[avandonk]

If I spent all my time worrying about eggy stars at the corners on a sensor far bigger than the corrected field of the RH200 I would never get, and you would never see any images.

Conversely I could put up small jpg artefact compromised images where all the stars were mere blocky thingies that did not look like stars at all but at a distance still looked like stars. Just have a look what is on the internet and see at what sort of definition the so called 'perfect' images are published and the plethora of acolytes that do not have a clue.

Please do not rave about blocky images and then have the nerve to to say a part of an image at far higher resolution is not quite correct.

Please do not tell me something I already know full well. If you have followed what I am doing you you find how difficult F3 and very large sensors are to manage as far as focus and flexure are concerned. The tiniest variation can lead to eggy stars. We are talking about tens of microns here.

Does your optics stay within focus over about 15C degrees of ambient temperature variation within 20 micron? Thought not.

All that aside the depth of faint nebular detail is very good. At least nebular detail never looks eggy!

Of course the brighter stars will show any minor flaws when the exposure is such that faint nebulosity has a decent signal to noise.

If you want perfect stars just image at F10 and see very little nebulosity and a tiny field of view.

The choice is yours.

To all those that saw the image in its entirety to show the dim stuff of the Carina Nebula I thank you.

Bert