Best options for astro tracking - performance vs portability

Hi all

I apologize in advance, because these type of questions are already all over this forum "which -whatever gadget- should I buy". Nevertheless I am seeking advice from you guys regarding my upcoming purchase.

Some years ago I owned an iOptron Skytracker and did widefield shots with it. In general I was quite happy with the Skytracker, but it did have some serious drawbacks. I found it to be very hard to polar align due to the lack of good fine tuning possibilities. Also, although the tracking was good with my 16-35mm and 50mm, it really was hit and miss with 200-300mm (which was to be expected).

I would like to go into astro shooting again, and I am seeking a good mount for my needs which are:
- Widefield shooting with my Canon 35mm II
- Some DSO with my Canon 70-200mm II
- Somewhat portable (weight in the range of 1 to 30 kilos or 2 - 66 lbs) but rather easy to setup
- Somewhat future proof should I ever want to do guiding or mounting a smaller telescope for imaging

I have been looking at the iOptrion Skyguider Pro, but even though it seems better than the Skytracker, I have concluded, that the Skyguider Pro would soon have me face the same limitations that I experienced with the Skytracker.

Then there is the Fornax Light Track II which has been getting some good reviews on the internet regarding it's tracking abilities. I can buy the Fornax for around €1.000 ($1.100) including polar scope and wedge. For convenience I could easily see myself buying a Polemaster in the near future, which would cost me another €230 or $270. With this in mind I would expect to spend around €1.200 ($1.400) in all for this set.

Would this set give me good value for my money, or would I be better off buying another mount in the same price range, that would give me a better tracking performance but less portability?

As a side note I can buy a used Skywatcher HEQ5 Pro in my area for about $600. Would that offer significantly better tracking possibilities compared to the Fornax Light Track II?

As you’ve pointed out ... to see noticeably better results, handle more weight, and “future-proofing” ... you’re starting to get the point where you could buy an equatorial telescope mount.

The thing is ... do you need ‘portability’? I have two different equatorial telescope mounts that I use (I technically have 3 but the 3rd one doesn’t perform well enough to use for anything beyond visual observing). But the problem is, these aren’t very “airline” friendly. So if I’m traveling via airline, I prefer the photo-tripod and a tracking head.

Celestron, Orion, iOptron ... all make decent go-to equatorial tracking mounts for telescopes that are under $1000. If you aren’t loading them up with a lot of weight and you aren’t using a long focal length (all camera lenses are considered “wide field” / short focal-length compared to telescopes) then those options are good choices.

SkyWatcher’s “Star Adventurer” had the option to use a counterweight (which is a tremendous help if using a heavier camera+lens). They also had a better “wedge” (to find adjust latitude/azimuth). But iOptron countered with their Sky Guider Pro (which is possibly on-par with the Sky Watcher Star Adventurer. ) and this has the option to use a counterweight bar. Sky Watcher countered by offering a lower-cost options in the Star Adventurer Mini (a lower cost tracking head). Both companies now make lower cost heads that claim a 2.5Kg (5.5lb) capacity and a higher end 5kg (11lb) capacity.

The counter weight bar is very helpful. The whole rig has a “center of mass”. The problem is that as the mount is tracking, the center of mass shifts ... this causes the relative load to shift on the tripod and that can result in some flexure. When you use a counterweight to balance the head, the load on the head wont “shift” as the head tracks. This means the center of mass doesn’t move. Where any given tripod might sag a bit (flexure) under load ... the position of that center-of-mass wont move ... so where ever it was when it started doesn’t change throughout the night.

But for “future proofing” ... if you really get bit by the bug and are thinking now you want a telescope, the focal lengths get longer (meaning any tracking errors are easier to notice in the images) and the weight gets heavier. This results in a need for even beefier telescope mounts and ... it can get expensive (the joke is ... if you want to keep your kids off drugs, just get them hooked on astrophotography ... they’ll have no money to buy drugs.). Suddenly $2000 is a “budget” mount. So ... how much “future proofing” do you want? “Future proofing” only goes so far.

If you’re sticking with DSLR camera bodies and lenses, then you’ll be fine.

It should offer much better tracking, but portability will be a concern.