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

[Robert Hoyle <rhoyle@earthlink.net>]

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

Wil,

[Sorry for the delay in responding.  Went to see Armageddon.  My head is still
spinning]

Can't argue with many of your points regarding the 201xt v. ST-4 (except for perhaps
that the two are not equal in function -- they both auto-guide, quite well in most
cases).  But I do appreciate your providing greater clarification for me as to what
your position is wrt these Meade units.  I was perhaps under the mistaken impression
that you thought these units just flat-out didn't work most of the time.  And this
seemed an unfair assessment since I know of a few of us that are quite pleased with
their performance.

And for some people its just hard not to like a lot of things about these little
units that cost less than $400, fit easily in the palm of your hand, weigh less than
a reticle eyepiece, require no external control box, connector cords, or software,
and  -- if one can get past the gremlins of inadequate polar alignment, wind, film
buckling, etc. -- provide perfectly round little star images, seemingly for as long
as you want to auto-guide.

Granted the 201xt may not be everything that they ST-4 is in capabilities, but I
reiterate my previous mantras of "good starting point, good price, quite adequate for
most work, etc....".  The whole question gets down to marginal returns and utility,
YMMV, etc.

Maybe this is somewhat of a non-sequitur, but my main point in all this is that I
think we as film astrophotographers should be more supportive of having Meade enter
into this field of auto-guiding, that up until now has had only one player -- SBIG --
and support their efforts *where we can*.  The Meade auto-guiders have a place,
though they may not be for everyone.  And with a little encouragement they might even
become better.

That is genuinely where I keep coming from on all this, and what prompts most of my
responses on this issue -- including trying to encourage Robin C. (who started this
thread) to see if he could work out the problems with his 208xt.

It just can't be all bad to have two strong manufacturers of these auto-guider
instruments that can be so crucial in our efforts. (Assuming of course that the Meade
Marketing Machine doesn't grind SBIG into the ground -- unlikely, given SBIG's
quality products, head start and market share).  But to get to this point of two
strong competitors, it may require providing a little encouragement to the new kid on
the block.

BTW, maybe it is a laughing matter, but it is also an interesting point about Jason
Ware.  Wonder if he's still using an SBIG auto-guider (or do you even need one for
his new toy, the Meade Schmidt-Camera)?


Robert.  Clayton, Ca. (near Oakland).



Wil Milan wrote:

> The Astro-Photography Mailing List
> ------------------------------------
>
> Robert Hoyle wrote:
> >
> > [Note to Wil M.: you must think I'm a Meade rep in disguise or something, on
> > this 201xt thing; and I might have wondered that about you too -- for SBIG.
> > The truth is probably that neither one of is, for either firm (I know I'm not).
> > But we *do* have our opinions (and experiences), don't we?  "That's my story
> > and I'm stickin' to it." :-)) ]
>
> I had no such thought at all, and I'm glad you were able to offer
> a different perspective on the 201XT.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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. :-)
>
> Wil M.
> mailto:wmilan@airdigital.com
> Astrophoto web site: http://www.airdigital.com/astrophoto.html
> ---
> "When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers,
> the moon and the stars which You have set in place,
> what is Man that you are mindful of him,
> or the son of Man that you care for him?"  -- Psalm 8