@CCDMan wrote:
NOTE #1: This thread is here just for information for those with two camera setups - not for discussion as to possible changes to SGP. That is already in another thread.
NOTE #2: This was an unguided system for these tests since my setup allows this to work for as long as 20 minute exposures. None of the below is likely to work with a system that requires guiding.
My setup consists of:
- Paramount ME permanently mounted with very precision alignments, good PEC, very large model, and pro track used.
- Three systems on the mount
a) FSQ 106 and Moravian 16200 (unguided)
b) TOA-130 and self-guide SBIG STT-8300
c) Canon 200 mm lens at F5 and SBIG STT-8300 (unguided)The guided system #2 was not used for this test.
The “master” system was the FSQ/Moravian. It took 10 minute RGB images all night with the usual focus and flip and “dither by mount” (aka the poorly named “direct mount guiding”).
The “slave” system (really just a separate instance of SGP) was the Canon 200 mm STT-8300. It took 5 minute RGB images all night in a totally “dumb” configuration - all it did was shoot and focus as required.
Bottom line is (as expected) all the FSQ frames were great (no surprise there) and a 40 out of 51 frames from the 200 mm lens showed no significant elongation of the stars, the remaining 11 showed elongation ranging from mild to severe. Better than I would have expected, really
Please do not interpret this as a reason not to do a “real dual software” since this use case is very limited (especially since it was unguided) but I figured the data would be helpful to folks with good, well aligned and modeled, permanent mounts who want to supplement, especially with a camera lens system.
Thanks!
Posts: 4
Participants: 3