Advice for a motorised tracker mount with R5 + 500mm F4

lifethroughalens

lifethroughalens

Messages
148
Name
Rod
Edit My Images
No
Hi there,

I was just looking at buying a half decent telescope to show my young kids the planets and stars in more detail, but realised that we'd probably be far better off using the money on a motorised tracking head to take my Canon R5 and 500mm F4 (MK1 - 4KG) with a Mk3 2xTC and the 1.6 crop. That gets me to 1600mm F8 (with 17MP) + the 10 times screen magnification. I already own some beefy tripods and was wondering if there was a good motorised tracking mount / head that could handle this sort of weight? I really want to track the planets for longer exposures and to keep up with the moon. Could you use a GPS tracking system with this too? It's late and I don't have the time to do the proper research now, just thought I'd see if I was barking up the wrong tree on here first or if anyone has mounted a 400-600mm prime on such a set-up?

Many thanks, Rod
 
Last edited:
Weigh your complete kit and that's the bare minimum payload you need the tracker to take. It's best not to max out a tracker or mount if you can avoid it. Factor into the costs that it will be best run off a power tank or similar rather than batteries.
It's probably a good way to do it as telescopes and young kids generally don't mix. When you say you want to show them the stars I assume you know that stars just look like stars at any magnification? However with that set up you'll get good views of some of the bigger star clusters, galaxies and nebulae, and if you know a little of your way around the sky they're not that hard to find. The planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Mars) will be small in the image. Depends how good the resolution of the R5 is at 10x zoomed in. The Moon should be good. Just remember to put the head in the right tracking mode for it.
I use a 150-600 lens on a Canon crop as an 'imaging scope', but on a lightweight proper equatorial mount (bought before tripod-top trackers became a thing). I get the larger deep sky objects very nicely. Several people on here use the trackers.
 
Jannyfox said:
Weigh your complete kit and that's the bare minimum payload you need the tracker to take. It's best not to max out a tracker or mount if you can avoid it. Factor into the costs that it will be best run off a power tank or similar rather than batteries.
It's probably a good way to do it as telescopes and young kids generally don't mix. When you say you want to show them the stars I assume you know that stars just look like stars at any magnification? However with that set up you'll get good views of some of the bigger star clusters, galaxies and nebulae, and if you know a little of your way around the sky they're not that hard to find. The planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Mars) will be small in the image. Depends how good the resolution of the R5 is at 10x zoomed in. The Moon should be good. Just remember to put the head in the right tracking mode for it.
I use a 150-600 lens on a Canon crop as an 'imaging scope', but on a lightweight proper equatorial mount (bought before tripod-top trackers became a thing). I get the larger deep sky objects very nicely. Several people on here use the trackers.
Click to expand...
Thank you very much for you advice, Jannyfox. I appreciate you taking the time to reply. My total rig weight is circa 4.6KG if I drop the battery grip, this is just under most rigs' 5KG maximum payload. Yes, it's mainly for the planets and the moon and some deep sky objects to introduce the kids to the wonder of it all.

Maybe this -

Sky-Watcher Star Adventurer 2i WiFi Pro Pack​


Thanks again.
 
There's absolutely no way the Star Adventurer or similar tracking mount will handle the 500mm f4. I would not put my 300mm 2.8 on that tracker and I've lifted the 500mm f4 so I know how much that weighs as well.

You need a more solid tracker for that lens, like the EQ5 or HEQ5.
 
I've been down a similar route with a Move Shoot Move (3Kg payload) and now own a 2nd-hand EQ5. The caveat is that I'm interested in Deep Sky (DSO) stuff and chase after nebulae rather than planets, so I care about many 60s shots that I can stack, not the faster 2s video-like stuff that gets you the best planetary observations.

I've been shooting with a Fuji X-T3 and the heaviest lens I've used is the Fuji 100-400mm so just under 2Kg for the body+lens, and the MSM struggled a lot and didn't really give me anything usable. The best shots from the MSM were with my Fuji 90mm which is just over 1Kg - this bears out the adage that if you want crisp results, try to keep around 50% of the trackers rated payload. Yes, you can run things up to the limit and get good results, but a lot will depend on the angle you're shooting at, wind conditions, exposure length, etc. and so it'll be a frustrating task to get all of those right as well as a cloud free night...

For smaller trackers (like the MSM) you often have no chance for counterweights unless you start to DIY something, and of course the bracket for the counterweight needs to be factored into the total load along with the weights. Why use weights ? The load on the motor is reduced if it just has to push a load that's been balanced nicely: think about holding out a spade by the handle at arms length, vs balancing the shaft on one finger (sorry if that comes over as patronising - was meant to be illustrative that *more* weight can lead to less work !). If the motor doesn't have to work as hard, then the movements of the head are smoother/less jerky as the screw thread isn't holding the payload and releasing it for each step it makes, so you'll get a better image (round stars, etc.)

The EQ5 I have is rated for 10Kg, and amusingly the counterweights are 2 x 5Kg, so I can't use any counterweight at all as my camera+100-400 lens is too light :LOL: I will be looking to get a 1Kg weight at some point. Or a bigger lens/telescope... The absolute best bit about the EQ5 is that it has the SynScan unit on it, so whilst I need to kneel down to get the polar alignment sorted, after that I can type in the name of the star/galaxy and the mount will go and find it and track it. So, so, neat. Lazy ? Fine - I'll take that, because I get more imaging time if I'm not hunting down things that are too faint to see with the human eye and needing to take loads of 10s test frames to check I'm in the right place.

Biggest downside of the EQ5 ? Weight, and the fact I now have to take a portable (well, luggable) 12v power supply with me. The mount needs 2A, but that does mean I can just plug in my camera to a USB/12v adaptor and never need to worry about camera lifetime or using battery packs on the camera as it takes next to nothing in comparison. Oh, and last night I had to stop due to condensation: definitely hitting dew heater weather so will be adding that onto the battery pack load too in the next few weeks. If you haven't found this out already, do use whatever lens hood you have for your telephoto - it makes a great dew shield !

I'm considering something in the 600 to 750mm region, but learning the way the astro-folk talk about telescopes vs what I'm used to for terrestrial lenses is a bit of a struggle at the moment. I am thinking of an old manual prime, but focussing is a real challenge, so I'm debating going to the astro side of things just to get a 10:1 focus reducer and not fight the focus-by-wire of the Fuji gear.
 
minimaltoo said:
I've been down a similar route with a Move Shoot Move (3Kg payload) and now own a 2nd-hand EQ5. The caveat is that I'm interested in Deep Sky (DSO) stuff and chase after nebulae rather than planets, so I care about many 60s shots that I can stack, not the faster 2s video-like stuff that gets you the best planetary observations.

I've been shooting with a Fuji X-T3 and the heaviest lens I've used is the Fuji 100-400mm so just under 2Kg for the body+lens, and the MSM struggled a lot and didn't really give me anything usable. The best shots from the MSM were with my Fuji 90mm which is just over 1Kg - this bears out the adage that if you want crisp results, try to keep around 50% of the trackers rated payload. Yes, you can run things up to the limit and get good results, but a lot will depend on the angle you're shooting at, wind conditions, exposure length, etc. and so it'll be a frustrating task to get all of those right as well as a cloud free night...

For smaller trackers (like the MSM) you often have no chance for counterweights unless you start to DIY something, and of course the bracket for the counterweight needs to be factored into the total load along with the weights. Why use weights ? The load on the motor is reduced if it just has to push a load that's been balanced nicely: think about holding out a spade by the handle at arms length, vs balancing the shaft on one finger (sorry if that comes over as patronising - was meant to be illustrative that *more* weight can lead to less work !). If the motor doesn't have to work as hard, then the movements of the head are smoother/less jerky as the screw thread isn't holding the payload and releasing it for each step it makes, so you'll get a better image (round stars, etc.)

The EQ5 I have is rated for 10Kg, and amusingly the counterweights are 2 x 5Kg, so I can't use any counterweight at all as my camera+100-400 lens is too light :LOL: I will be looking to get a 1Kg weight at some point. Or a bigger lens/telescope... The absolute best bit about the EQ5 is that it has the SynScan unit on it, so whilst I need to kneel down to get the polar alignment sorted, after that I can type in the name of the star/galaxy and the mount will go and find it and track it. So, so, neat. Lazy ? Fine - I'll take that, because I get more imaging time if I'm not hunting down things that are too faint to see with the human eye and needing to take loads of 10s test frames to check I'm in the right place.

Biggest downside of the EQ5 ? Weight, and the fact I now have to take a portable (well, luggable) 12v power supply with me. The mount needs 2A, but that does mean I can just plug in my camera to a USB/12v adaptor and never need to worry about camera lifetime or using battery packs on the camera as it takes next to nothing in comparison. Oh, and last night I had to stop due to condensation: definitely hitting dew heater weather so will be adding that onto the battery pack load too in the next few weeks. If you haven't found this out already, do use whatever lens hood you have for your telephoto - it makes a great dew shield !

I'm considering something in the 600 to 750mm region, but learning the way the astro-folk talk about telescopes vs what I'm used to for terrestrial lenses is a bit of a struggle at the moment. I am thinking of an old manual prime, but focussing is a real challenge, so I'm debating going to the astro side of things just to get a 10:1 focus reducer and not fight the focus-by-wire of the Fuji gear.
Click to expand...

Thank you for this information and experience, Minimaltoo. I am now looking at the Sky-Watcher EQ6 PRO SkyScan GOTO Extra Heavy Duty Equatorial Mount and Tripod. Of course, that's £1500 and I could get a Celestron Nexstar 8" for the same money and it would be infinitely easier to use and travel with! I think I'd rather have this heavy duty monster so I can use my 500mm f4 with ease and maybe even borrow a friend's 800mm f5.6 on the R5. I can see this eventually leading to yet another huge expense further down the road when I want to get a telescope ;)

Thank you for your help and to SMR for the same advice to aim for the Sky-Watcher EQ range.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top