Author Topic: iOptron ZEQ25 payload limits  (Read 564 times)

grounincalpay

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: iOptron ZEQ25 payload limits
« Reply #15 on: January 23, 2018, 12:56:30 AM »
Quote
Thanks for the quick reply, I'm slowly coming to grips with the fact that I'll probably own one of these soon  One other question, with just the camera, which is light (Sony NEX5, maybe 1kg) will I be able to balance with the stock 4.5kg weight?

Hey ahernep,

I'm about to pull the trigger on this mount for my 200p. What did you end up doing? What was your experience with it so far?

Robert Garcia

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 107
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: iOptron ZEQ25 payload limits
« Reply #16 on: January 23, 2018, 05:15:03 PM »
Quote
Quote

Thanks for the quick reply, I'm slowly coming to grips with the fact that I'll probably own one of these soon  One other question, with just the camera, which is light (Sony NEX5, maybe 1kg) will I be able to balance with the stock 4.5kg weight?

Hey ahernep,

I'm about to pull the trigger on this mount for my 200p. What did you end up doing? What was your experience with it so far?
I'll jump in. The following applies to imaging (only). I found it fine with a 600mm focal length refractor, and a total optical train weight around 15 pounds (scope, camera, autoguider, etc.).

22 pounds and 1370mm and a 6 inch RC, was problems. Focal length is important. I now have a CEM60.

The 200p OTA is 20 pounds. 1000mm. By the time you add even a fairly light camera and autoguider setup, you'd be at at least 23 pounds. In my opinion that's too close to the mount's capacity, especially with the big tube.

For visual (only) it should be OK.

Jeffrey Hunter

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: iOptron ZEQ25 payload limits
« Reply #17 on: January 25, 2018, 07:01:42 PM »
I've been using the ZEQ25GT too for a while.
Paul was great in giving me support and advise. Ioptron owes him a lot.

This little mount can handle a heavy load easily, once it is carefully balanced.
But be careful with inertia and acceleration.
To start moving a heavy scope the worms have to apply a lot of initial torque.
They will un-cam a bit and re-engage again.
Once the load is moving (tracking or slewing at a constant speed) you need very little force to keep it moving.
The mechanism is not really designed for such loads.

The problem I experienced (and why I sold it again ) was stability under windy conditions.
My Equinox120 with canon DSLR was clearly within the weight limits of this mount, but the wind rocked the scope so much that AP was not possible.
I now have a IEQ45Pro (also Ioptron) on the tripier and this is a big improvement. My scope is now steady as a rock.
My dream now is to upgrade to the CEM60.

Clear skies
ArieAttached Thumbnails

colzefuli

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: iOptron ZEQ25 payload limits
« Reply #18 on: January 26, 2018, 01:07:50 AM »
I am considering getting the CEM60, too. What is the difference between the CEM60 EC and the CEM60?

Which would be better, the 2" tripod or the Tri-Pier? I am severely limited in money, so it will take me a while to get the cash for it. I would like the 2 inch tripod, as I would only be putting a max weight of only 35 lbs or less. If I get the CEM60, I would probably go for a 10" F/4 Astrographhttp://www.telescope.../18/p/99602.uts.

Or maybe this TPO RC 10" F/8https://www.optcorp....s-tube-ota.html

Joseph Garrison

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 107
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: iOptron ZEQ25 payload limits
« Reply #19 on: January 30, 2018, 02:01:20 AM »
Quote
I am considering getting the CEM60, too. What is the difference between the CEM60 EC and the CEM60?

Which would be better, the 2" tripod or the Tri-Pier? I am severely limited in money, so it will take me a while to get the cash for it. I would like the 2 inch tripod, as I would only be putting a max weight of only 35 lbs or less. If I get the CEM60, I would probably go for a 10" F/4 Astrographhttp://www.telescope.../18/p/99602.uts.

Or maybe this TPO RC 10" F/8https://www.optcorp....s-tube-ota.html

Saving for the CEM60 myself as I underestimated percentage load of OTA plus accessories on my iEQ30 Pro. The EC version has high-precision encoders for sub-arcsecond PE right out of the case. You could do fairly long exposures without computer guiding once its dialed in. The tri-pier has about 3 inch capacity for ground slope, the 2 inch tripod no practical limit.

lorndwatassi

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: iOptron ZEQ25 payload limits
« Reply #20 on: February 02, 2018, 08:34:14 PM »
Depends on what you want to do.
The EC version is very good indeed for unguided work.
But at a substantial cost.
If you're going to guide anyway, the added value of the EC option is not used.
For field work you could guide with an MGEN (brilliant stand alone guider).
DSLR and MGEN are a perfect couple.
If you look at my Tripier, you'll see that the three solid spreader bars are replaced with small customized turn-buckles. This gives a lot more leveling space than the standard design.
Save the extra money on the EC mount (go standard CEM60) and spend it on the tripier, would be my advise.

Jim Snyder

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 121
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: iOptron ZEQ25 payload limits
« Reply #21 on: February 03, 2018, 12:28:40 PM »
Quote
Depends on what you want to do.
The EC version is very good indeed for unguided work.
But at a substantial cost.
If you're going to guide anyway, the added value of the EC option is not used.
For field work you could guide with an MGEN (brilliant stand alone guider).
DSLR and MGEN are a perfect couple.
If you look at my Tripier, you'll see that the three solid spreader bars are replaced with small customized turn-buckles. This gives a lot more leveling space than the standard design.
Save the extra money on the EC mount (go standard CEM60) and spend it on the tripier, would be my advise.


These customized turn-buckles, are they bought from a store and then modifed? Or are they completely custom made?

cytan

redoroto

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 114
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: iOptron ZEQ25 payload limits
« Reply #22 on: February 08, 2018, 09:41:59 PM »
Cytan,
These are wire-tensioners (M8). I found them in a boat-parst store. I had to re-bend the brackets and fill the space with plastic bushings (mini-lathe is useful).
Next I squeezed and glued rings around the 2 hex nuts and the middle part.
Now I need no tools to adjust them and back-up the lock nuts to remove the play.
It makes leveling a breeze.
You actually pull inward or push a leg outward with small adjustments.
If you put them near horizontal (not like in the picture, that's storage position) you have a very stable set-up.

The quick-tension bolts are levers with an eccentric on them.
Just flip the lever straight up to get slack and push them back against the leg at the correct position.
So easy and quick. Need to be pre-adjusted once.

I have them on my mount too.
Now I don't have to twist and turn any knobs.
No wear on the threads.
No damage to the paint by scraping and spinning washers.
Thes bolts are used e.g. on race bicycles to quickly change the saddle.
Everything is flush now. No more pins sticking out to catch any cables.

All for just a few dollars. (Euro's that is. . . . )
Hope this helps.Attached Thumbnails