[Learjet]

Angles should be okay with refractors though wouldn't it? They are straight through like any lens. At present I'm doing all my shots with refractors.

[interested_observer]

Angles should be okay with refractors though wouldn't it? They are straight through like any lens. At present I'm doing all my shots with refractors.

I am re-thinking this approach - with reflectors (refractors should be ok), and it just might be workable. Provided ......

• The camera body and lens is in alignment and pointing where the telescope is pointed - i.e., parallel to the captured light path.
• That the K5's focal length input (which is from a pick list) is close to the overall focal length of the telescope. If there is a large difference, then tracking would be off, but how bad it would be - I would not have any idea. I think that the K5 maxes out at 800mm (yes - just found a reference)
• I also, don't have a clue as to how to focus this assembly, nor the image quality.
• Another thing that comes to mind, and this is from another GPS based thread here on the forum (that I can't find right now) is that - one of the folks was writing about that the GPS for tracking was good up to about 45 degrees in elevation from the horizion, and then things start to degrade or go "wonky" (how do you like that for a good engineering term).
• Also, I believe that the corner lens uses a mirror and not a prism. I have no idea if this makes any kind of difference.

If this did work, it would be one heck of a workaround....

[Learjet]

That might actually work. But all those reflections and light loss might make it not worthwhile, unless using a big reflector. As for the corner lens, just use a mirror diagonal. But the whole OTA would have to be designed for it as the diagonal would eat considerable back focus.