|
Sounds like you have an agenda here too Cris. John has a perfect right in making his statements. I know of several people who have had trouble with this telescope. Your comments seem to suggest an interest in the outcome the capacity to image with this particular telescope.
Bert might well be an optician but his images have for a long time displayed flexure in the system and the steps he has had to undertake are to say the least not conventional for a 10K plus telescope and it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that something is not right if you have to add a turn buckle to a system and a mechanical holder to hold the camera, which are not standard appliances in astronomy imaging. Stability of the imaging train comes through the rear assembly of the scope and all the connections between various components, it is apparent to me at least that is not possible with this telescope. The AP version of this scope carrying the same load does not have this issue at all and required no mechanical control. Certainly going beyond the recommended imaging circle has contributed to this issue and I accept that, but the fact remains AP seem to have this right and everyone I know has had trouble with this particular scope. So people are not imagining things or misrepresenting things.
|