Motorising a Skylux mount.

Ok guys, I have the astro photography bug so now I need some help.

I'm hoping to do some wide angle skyscapes with a DSLR, but to have any sort of a chance with longer exposures, I'll need some sort of tracking. I already have the mount that came with the Bresser Slylux from Lidl,the first mount that came with it, a EQ3 (I don't think this came on later versions although I could be wrong). It's a solid enough mount and should be fine to mount the camera on instead of the scope. For the longer exposures, I would probably need to motorise it. Has anyone done this? If so, is this what I'm looking for?

Bresser 900 & 700 RA drive Motor system

Did any of you do something different? I'm open to suggestions (just not ones where I have to sell a) any of my organs, b) any of my kids or c) my soul to the devil :devil: ).

Hi Leo,

I feel you are just wasting your money you will never get reliable tracking especially when you are trying to make a non tracking mount into a tracking mount, It just won't work period.

IF you are serious about taking the jump into astrophotography you are going to have to invest in a mount with popper tracking capabilities like the CG5-GOTO mount, this should cost no more than 5 to 6 hundred Euro. At least you'll get nice round stars in your images, plus when you advance with experience you can add some OTA's guiders etc etc.

You are better off starting your astrophotography journey the right way rather than shooting yourself in the foot before you even begin. It's easy to process good data you cannot process bad data it's that simple.

Carl.

PS,

Also if you just want to use your DSLR have a look at the astro-track It's probably cost the same as the mount

I got that motor and it works ok, BUT that was for keeping the object in the field of view, not for any imaging, so for visual its a yes.
For imaging, it could make you go bald or atleast grey.

Dave_Lillis wrote: I got that motor and it works ok, BUT that was for keeping the object in the field of view, not for any imaging, so for visual its a yes, for imaging, it could make you go bald or atleast grey.

Dave L,

If you are using the motor for visual work or keeping the object in the FOV that's fine. But bring in a CCD or DSLR that's a different story all together, it would be imposable to get any kind of exposure.

There is nothing better than a CCD camera to tell you how good your mount is. Ask any astrophotographor what is there biggest investment when it comes to astrophotography they will aways say the mount everytime.

Carl.

Thanks lads, your advice is much appreciated.

I didn't realise that the mount would have such a detrimental effect when using really short focal lengths. I had assumed that as I would be using 50mm lens or wider, that the tracking would be "good enough". I'm glad I asked!

I guess I'm on the lookout for a mount so.

carlobeirnes wrote:

Dave_Lillis wrote: I got that motor and it works ok, BUT that was for keeping the object in the field of view, not for any imaging, so for visual its a yes, for imaging, it could make you go bald or atleast grey.

Dave L,

If you are using the motor for visual work or keeping the object in the FOV that's fine. But bring in a CCD or DSLR that's a different story all together, it would be imposable to get any kind of exposure.

There is nothing better than a CCD camera to tell you how good your mount is. Ask any astrophotographor what is there biggest investment when it comes to astrophotography they will aways say the mount everytime.

Carl.

yea, exactly, it would be like cleaning the carpet in your lounge with a tooth pic.:bricks: