> I am thinking of the ST7-E which is the new enhanced version
> of the ST-7. This will be the Non Antiblooming variety. Will the
> Non-ABG version cause me greater difficulty than the ABG variety?

No. I've owned/used both. The short answer is that if blooming
is going to be a problem with the NABG it will be a problem with
the ABG chips. At moderate to short FLs you are going to have
to stack no matter which version of the chip you have.

> I will also be getting the F6.3 focal reducer - and also the
> 3.3 reducer. I believe with those attachments that I will be able
> to attain the type of pixel resolution that is appropriate for my
> telescope / the ST7.

I'm sorry, but you have fallen victim to one of the most pervasive
amateur astronomy myths. It all started from _one_ S&T article
years ago. If you were to reread the article it actually states
that the 2"/pixel resolution is the best compromise _for_beginners_
as it is a good compromise. You get a semi-decent resolution that
is still coarse enough to hide many guiding and focusing errors.
It is far, far from being the _optimum_ resolution. There have
been both mathematical and "real world" testing of this issue.
>From those that have actually tested this issue the results have
been universal. Resolution < 1"/pixel (depending on seeing) is
necessary for the best images.

With your OTA the native f/10 FL would actually give you the
best images. The problem is that you are pushing the limit of
where most galaxies will fit on the chip without rotating the
camera for every image. So for ease of use a .63X reducer will
be better. But you are actually getting a poorer image by doing
this, so don't fool yourself. It will just be easier.

Gene Horr

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: [Fwd: [M]: LX200 software problems!], Bob Denny
Next message: Re: [M]: LX200 12" : Balance weight system, Gene Horr
Previous message in thread: Re: [M]: Advice on purchasing an ST7-E, Bob Denny