Rodd

I tried that--moving the main focuser had little effect on the focus of the lodestar

The ASI 1600 mmcool pro comes to perfect focus about at the mid point of my focus travel. There is no way for me to know if I need more inward focus if I could miraculously bring the Lodestar to focus.

I tried it--had absolutely no effect!

Where is my image? I put the image in a wrong thread? Its no wonder I can't get anything to work! Here's image if anyone else was looking

I tried the ASI 174 as well--without the receptacle--thread on. Did not work. Well--it worked, but way out of focus and no fiddling with anything helped.

The oag comes with a 16mm spacer and a 21.5mm spacer--I tried them. Did not help

Looks similar to mine--I tried no spacer, a 16mm spacer and a 1mm spacer where you have your 13mm spacer. Did not help. Everything else looks the same though I can't measure the various distances like you did.

Moving the focuser in all the way and out all the way had no effect. I believe the prism is correct--I tried it both ways.

I guess the issue was that if I can't fix my STT-8300 with its self guiding filter wheel (awesome guiding by the way. I start to complain when my rms errors are greater than .2 pixels (about .2 arcsex/pix with the TOA 130) then I would be stuck with the ASI 1600 as my only camera--so I would have to use it with the C11Edge, hence the OAG.

Yes- the absolute maximum I would go is 1,000mm. Probably 700mm. But it still gets me that the OAG is a flub. Allot of thought, time, waiting, and money went into the F3 considerations. He should have just said a guidescope would be 100x easier.

I am not up on guide scopes--never used one. Just beginning my perusal. I know Baader Planetarium has the Vario Finder--and a Baader scope mage for Astro Physics--61mm F4 250mm focal length. That would be 1:4 with 1,000mm focal length. For 700mm it would be less than 1:3. For 318 (the FSQ at F3) it would be almost 1:1

My C11Edge with reducer is 1,960mm--I think that's pushing it. But I can use my self guiding STT-8300 fro that scope (providing I get the filter wheel to stop jamming). I already have the Lodestar 2--providing it I not broken. It is very sensitive. I would love to be able to get by with a tiny guidescope

I guess an ultera-mini guidescope would not be as good as a 60mm scope. Some of the minis are only 3-4 inches long. weight and flexure would be at a minimum.

I know my various pixel scales--there are 6 different ones--2 for each refractor. How closely does the guidescope/camera pixel scale have to be to the imaging scope/camera pixel scale?

Will using the lodestar 2 with a scope be easy? Or will there be compatibility issues. Maybe a camera scope combo would be better--like the vario guider from Gaacder--or something similar--comes all set up

Will I be able to guide as well with a guide scope? I will be shooting at focal lengths between 318 and 700mm. If I take the reducer off the TOA 130 I will shoot at 1,000mm. But I like the reducer as it increases FOV and keeps exposures shorter--and with the 1600s small pixels it yields an image scale the same as the unreduced scope and the STT-8300. So I don't need 1,000mm

It looks right--I tried with a 16mm and a 21mm spacer between the OAG and filter wheel. No go. They say in the thread that the only reason he used it was to orient the 2 chips in a known way--which I found to be true--without a spacer the shoulder of the loadstar receptacle impinges on the edge of the filter wheel. I got it fairly close--but no matter what spacers I used or what position I had the main focuser or the prism arm, nothing worked (with either the ASI 174 or the Lodestar). I am really thinking about a guide scope at this point. I am missing 5 consecutive nights of clear sky during a new moon. I am about to burst.

There were 3 parts that he sent me to connect the OAG to reducer. They are quite small--only about an inch for all 3. The last one is a TAK made part that threads onto the reducer.One threads onto the OAG, the other connects the TAK part to the one that threads onto the OAG. Maybe I should just use a guidescope and forget about using the 1600 with the C11Edge. I'd have to bin it anyway. My camera with 5.4um pixels works well on the C11Edge. that would make things much easier for my refractors

But that means the calculations he made to determine the type of connections to the focal reducer were wrong and I need to change them. Since I am not using an extension tube at all--I am connected directly to the reducer, I don't think adding distance between the OAG and camera will work, because it will pusg the imaging sensor farther from the reducer as the OAG is between the filter wheel and reducer. Unless it works the other way and I will need an extension tube between the OAG and reducer--but that seems wrong.

No--but I use the Takahashi .7x reducer on the TOA 130. Its the big one not the smaller ones. The TAK charts are very confusing. The smaller FR uses vari rings to alter the reduction power. the big (and much more expensive naturally) .7x reducer has a fixed reduction. But that is what the vendor did when I told him what I wanted. he went through all the backfocus requirements for both cameras and we had a couple precision parts made, and a special TAK connector. It sure seemed like he knew what he was talking about.

Interesting--different cameras though. I would have to know what size spacers to get, which would mean I need to contact the people who I buy this stuff from and tell them what they should be telling me. I don't trust myself to do that......I thought that was the reason I use reputable dealers. To give me this setup and indicate it should work out of the box now seems irresponsible. I told them the scope, camera, etc I use (I bought everything from them anyway) and said--what camera, OAG, FW etc should I get. This is the result. Rodd

Yes--I tried it both ways anyway. Rodd

Thanks for the input. I will look into the flatner (its one or the other with the TOA 130). But the connections to the asi 1600 are different. I will see if I can do that now, or need to get a different connector. The problem is hard because the only reason I want the FSQ is for F imaging and the only way that can be done is with a separate guide scope or an OAG. I don't want a separate guide scope because I want to use the camera with the C11 Edge as well and don't want the flexure. The ASI 1600 is affordable--the 16200 would be sweet, but lets be real.

The whole reason I bought all this stuff was to image at F3 (I am tired of 20 hour images taking months to finish due to clouds). It sound like my best option is to return the loadstar and get an ASI 120--its cheaper and it WILL WORK no?

I am tempted to send it all back (Tak FSQ 106, Camera, OAG, Lodestar, .6x reducer). It was part of a package. Since I can't use the .6x reducer with my other camera--why keep any of it? I wanted F3--I already have F4.3 and 5 so no need for the F5. Thanks for your help. Rodd