theskyisthelimit99

Thanks that makes total sense and a fantastic summary.. i mean i guess if the 678 can avoid the barlow, then perhaps it takes some glass out of the equation. I gues You mentioned to not drizzle.. i was talking about the advanced settings of as3, has off, 1.5, 3 etc, i thought i read someone with the 678 was drizzling 1.5x, though i didnt realize that as3 was doing it by default during stacking?

I believe its been said the new 678mc is good with the edge 11 (maybe without a barlow too).. can anyone explain in general terms how this is? Im guessing less noise with this iteration, but the pixel size is 2.0 vs 3.75 which goes against the grain i thought for imaging planets. I wouldnt mind losing the barlow however and i guess doing drizling Any thoughts

I've searched high and low but cant find the answer on this one.. I believe the rough estimate is actually 9mm but cant find confirmation. this is the part: Trying to work out the math to see if im at 146.05 or so (plus or minus 0.5mm), from a rough caliper measurement i "think" im dead on but the math doesnt add up when i add up all the parts, for instance here: start: F7 reducer threads end 9 SCT adapter plate?? 25.4 blue ball spacer 25.3 celestron sct adapter 29mm body oag 12.5mm male 48mm adapter 17.5mm starizona drawer 1mm filter 11mm ring on asi294mc 6.5 to sensor Finish: asi294mc pro 137.2 (so short by this definition but by rough measurement with everything attached and guestimating threads of f7 end in the ring of the adapter, i'm at 146) My guess is that the celestron oag sct adapter at 25.3 is not the right value (i should measure it direct to confirm) Thanks for any input /info