Daniel,

Personally, I don't think so at all. I use the Hartman Mask idea, with three
holes. Please, let's not get into another "count method, diffraction method"
debate from that. <G> I simply have tried them all and I personally prefer
it, that's all.

At any rate, I take my scope, a 10" LX-200, F6.3, from F25 for imaging, down
to about F2.2 and I can get it in the ball park in about 10 seconds. Another
10 seconds, usually, and I am right on.

I use an ST-7 camera for imaging, and they have a really neat featue where
you can show only the brightest pixels, which results in a REALLY fast update
mode, and that makes it pretty dogonned easy.

Observing-wise, also easy, I think. But then, I have a JMI NGF-S focusser,
and that helps, too, because the scope doesn't jiggle when I adjust focus. So
I don't really think that focussing is very hard.

But that's just MY opinion. I could be wrong. <G>

Bruce Johnston

Bruce Johnston Computing
<http://members.aol.com/bjohns7764>
Internet home for "SuperFix" and "MegaFix" image processing software.

Personal page: <http://members.aol.com/ccdastro>



<< Is the focusing of the Meade's Schmidt Cassegrains so problematic as some
people said?
>>

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: Re: [M]: Observatories, Charles Greenberg
Next message: Re: [M]: Pictor 416XT Software, Douglas B. George
Next message in thread: Re: [M]: SCT Focusing, Bill Arnett