Re: [APML]: ST-4 v. 201xt Saga

[Rick & Melissa Keil <liekcr@ibm.net>]

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

Robert Hoyle wrote:

> Really?  I was under the impression that the 201xt was the lightest weight unit on the
> market (maybe including "cord wt./drag")? -- which may be an important factor, 
>especially
> on old 1994 vintage OAG systems like mine that could certainly be a little more 
>"robust",
> with less flex (and are, now with Taurus' new T-III Tracker).
> 
> And admittedly maybe the external control panel, cable, etc. are not that big of  
>factors
> (especially since they do give a lot more flexibility for the ST-4 to display 
>corrections,
> guide-star tracking, etc.).  But to me, it's just one more thing to worry about.  Me and
> Waldo -- "simplify, simplify."

I sold my 201XT and I'm awaiting the ST4 I ordered. I once thought as
you do. Lightweight, simple...... 

Actually after enough learning, I did get my 201XT to work every time
when I guided through my 8" SCT (in piggyback photography). My problem
was with off axis autoguiding. The stars in the OAG, actually Lumicon
CEG, were not to the 201XT's liking. With the 201XT not being cooled it
just needed too long of an exposure time to detect the star if it even
found it at all. 

The only way I'd use the 201XT is with a guidescope. I think it should
work decent enough in this regard. However, beware: differential
flexure.

This email isn't meant to persuade you in any way, just FYI. I mean
heck, for me personally, why own the 201XT if I could only get it to
work with piggyback photography and not OAGing. Prime focus is what I
want and it sounds like the ST4 will get me there. We'll soon see. Heck,
it can't slow me down any further. In the end of my 201XTs stay, I was
keeping it in the box, and manually guiding.

Good Luck,
Rick