where did you get that OTA wrap? It’s so cool!
My friend locally made it for me! It’s so much fun!
Can you please make a video how to line up your mont
Can you tell me a little more about lining it up? Like polar alignment? Or finding targets? What are you interested in seeing?
Hi,
someone on a forum is claiming there are no actual clutches on this mount. He says when he had a pier strike it ruined his gears. Can you confirm that the clutches actually exist and slip like they should?
Thanks VP
Very nice overview, thanks for making the video. How is your experience now after a few months ? And how about the sound, is it nosier than an EQ6-R Pro ?
And how do you experience the mounting of the cables on the front of the mount, isn't that a problem for snags ?
The mount is super solid! It tracks well. Very accurate. Guiding numbers are great. It is noisier when skewing to objects than the EQ6R-Pro but if you’re doing imaging you’re only really slewing a few times a night so it’s not too bad. Certainly nowhere as loud as a Meade or something like that. The design of the mount is a little puzzling. The cables off the front doesn’t really pose too much issue for me but it’s the need for a second power cable into the USB hub that bothers me. Like everyone else incorporates the DC outputs into the saddles by powering them through the mount, not a separate external source. So some design quirks but it’s truly a good mount.
@@MaximumAstronomy Thank you for the informative answer
I swapped out the tripod with the pier of 8R. The clearance is very useful and has smaller footprint. But the pier feels like it weighs 100 lbs.
Oh probably! Makes it a bigger beast!!!
@@MaximumAstronomy yeah cant lug it around unless you are buff. The original tripod was not light either. But this is definitely heavy. The clerance is very useful i must say.
Right on time - shortlisting mounts and this is one of the candidates!
Question which seems to have no definitive answer anywhere - were you able to deploy PPEC or at least PEC with EQMOD or GSServer?
I personally didn’t get into but a friend of mine who has one has successfully trained the PEC with EDMOD and it delivers very well. But out of the box, guiding and tracking is already SO good, so that’s a huge thumbs up in my opinion!
@@MaximumAstronomy I am more and more warming up to this mount. Still looking at CEM70 as this is longer on the market and more mature but the threshold for cq350 to be in this zone too is coming up.
Hello - very nice video . Thank you !
I am strongly considering this mount . I have a few questions if you don’t mind
Would you say the polar alignment s/w tool that it comes with is accurate or just adequate compared to 3rd party options ?
I would like to mount my 12” Quattro to this . Do you think there is enough overhead on the mount’s capacity ? The scope alone weights 57 lbs
Does this mount work with eqmod and can it interface to Stellarium?
Thank you again
@@oq17 Hi there! To answer your questions…..First the polar alignment issue. There is no polar scope for this from SW as far as the US market goes. You can also do polar alignment with SharpCap, QHY PoleMaster, ASIAir, etc to achieve good polar alignment. I used it primarily for imaging so the ASIAir method was quick and easy and was very accurate.
The 12” Quattro should be fine for visual. You’ve got 20 additional pounds of payload to spare. I’ve seen folks mount big scopes and do successful imaging on them. But you might still need to consider an even larger option mount just because of general rules of astrophotography. 50% of your mounts capacity is always a good number. Visual you’re fine. But photographic to be at 75% of the payload may be pushing it. I’ve seen it done though with no difference in results for guiding and such. I just don’t have an OTA big enough to try that for you.
The mount works just like any other SW mount with EQMOD and drivers. I would imagine as long as you have the proper drivers installed Stellarium would run it just fine. Most SW mounts are compatible with all the softwares and I’d expect this to be no different.
Hope this helps!
@ thank you for your quick and thoughtful reply .
Just one clarifying question regarding polar aligning .
Is there a distinction in performance between using the polar alignment tool that comes with the Sky-Watcher mount software vs 3rd party apps like the ones you mentioned ( Sharp cap etc …). ?
Thanks
@ The onboard software is very good. It is a modified version of Celestron’s ASPA process which is very accurate as well. I’d say if you were imaging I’d use an electronic method as it will be more precise with a small pixel sensitivity. There really isn’t a clear pick this over that, but most people find an electronic method more convenient and time saving if you’re imaging since it’s usually integrated in your workflow.
@@MaximumAstronomy Thank you again for the help. I actually received the mount today. I noticed that when the Ra and DEC axes are locked, there still is a bit of wiggle. Is that normal? Can it be adjusted out ?
@ Mounts should have a tiny bit of backlash because they are still traditional worm gears and teeth. Try it out for performance and if it works fine and tracks like mine did then you’ll be fine. Mine had just a hair on the DEC axis and I still got fantastic numbers for tracking and guiding.
You also have the servo and stepper motor issue the wrong way round, most mounts have stepper motors and not servo motors, stepper’s are the norm, and servo are much better and fitted into high end mounts…
I believe the point I’m trying to make in the video is why the stepper motor is better in astrophotography in this class. Both motor designs are equally as good and capable for astrophotography IF done correctly which is the challenge at the cheaper price points. Servo motors like what is found on the CGX have internal reduction gears, usually made of plastic which introduced a further bit of backlash into the system. Things like the 8 SE mount for example can have horrible backlash because of the reduction gears and there is no way to adjust those things. Stepper motors have one big wheel inside that spins, reducing the need for the several reduction gears which eliminate quite a bit of the backlash. That coupled with the belt drives and a spring loaded worm almost alleviate any issues in the drive system for backlash compensation for guiding and such. No it will not be perfect, but it’s far better for backlash purposes than cheaply made servo motors with standard gears at the same price point. Power consumption the servo is better. And steppers have higher vibrations because of their design, but when you’re trying to use it for guiding on a big beefy mount, I have had and seen better results from the stepper motor than the servo motors from the CQ350 vs the CGX. Higher end mounts typically have much better resolution encoders AND much better made precision servo motors which can have their advantages. No doubt the higher end mounts have far better drives in them but that’s why you pay substantially more for them of course.
I'm guessing they won't modify that power problem now that they have a harmonic mount like the Wave 150i with a 25kg capacity.
I’m going to assume the same as you. The harmonic drive is going to be their new bread and butter is my guess.
Do you prefer this mount over the CGX-L?
@@art473 Yes I do. The CGX and Ls are good mounts, but they’re not as friendly on the maintenance side of life. They have a poor designed wiring where the wires get pinched behind the motor block and over time it causes the motor to skip and run away. This can only be fixed by tearing down and rerouting the cables again with new ones from Celestron. CGXs are VERY hard to work on and people like Ed from Deep Space Products have stopped providing service for them because they are so difficult. I want to recommend them but the design is just a miss. The CQ350 has better bearings for easier balancing, higher payload to weight ratio, overall better ergonomics, and much easier serviceable components.
Top video 👍 merci
Honestly, using a guide scope is more of a distraction then a benefit.
what? 😂
How many mounts do you have? In your videos, I have counted 5 mounts.
I have owned various equipment over time for reviews, testing and such. My primary mount is an Orion Atlas Pro AZ/EQ.
@@MaximumAstronomy Are you planning to compare AP Mach2 with this mount?
That's a BEEFY mount!!!
Looks heavy and expensive.
That's the reality of any usable mount which provides that amount of payload 😢
it's very heavy, but when you compare it to other mounts with similar capacity, it's pretty well priced.
What happened with your scope? Scratches all over place! Oh, I see! It is sky map! Original.