Synguider through Finderguider problems...

[AndyUK]

Hi all - I finally bit the bullet and bought a guidecam... and after much dithering about (and admittedly against some very wise people's advice) I had to at least try a finderguider as a solution. I got a cheap 8x50 off astroboot and then bought an adapter from Modern Astronomy and, not without some trepidation, tried putting it altogether last night.

For reference, I'm using a CG5 upgraded with a synscan EQ5 goto, a C100ED/f9 refractor and a Canon 4D, ISO800 with a CLS clip filter.

Having set up as normal (levelled, balanced, polar aligned (using polarscope.exe) and performed a 3 star alignment), the first problem I came across was focusing - I chose Capella (c. mag 0), set the guidecam to 4s exposure and reduced the noise setting to 5 and with a lot of in/out twisting of the helical focuser finally found it. By following instructions to centre it (not that easy with a 4s refresh!) and raising the noise setting and zooming in, I finally got a big white blob almost filling the screen and was able to reduce the exposure to 2s, but reducing to 1s pushed the brightness below the recommended 10 measurement.

So this is my first query - Is 2s the best I can expect on a mag 0 star? I was rather hoping for something closer to 1/4s or even below.

I then slewed to M45 and attached the camera - FIRST MISTAKE - I forgot to change the OTA balance by shifting the tube forward - I didn't realise this until after the M45 test...!

Again after a bit of dithering about, I managed to find one of the M45 stars on the screen (I can't be sure, but lets assume Alcyone c. mag 3), and managed to lock it and I then set it to guide... which it appeared to do (the mount drive was giving out an ocassional "creak" which I assumed was it receiving a signal and making an adjustment).

As a test, I decided to try taking 8x4min exposures - Although the star remained locked, 4 of the images showed a lot of trailing. (I wish I hadn't deleted those in the camera now!). 3 of the others I did minimally process (no darks etc) which is below, together with a separate single frame (not used in the stack as it was totally different framing(?!), but actually the best framed):

After moving the OTA forward to adjust for the camera, I decided to just photograph Aldebaran which I also used as the guide star(c. mag 1), but this time took 8x3 min exposures. Again, I had to use 4s exposure on the guidecam to get a reading of over 10, and again, although the star appeared to stay locked, I only actually got 3 frames without serious trails, which again I did minimally process (no darks etc):

To be honest, although not disappointed (as I know I have a LOT to learn!), I was expecting something a little better, as I was hoping I'd be able to step up to 10min exposures one day (is that unreasonable?) Okay, I screwed up the balance on the M45 test, which MIGHT explain the trailing, but I'm a little confused that the guidecam said it was locked, when it obviously wasn't(?) and after having corrected the balance (and reduced the exposure time) for the 2nd test, their seemed little difference?

I also noticed that for both tests the RA agressiveness seemed to be very high (775 during M45 and over 1140 for Aldebaran?). I didn't touch the agressiveness at all... (should I have done and would it have improved anything?)

I think I may have come to the conclusion that whilst a finderguider might be an "easy" option, it probably isn't the best after all and, as I have a "spare" ST102, perhaps I'd be better off guiding "the normal way". Hopefully that way I'd be able to lock onto fainter stars and use smaller guidecam exposure settings (would 1/2s be unresasonable?)

If someone could please give me some pointers here on what I'm doing wrong I'd be very grateful!

[dmahon]

I was hoping to use a "finderguider" and a Synguider (rather than the QHY5 that is touted) - do these fit together easily with the adapter from Modern Astronomy (is there a screw thread under the 1.25" nosepiece?) and does the Synguider come to focus?

What finder did you use?

[AndyUK]

Hi there - Yes, there is a screw thread under the Synguider nosepiece and you attach the finder scope via the same adapater used for the QHY5 as sold by Modern Astronomy.

Regarding focus, I'm pretty confident the answer is yes, but it really isn't that easy (or that easy to tell) as all you have is a white blob to focus (please look at the bit I wrote above about focusing). In my view, it would be MUCH easier to focus using the nosepiece and a parfocal eyepiece, but to do that, you'd really either need a "proper" OTA or possibly an 8x50 right-angled finder that allows you to attach an eyepiece (which then makes the adapter redundant).

However, I'm still not totally convinced that an 8x50 or 9x50 has sufficent focal length / brightness to lock onto fainter stars, and as right-angled finders come in at about £80, for me that's a lot of money to "invest", especially if even then it still may not be sensitive enough to do what you want to do.

Admittedly, it was my first time out with the synguider last night (and it's also my first guidecam), and my experience / skills are virtually 0, but the lowest mag star I was able to grab hold of last night (with average seeing) was mag 3 (although I think I might have been able to grab a 4 perhaps at a push?). However, even with a mag 1 star I was having to use a 4 second exposure... at which time it's probably worth referring to the Synguider sensitivity statement:

Typically the Synguider can capture and guide a star with up to mag 8 using a regular 80mm refractor, 2048ms exposure and good seeing

(Oh, for reference, I'm using a Skywatcher 8x50 straight-through finderscope. The eyepiece at the back simply unscrews and you then screw in the adapter - easy!)

[steppenwolf]

The SynGuider may well have been adequately locked on a star but the relatively short focal length of the finderscope would probably have meant that the guiding system did not detect any movement in the star over time so I am not really surprised that you still got some trailing in the image.

You mention hoping to get 1/4 second guiding exposures but I feel that this is heading in the wrong direction. For guiding, I find that two seconds is ideal and on a really dim star then increasing to 3 or more seconds still works well - reducing to shorter exposures makes you get closer to 'chasing the seeing' which is a waste of time as the mount cannot respond this quickly; this is more the real of 'active optics'.

Using a finderscope certainly has a lot of appeal but I am not sure that the cards aren't stacked against it.

[Astroscot2]

I wonder what the focal lenght the finder is working out at ? Ive heard of people guiding shortish focal lenght scopes with mearly a cheap 100 or 200mm camera lens which I would think would be better suited than a finder.

Your celestron with 900mm focal length is no easy task to guide, there are a few factors that can improve the guiding, keeping the balance of the scope slightly heavier in the east, increasing your guide exposures which has already been mentioned, a focal reducer for your scope or try a 2x barlow with your finderguider to see if the extra focal length helps.

Ive gone from guiding a 540mm refractor to a 1200 bulky reflector and its take quite a lot of tweeks with the balance and guiding parameters in the software to get pin point stars. keep with it im sure you will hit on a solution.

cheers

[AndyUK]

Cheers both...

Steve - I know you're trying hard not to say I told you so... but you did tell me!

I've got to give it a few more goes (as it's not going to cost me anything) but I think it is only a matter of time before I piggyback or dual mount. However, as an exercise, I think I might just see how easy it would be to use attached via its nosepiece parfocally to my ST102. I'm positive that it will be MUCH easier to focus and then I can really see what exposure time with what magnitude star I can get and time how long it stays locked.

Perhaps another problem was that the stars I was forced to chose were simply too "big" - Aldebaran virtually filled the entire 64x64 pixel screen whilst guiding (although this may well also have been down to poor focus). The problem was that in order to pick a star up at zoom level 1, I was forced to pick the brightest (as that was all I could see, even after playing with the noise settings) but by the time it was locked at zoom level 4, it was HUGE.

Thanks for info regarding the exposure times though - I understand that now (sorry for being obtuse!)

Scot - I think I read somewhere that the 8x50 has a FL of about 200mm(?)... I had indeed read the tip about keeping the mount slightly heavier to the East (done!), and the idea of a focal reducer for C100 was on my shopping list, but that's another £180 (and I think I'd really rather put it towards a smaller refractor, if I had that money to spare!).

Unfortunately I can't attach a barlow to the finderscope as I'd either need one of those right-angled finders which accepts a 1.25" eyepiece (I think Antares do one for about £50), or I'd need another adapter to convert the 2" thread in the finderscope to an eyepiece holder(?)... If I could find one of those, I'd definately give it a whirl, although there might be focusing issues(?)

However, I do still just have that feeling that whilst it would be lovely if it worked (cost/weight/less flexure etc etc), it unfortunately probably won't work as well as a piggy-back/dual mount (can I ask how you guide?).

[Astroscot2]

Hello Andy, Ive always used a dedicated Vixen guidescope and until recently I also used a 3x barlow and short guide exposures. This was going against all what I knew should work, but it worked and I did not feel any reason to change what I was doing. when I changed from the refractor to the reflector I had to find a new solution. and now I guide at 350mm and between 1 and 2 second guide exposures depending on where the scope is pointing. An image of my current set up can be found here http://stargazerslounge.com/members-equipment-gallery/100086-orion-ct-robh.html the guide scope is 70mm F5 (350mm) the main scope is 250mm F4.8 (1200mm) I use AA3 for guiding which works great, Ive never had to calibrate to guide, Ive set the guide values through trial and error and let it do its thing.

Mark

[steppenwolf]

I've got to give it a few more goes (as it's not going to cost me anything)

I think you should persevere if you can spare the time because it would be very useful to have a finite answer on whether or not a 10 x 50 finderscope will work reliably or not. If I always followed everyone's advice, I'd never try anything and trying for yourself is a great way to learn!

[AndyUK]

Cheers Mark... That's a superb setup you have... I certainly envy the images you're getting with that. T

hat's the sort of setup I can only dream about - My wife already has the ocasional grumble about how much my hobby costs, and I was only allowed to buy the guidecam out of sympathy on the back of me showing her some of the images on here (like yours!) and her asking what I needed to do likewise. I kept the budget as low as possible (ie using a finderguider) as if I'd said it would cost almost double, there's no way I would have got authorisation!

Steve - Yes, I won't write it off just yet - There are others on here who have no problem using finderguiders, but the focus issue is a real headache for me (and presumably for others with a stand-alone guider?). If only someone made a low-profile eyepiece adapter to screw in, that might make it just that little bit more do-able...

[Astroscot2]

Cheers Andy, Its taken years of buying kit under the radar, Jamie will confirm that ;-)

With regards to your Finderguider, can you not pick up a cheepo R&P focuser, say from Astroboot, cut tube to size? I also find with regards to my guidestars that fainter stars work best, the software can calculate the centeriod better and therefore better guiding. I also use an IR/UV blocking filter to help keep the guidestars tight. you can pick these up quick cheap too.

Mark

[AndyUK]

Training Course Please - How do you hide something that big under the radar screen?!

Thanks for the tip re: R&P focuser - I'll keep my eye out... and if I CAN get the focus better (and am able to pick up fainter stars), I'll certainly have a go at picking a better (fainter/smaller) star... and thanks also for advice on the UV/IR filter - I already have one of those but its attached to a webcam - I'll have to get another one if it makes guiding easier...

[philj]

Hi Andy interesting thread this, I too bought a synguider but I am using it through an ST80, nice and light with a fair bit of apeture.

Just a question, you mention "locked" are you actually guiding?

I ask because, you have to lock the star in the synguider but then you go into the guide menu and either resume guiding or do a calibration.

Cheers

Philj

[AndyUK]

Hi Phil - Thanks for checking but yes, after locking I've then been selecting "autocal" to calibrate. It's useful to know that you are indeed able to get the Synguider to work through the more traditional ST80 though - As noted, my fallback is to use my ST102 (although I am going to see if I can get this to work with the 8x50 a while longer). I know the ST102 is c. 1kg more and an extra 100mm FL, but I don't think that should make too much difference (in fact, I would have thought that the extra 20mm aperture should make it a lot easier?)

Although I know that balancing would be more complicated, I am quite attracted to the dual-mount option as this would also enable me to easily attach my "camera-only" dovetail (fitted with manfrotto quick-release clip) - The problem is that's another £230 (!), whilst the rings option is "only"another £130 (but attaching the quick-release dovetail would be a lot more complicated)

Admittedly, either option would be fairly easy to sort of "slip under the radar" (to coin Mark's phrase), but even to justify it to myself, I think I'd need to sell some accumulated no-longer used odds and sods to perhaps either totally or partially fund either option )

Are you attaching your ST80 piggyback-style with guiderings? And I assume you're using the Synguider via nosepiece with parfocal ring?

[MikeWilson]

Hi Andy,

Thanks for posting this thread. I have exactly the same set of decisions to make (including the bit about being radar absorbent!)

Basically I'm led to believe that the best case scenario for finder guiders is guiding at up to around 6 minutes, so even though it is a solution, it generally doesn't deliver the same results as an ST80/102 and guide camera. Even with the extra weight.

So here I am wondering, still, about which way to go. I think especially based upon your experiences, I may just go for the ST80. On the basis that although this is heavier, the extra focal length and aperture, as well as adjustable rings and focuser, i think well worth it. The ST80+finder comes to around £100, whereas the finder and a suitable mount come to around £80-90. So not much in it, then. Whilst I wish that there was a decent finder solution for 10-15 minute exposures, I suspect that the traditional route is the way to go.

Best,

Mike

[simon84]

Very interesting thread this. I am using a QHY5 with a 50mm finder scope running through PHD, the fact that I can set this to under a second exposures means that focusing is very easy as its almost like watching a movie so I can see the star getting smaller or larger depending on which way I'm going.

I would imaging even with the Synguider that even zoomed in you should be able to still see a star getting bigger or small, it shouldnt take up a 64x64 square of pixels as its so far away it should only really be a dot, even with my liveview on my Canon at 10x a bright star is tiny.

Anyways, I've been able to get 10 minute exposures with this setup and have never found the short focal length of the finderscope to bring any problems. Please see below the image of Vega which is a 10 minute exposure, please forgive the processing as its was a 20 second job to pop it on here.

The chap who sold it to me has shown me 30 minute exposures using this setup. I cant say how well the synguider would perform on a guide scope as I have never used one but I have used the SBIG ST4 Autoguider and can honestly say I would never use stand along guiding again.

[AndyUK]

Hi Mike - I wondered when you might turn up !

I must admit, I'm coming to the same conclusion - I will have another go with the finderguider next time out, but before I do I'm going to attach the ST102 to the mount on it's own and simply see how much easier it is to:

a) focus with a parfocal eyepiece and then

set up the synguider to guide on various mag stars down to (say) 7 (ish) and see how long it "holds" the star...

Obviously I won't be able to take any images so I won't be able to see if I still suffer star trailing in the same way as I did before, but I reckon that if the extra aperture of the scope will allow me to "see" smaller stars, then the "white blob" on the screen won't be so big and thus the guiding should be better (I think)... and I'll certainly be able to compare focusing using the parfocal eyepiece with the guesswork involved on the screen.

Unfortunately I'm away this weekend, but as soon as the clouds lift and I can get out, I'll let you know the results of my findings (although, most unscientifically, I think I already know...!)

SlySi84 -

...but I have used the SBIG ST4 Autoguider and can honestly say I would never use stand along guiding again

I think this is probably the big question - Using a finderguider, does using a guidecam and focusing on a laptop screen using PHD have significant benefits over trying to focus via "guesswork" using a stand-alone device attached to a finderguider? With my (only) one night's experience, I personally think the answer is probably yes.

As I freely admit though, my skills / experience are all-but 0 and it may well just be this that's to blame for my difficulties experienced on that one night.

I would imagine even with the Synguider that even zoomed in you should be able to still see a star getting bigger or small, it shouldnt take up a 64x64 square of pixels as its so far away it should only really be a dot, even with my liveview on my Canon at 10x a bright star is tiny

The difficulty I had was that when zoomed all the way out and "noise" set low, it was difficult (for me) to pick up a star smaller than about mag 3 (ish) (probably because of poor focus?), and when I zoomed in to the star I was able to see zoomed out, it then became a large white blob which basically filled the 64x64 screen. I did try to adjust the focus on a 128x128 screen, but with the exposure set at 4s the refresh was obviously slow and playing with the helical focuser at that zoom ratio sometimes pushed the star off the screen (so I had to zoom back out again to pick it up and then recenter with the finder adjusters).

However, try as a I might (with a mag 3 star) my adjustments didn't exactly make the star bigger or smaller on the screen but the edges did become more "pixellated", so I tried to produce a "blob" with as smooth edges as possible.

Although again I know that this is far from scientific, I'm beginning to suspect that whilst stand-alone guiders obviously provide the flexibility of not being attached to a laptop (and hopefully will work fine with a piggyback or dual mounted ST80/102), perhaps they're not truly cut out for use with a finderguider (unless via an eyepiece attachment?)

[MikeWilson]

Hi Mike - I wondered when you might turn up !

Sorry I went into radio silence for a while; I've had a very busy 36 hours.

I must admit, I'm coming to the same conclusion - I will have another go with the finderguider next time out, but before I do I'm going to attach the ST102 to the mount on it's own and simply see how much easier it is to:

a) focus with a parfocal eyepiece and then

set up the synguider to guide on various mag stars down to (say) 7 (ish) and see how long it "holds" the star...

It's certainly going to be easier on the ST102 to focus (with the focusser) and to lock onto a target star. The view will be brighter and clearer than on a finder - no contest. However, what I would love to know is - "Is a finderguider 'good enough'" for basic use? (i.e. 5 minute subs).

Obviously I won't be able to take any images so I won't be able to see if I still suffer star trailing in the same way as I did before, but I reckon that if the extra aperture of the scope will allow me to "see" smaller stars, then the "white blob" on the screen won't be so big and thus the guiding should be better (I think)... and I'll certainly be able to compare focusing using the parfocal eyepiece with the guesswork involved on the screen.

I'm really *really* looking forward to your findings.

Unfortunately I'm away this weekend, but as soon as the clouds lift and I can get out, I'll let you know the results of my findings (although, most unscientifically, I think I already know...!)

Even so

SlySi84 - I think this is probably the big question - Using a finderguider, does using a guidecam and focusing on a laptop screen using PHD have significant benefits over trying to focus via "guesswork" using a stand-alone device attached to a finderguider? With my (only) one night's experience, I personally think the answer is probably yes.

Significant benefits of having a higher resolution (and potentially colour) display? Absolutely. Significant drawbacks of having to power and babysit a laptop in a field? No way, hosé!

And surely if the Synguider works (which I'm led to believe it does, incredibly well) then that's good enough?

As I freely admit though, my skills / experience are all-but 0 and it may well just be this that's to blame for my difficulties experienced on that one night.

The difficulty I had was that when zoomed all the way out and "noise" set low, it was difficult (for me) to pick up a star smaller than about mag 3 (ish) (probably because of poor focus?), and when I zoomed in to the star I was able to see zoomed out, it then became a large white blob which basically filled the 64x64 screen. I did try to adjust the focus on a 128x128 screen, but with the exposure set at 4s the refresh was obviously slow and playing with the helical focuser at that zoom ratio sometimes pushed the star off the screen (so I had to zoom back out again to pick it up and then recenter with the finder adjusters).

Given your level of expertise, I expect that it is safe to presume that you would have experienced better results all round using the ST102 over the finder. Do you agree?

However, try as a I might (with a mag 3 star) my adjustments didn't exactly make the star bigger or smaller on the screen but the edges did become more "pixellated", so I tried to produce a "blob" with as smooth edges as possible.

In some of the early reviews of this unit (particularly the big multi-part review here on SGL by the guy with a garden gnome for an avatar) the 'screenshots' of the display show a highly pixellated blob and that was using a guidescope. Does it matter that the blob is entirely smooth edged given that the display is fairly low resolution anyway?

Although again I know that this is far from scientific, I'm beginning to suspect that whilst stand-alone guiders obviously provide the flexibility of not being attached to a laptop (and hopefully will work fine with a piggyback or dual mounted ST80/102), perhaps they're not truly cut out for use with a finderguider (unless via an eyepiece attachment?)

My findings based on a mini non-scientific meta-analysis of all the various user experiences on SGL and other fora shows that:

• Finder/Guiders are a mixed bag
  
• Guidescope users almost always give a positive experience compared to finderscope users who report positive and negative results in almost equal measure
  
• The Synguider and LVI SmartGuider are both popular and work as well as a QHY5+PHD
  
• The guidescope allows for more reliable tracking over longer exposures than the finderscope
  
• Finderscopes weigh less but ultimately cost about the same as a guidescope
  

That's what I've found.

Now what would be really kick-*** is if Synta were to build their own reliable finder/guider solution which connects directly in prime focus to their own Synguider and the whole thing sits on the telescope quick release shoe.

[Merlin66]

The stand alone ST-4 guider was for almost twenty years the "leader of the pack" Once the methodology was understood, focusing an image on the chip and watching the readout was second nature. Worked very well, and still does.

[AndyUK]

Hi Merlin - I'm not disputing the use of stand-alone devices at all - As you say the ST-4 is recognised as the absolute grand-daddy of them all... but do you know of anyone who's used one through a finderguider(?) It would be very interesting to hear their thoughts / experiences, especially if they also then used it with a guidescope...

Mike:

what I would love to know is - "Is a finderguider 'good enough'" for basic use? (i.e. 5 minute subs).

I'll give it another go... but given my lack of experience, I don't think I'm really the best person to be testing this. I wonder if anyone else uses a stand-alone device (or Synguider) through a finderguider and they could test this as well?

Significant drawbacks of having to power and babysit a laptop in a field? No way, hosé!

This was also one of my considerations...

Given your level of expertise, I expect that it is safe to presume that you would have experienced better results all round using the ST102 over the finder. Do you agree?

Yes, this is certainly what I'm thinking, but I don't want to totally write off the finderguider just yet... If I can get a clear night and about 2-3 hours, I'm hoping to be able to do a direct comparison.

Does it matter that the blob is entirely smooth edged given that the display is fairly low resolution anyway?

I could be wrong, but my thinking is that if the star is smaller on the screen, there's more chance that any drift would be spotted sooner. If the star is (say) 45-50 pixels diameter, then I'm guessing that it could potentially drift quite significantly without the drift being picked up and corrected(?)

Your findings / analysis at the bottom of your post is very interesting... and pretty much the conclusion that I'm coming to... but again, without wishing to knock in anyway those that ARE able to get stand-alone units to work effectively with finderguiders... In fact, they have my very greatest respect (at almost the same level as those who take lengthy images unguided!)

[OzDave]

Hi,

I am uding a 9x50 finder with a modern astronomy adapter and a DFK31 camera for guiding. I have it setup now trying to shoot M1.

Capella was my alignment star and with a 2s exposure i got a tight star image on screen and no blobbiness as Andy originally reported.

PHD has been guiding for an hour now and things are looking rock solid.

I have measured the focal length of the finder to be about 200mm if i recall correctly. Thus it is an excellent match for my equinox 80.

If i can hrlp in any way or give any advice on how this works in my setup, please let me know.

David

[AndyUK]

Hi David - Thanks for the offer... Although you're also using a finderguider, the difference is that you're using a laptop and PHD to focus / view the guidestar, not a stand-alone device, which is what I'm trying to do (with limited success to date!). Although I've never guided before (ie ever), I'm beginning to think that using a laptop makes all the difference when using a finderguider.

I think the question I'm asking here (in a nutshell) is whether anyone has had any experience guiding with a stand-alone guider (Synguider, LVI, ST-4 etc) through a fnderguider, how they bring the guidestar to focus and what mag stars they use...

Good luck with the M1 imaging by the way - I'm clouded out over here in the south-west! However, thanks very much for info on your exposure time and guidestar being used - It's a very useful reference...

[simon84]

I'm not complaining about the ST4 either as its a fantastic bit of kit, it just wasnt for me. As I had everything running through the laptop it made sense to run the guiding through it aswell. The ST4 also had the ability of being able to connect to a PC for imaging purposes aswell.

So far being able to focus visually with an almost live update has been very easy but focusing the ST4 wasnt hard at all and going by a readout was almost as simple. I think the Synguiders 1bit display is almost a disadvantage because its sort of inbetween the two. One you have set up a parfocal EP it will be very easy indeed. You only need say a cheap 10mm Kelner from the astroboot and a parfocal ring, probably about £3 all in. Spend one session just getting it focused, dont try and image at the same time. Just set up a single scope with the Synguider on and play with it for a good few hours.

I'd love to get my hands on one and try it out but thats not going to happen at the moment unless I can pick up one reasonably priced second hand.

If all else fails you could try and find a second hand ST V Autoguider with realtime display........

[MikeWilson]

I have an ST80, spare dovetail and Synguider coming from FLO....

So no finder/guider for me at this moment in time (although I may revisit this when/if I go laptop-based in the future).

[AndyUK]

As I had everything running through the laptop it made sense to run the guiding through it aswell.

Yes, I think if I was already dependent upon / used a laptop, I would probably have gone for a QHY5/5v and would then probably have been able to get away with a finderguider (using the live view via PHD on the laptop)

Once you have set up a parfocal EP it will be very easy indeed. You only need say a cheap 10mm Kelner from the astroboot and a parfocal ring, probably about £3 all in. Spend one session just getting it focused, dont try and image at the same time. Just set up a single scope with the Synguider on and play with it for a good few hours.

Yes, that's exactly what I intend to test next time out with the ST102 - A parfocal ring came with the Synguider, and I was going to use a spare 10mm Skywatcher eyepiece. To be honest, I have EXTREMELY high hopes that it will work straight out of the box (and then I'll be trying to sell on the 8x50 finder and brand new adapter ).

It was frustrating as hell for me last night, as at 2130 the sky was as clear as a bell (and seemingly all night if this morning's sky is anything to go by). Unfortunately I had to leave my setup at home (currently at the in-laws for the next few days, and it was either a case of bringing the scope or my wife ). As someone very wise on here once commented "the clarity of the skies is always inversely proportional to the distance from your scope"...

Mike - I'm very envious - You're probably going to be able to get yours in use quicker than me... You'll have to let me know how YOU get on instead. Are you going to be using guiderings with the ST80, or are you just going to attach it via "normal" rings? I had a chat with FLO at the end of last week just to check / cost out what I'd need - The ADM guiderings are on my list whichever option (in order to be able to centre the guidestar in the middle of the Synguider crosshairs), but then I have to decide whether to piggyback or dual mount (which although £100 dearer would give me an additional option for using my camera dovetail mount...). If you can get it to work without guiderings though(?) that would save me a bit more

[Psychobilly]

I was going to modify my Celestron 8x50 straight through today (finally remembered where I had put it "safe") ... but I dont think I will bother now ...

Last time out I left the guide scope pointing at Cassiopea whilst imaging around M31

I might have to check how well the parafocal EP is setup ...

When you do manage to get a star locked with the Synguider it works a treat...

But I hate the display on it...

Peter...