The basic problem with training PEC using a guidecam and guide scope is that your results may be less consistent than if you used the main scope (assuming the FL of your imaging scope is a good deal longer than that of your guide scope.
And you might have some flexure to contend with.
johnjohnson:
... If I used PEC then the guide cam would just be adjusting less is all. Is this correct reasoning?
Yes, but it can still be helpful. For example, what happens if you are making an RGB series and you lose a guide star at some point? If your subexposures are longer than your mount can track without PEC, then at least one of them is going to be kaput due to guide-star loss if you haven't trained for PEC. On the other hand, if your tracking with PEC is good enough for a period longer than your subexposure, then you might survive guide-star loss on one or more of a series of subs.
The EQ6 has no encoders so it has no encoder home position to reference to PEC so what would be the point? You would seeming have to teach PEC after every power down.
Yep. I have that problem with my non-GoTo CI-700. There are parts of the gearing where 2 minutes is smooth, but no more, without PEC. With PEC it goes up to 6 minutes if my focal length is shorter than 1,000mm. With guiding, it's considerably better than that but I haven't guided it in several years (I'm now using a 3RF mount most of the time, an AP900).
I'm a fanatic about PEC when I'm doing double-star observing. I frequently do that at insane magnifications (above 600X) and doing the measurements using an astrometric eyepiece means I'm rotating the eyepiece 180 degrees every half-minute or so for 5 to 10 minutes at a time. You do this for a given star twice a night (equidistant from the meridian on both sides of the meridian) and 10 or 12 stars in a night, and you really appreciate tip-top tracking!
This is the only astronomy "exercise" I can think of that's anywhere near as tedious as manual guiding ... and not many of us do it anymore (not hard to see why!).