Thank you for your thoughts. It seems that the off axis guider is problably
the way to go right now. I have only one concern with the GEG. I currently
own the NGFS focuser with the larger non-vinetting (sorry about the spelling)
adapter. Should I just get the regular easy guider? I really like using the
focuser (NGFS) with the camera? Any thoughts? Thanks

Chris Vedeler wrote:

> At 07:56 PM 12/29/99 -0800, you wrote:
> >Off Axis or Guide Scope???
>
> Off axis. Period.
>
> >I have been taking pictures (35mm Camera eyepiece projection) with my
> >scope for the past six months. I have taken some good moon and
> >planetary photos. I am currently struggling with deep sky objects (long
> >exposures). I recently bought a Meade Super Wedge and have been taking
> >10-15minute exposures. These look much better than they did wiithout
> >the wedge (no rotation), but there is still the need for imporvement and
> >the desire for longer exposures.
> >
> >After reading through past posts in this group it looks like the only
> >way to imporve is to get a guidescope or off-axis guider. It sound like
> >the guidescope gives you the most flexability, but that it may not be as
> >simple to use as the off-axis guider?
> >
> >I am thinking about buying the meade #777 off axis guider to start out
> >with and then go for a guidescope. Does this make sense or am I just
> >wasting my money?
>
> To be blunt, it would be a waste of money to get the Meade off axis
> guider. It will cause you huge amounts of frustration trying to center a
> guide star, and if you ever use an autoguider it will cause you many
> magnitudes greater frustration still.
>
> >I have seen a lot about the Lumicon Giat Easy Guider. Is it that much
> >better than the meade?
>
> Yes. In my opinion it is the only option for an off axis guider for a 10"
> or larger SCT. It works, and it works well. That can't be said for the
> Meade, Celestron, or Orion off axis guider.
>
> >Finally, any recomendations for a guidescope? Used Meade ETX90, Orion
> >80mm Refractor???
>
> A guide scope introduces several problems that an off axis guider does not.
> It adds considerable weight to the scope, you introduce the problems of
> differential flexure between the two scopes, and a guide scope can not
> correct for the mirror flop problems that are inherent in any commercial
> SCT design. I used a Celestron 80mm f/11.4 guide scope for almost two
> years until my desire for higher quality forced me back to off axis. The
> maximum exposure time using my guidescope was about 20 minutes before the
> stars would appear oblong. This was with a very ridged mounting system and
> the mirror cell locked down. Without a serious redesign of the mirror
> cell, this is about as long as I believe possible with a commercial SCT
> like the LX200. For CCD, 20 minutes is often as long of an exposure as one
> would do, so guidescopes may work fine, but for film, where 1 hour + is
> often necessary, forget using a guidescope for quality work.
>
> >I have learned a great deal reading all of your posts over the past
> >couple of months. Thank you very much.
> >
> >BTW: The Mars Polar Lander thing was all my fault.
> >I took the day off from work to watch the landing. :)
>
> Good luck!
>
> Chris Vedeler
> http://www.isomedia.com/homes/cvedeler/space.htm
> Tucson, AZ

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: Re: [M]: LX200 10" Photo Guideing Equipment, Erik Stromberg
Next message: [M]: Re: [OT] Laser surgery, Bert Katzung
Previous message in thread: Re: [M]: LX200 10" Photo Guideing Equipment, Erik Stromberg