|
As you like to point out Bert I am going to state the bleeding obvious.
You still have elongated stars in your high resolution images. You have not beaten flexure. Nor could you hope to do so when you are using a set of adjustable rings on your guide scope. Added to this is that you are imaging outside the imaging circle of the scope. From memory I think the RH200 has a 48mm circle and you are imaging at around 55mm or something like that disparity. I am probably wrong about the numbers but not the fact your sensor is well outside the circle. So to begin with your stars at the corners are not well corrected. Add flexure from the camera and guide scope and you are looking at odd shaped stars.
The weight of that camera on the back is well outside spec as I have spoken to OS myself about what size sensor they recommended. I was looking at one stage about buying one of the RH200 scopes and wanted to hear from OS what their thoughts were for what size camera and sensor would be suitable. It is possible to use a 11002 sensor but that is close to being on the edge of spec. Thought it depends on the weight of the camera itself as to whether that will work. An STL11002 seems to work ok because it is relatively light. An STXL on the other hand is heavier again and might cause flex. That is coming straight from Gino at OS.
I don't know why you bother to put up super high resolution images anyway. I have not seen a single one without deformed stars in them anyway. Your issues entirely relate to the points above and you will never fix the problem with that size camera sitting on the back. I am also including the filter wheel in my description of camera. You after all need that to use the sensor to its full potential and therefore need the filters.
While I applaud you having the guts to go and try this experiment, I reckon you would be better either getting a different scope that can handle the weight and image circle or get a new camera and sell that one. Good luck in that regard from one of the smug safe participants.
|