Re: [APML]: Anyone Autoguiding a G-11 with a Pictor XT?

["Robin Casady" <rcasady@CarmelCoast.com>]

The Astro-Photography Mailing List
------------------------------------

My comments here are not meant as arguments, more as questions. I am not a
defender of Meade, actually I have a rather strong dislike for the company
-- based on personal experience with an LX200. I would however like to
understand the advantages of the ST-4 over the 208XT (not 201). Although
I've owned the 208XT for over a year, I have not attempted to use it as a
guider until recently (with Losmandy drives). It is a long story, but
basically I haven't had a drive/scope combination suitable for
astrophotography (other than piggyback). I'm still waiting for the drive I
intend to use for imaging -- an AP 600EGTO.

>I do think, however, that it can be accurately stated that the
>201xt and the ST-4 are not equivalent in function or capability.
>The ST-4 is a much more capable unit than the 201xt or 208xt, and
>I think it would very difficult to argue objectively otherwise.
>The ST-4 can guide on much fainter stars, is easier to set up,
>has a much easier to use user interface, a much nicer display,
>handles mounts the 201xt will not, tunes itself to the mount
>response as it guides, is less prone to chase scintillation than
>the 201xt, and perhaps most important, guides much more
>accurately than the 201xt. 
>
>That's not to say the 201xt and 208xt don't work, or that they
>cannot be adequate to the task. That's particularly true for
>owners of Meade LX200s, for which the 201xt was primarily
>designed. But even for them the ST-4 has significant advantages,
>such as being able to acquire and guide on much fainter stars
>with quicker response and to guide more accurately. 

The difference between the 208XT and the 201XT is that the 208XT is cooled.
I had assumed that this brought it into par with the ST-4 as to how faint a
guide star can be. Is this false?

>If you have a 201xt and it works for you then by all means keep
>using it. But I write the foregoing for those who may be
>considering an autoguider, to point out that the 201xt are not
>equivalent in function, capability, or ease of use. I don't work
>for SBIG, and as you know I've sometimes been a critic of other
>SBIG products. But in comparing the 201xt/208xt with the ST-4 the
>ST-4 is definitely the better unit, and by a large margin. 

What are the benefits of the ST-4 over the 208XT? The one button control,
use for stand-alone mode, on the 208XT seemed fairly easy to deal with.

>I've related this before, but when I was having problems with my
>201xt I contacted Jason Ware, the Meade-affiliated photographer
>featured in Meade's catalogs and ads. Jason Ware does superb work
>with Meade's equipment, and I figured he would have insights into
>using the 201xt. Alas, he didn't, because he uses an ST-4. :-)

 :-)

My plan was to keep the 208XT until I could try using it with the AP 600EGTO
mount. Roland told me that the mount was "plug-compatible" with Meade and
SBIG cameras. If there are significant benefits to the ST-4 over the 208XT,
I'll dump the 208. Life is too short for Meadeiocraty. :-)

Thanks everyone for helping sort out why the Pictors were not working with
the Losmandy drives.

Robin Casady
http://www.CarmelCoast.com

Casady & Greene, Inc.
http://www.casadyg.com