[bert (Brett)]

Heres my theory on ao...

The luminance data carries 90% the fine details in an image. So that where you want the ao to work.

I don't have an issue with colours with ao with the internal guider. Think about it this way: you may have 3 second guide exposures with the ao through filters. You may think that is no benefit over conventional guiding, but in reality it is. To do a correction with normal guiding, you need to move 60 odd kilos to make the correction and have associated issues with moving that mass. With ao guiding you only move a prism in the optical path. So which do you think will end up with optimal results? AO.

To throw some more info in the mix:

A rotator with the internal guider is better than a oag and rgh without a rotator for multiple target automated imaging (lrgb). I had the choice and I went with the rotator, after trying the oag option, due to limited back focus.

As for fli and ao, they are looking at it and I talked for a good hour or so with Greg from fli about it. Its just not on the top of their list right now.

It was mentioned in the thread to get a moag without ao. Thats a bad idea, it designed for that purpose only and is not made to work without the aol, I do not even think adapters can be bought for the telescope side. A mmoag is made for this purpose, but it will not work with the aol.