Owning both the EQ5 and EQ6, the latter is by far the better mount.
very easy to upgrade to various GOTO configerations, I did mine with the
Skysenser 2000 pc.Others have used the Meade Autostar system with DS motors.
Check this image of NGC 5139 taken with the EQ6/SS2K
with a Synta 150mm refractor.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~westsky/NGC5139.jpg
Whilst the image could be a lot better(note the slight field rotation ),this
was my fault not the mount's.My polar alignment was out by 7 degrees and as
this was a 20min unguided image I think the results are quite good,but I
took the shot so my opinion is slighty biased :-))
The EQ6 is rock solid with the 150mm and a 102mm f10 refractor mounted on
top.Just no comparision to the EQ5.

regards
David.

"Orion" wrote in message
...
I am FAR from convinced the EQ6 is a better mount than the CG-5,
given how many horror stories their have been about the EQ6
That, and the fact it looks very unlikely that the EQ-6 will ever be
upgradeable to GOTO...hardly better.....
Orion

"Jarle Aasland" wrote in message
...
For astrophotography, the crucial issue will be the stability of the
provided CG-5 mount. However, if you are imaging only the "moon and
planets" (short exposures), that should be less of an issue.

Thanks, Phil.

Anyone familiar with Sky-Wathcer telescopes?

I can get a similar 6" refractor with a better mount (EQ6:
http://www.skywatchertelescope.com/EQ6.html) for a little more than the
Celestron model (which includes a CG-5 mount).

The 6" Sky-Wathcer refractor is described at
http://www.skywatchertelescope.com/15012EQ5.html

Which one would you choose?

Jarle




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 8/4/2003