AOX on Short Focal Length Scope

I have seen threads here that touch on this subject but never really has it been addressed to my satisfaction. I am considering adding to my observatory system a short focal length scope for wider field imaging. I will be adding the scope to ride along on my system which is a Planewave L600 mount and CDK24. The scope I will utilize for "wide field" is one I already own. It is a TMB 130 F/6 fl 780 which has a massive field flattener (1:1 not reducer). Though I love SBIG cameras you don't really manufacture large format cameras with very small pixel size (it is not your market, I understand). My massive FF was designed by Thomas Back for this scope years ago and has a backfocus of exactly 95mm and of course that number is crucial. Yet, I have figured out a way of utilizing a full frame small pixel size camera using the Sony IMX455 CMOS sensor and assembling an image change the would include the camera, FW, SC3, AOX, and all adapters just under (barely!) the 95mm backspace requirement of the Field Flattener.

My question is should I? Will the integration (electronics, wiring) work with the SC3-AOX. Your electroni connectors are somewhat proprietary. The cameras and FW are standard USB (2 and 3) So, I am not even sure one can (even with electronic know-how) get the components to talk to one another (obviously the SC3 will talk to the AOX). But will they work with the USB components, etc, etc.

But even if achievable would there be merit optically speaking. The L system mount is virtually perfect largely due to the DD motor system and its integration with its pointing/correction software. The mount is perfect and handles long unguided exposures even at very long focal lengths. So will the AOX add anything to the equation? There is considerable skepticism regarding the amateur "adaptive optics" in general. Many feel that at best it works by overcoming inherent mount and tracking errors which arguably the Planewave L system has overcome.

Again, I wish SBIG produced a camera with a full frame sensor with this tiny pixel size and this incredible resolution. (The Aluma 4040 matches very well with the CDK, for example) The pixel match with the IMX455 to the TMB running native would be 1 arcsec. Frankly it actually matches better when the TMB is attached to my Riccardi field reducer .75x but the short back focus of that telecompressor will not allow for even the consideration of using your adaptive optics system. It is only because I can accomplish this 95mm backfocus with my field flattener that I want to take advantage of the opportunity to use the AOX. But............Can the AOX provide value in this scenario?

(I have an older Paramount ME in another location and though that mount is excellent it has imperfections. On that system perhaps the AOX setup is more likely to add merit. Yes?)

So, in summary, (I apologize for the lengthiness) the question is really twofold. The first is practical. Will the components talk to each other (non SBIG FW and camera)? The second is more theoretical: With a "perfect" mount does the AOX have the potential of adding any value to image quality especially at wider fields with this resolution of the telescope camera system (.98 "/pixel) Has anybody actually attempted this?

 

And tuned I will stay! I am not in a major hurry. But I would do anything to know how long I should stay tuned. Somehow I have the feeling I won't get assistance with that request. My dream would be IMX455 with real hardware binning. But that may be not plausible with CMOS in general.

 

While I grasp the importance of binning as an end-user, I regret that my knowledge is weak regarding the technology behind what can make these things possible. Oh well....so be it.

One additional comment I wish to make is the majority of people currently using cameras that use the IMX455 sensor are plagued by the issue of limited back focus. It is understandable. How does one best matchup their optics with such a large sensor with such minuscule pixel size? Simple: By using well produced focal reducers behind well produced quality short focal length telescopes. Well, those focal reducers generally require very restricted back focus. Here is my point: The hallmark of quality products such as yours is that they the hardware is solidly produced with strong linkage and/or adapters between them. By definition that tends to eat backspace. In contrast, the current existing camera systems utilizing that sensor have addressed backspace but I sense they've done it by erring on the side of flimsiness. I hope I'm not raising the ire of anybody who owns the competition's cameras or their filter wheels and the like. But I do wonder about that. As an example, I feel the size of the sensor almost warrants a filter size that is 50mm square as a minimum yet such filter wheels are not customarily offered in their lineup. I admit that I may be incorrect and over-reaching by saying that.

So...........when your IMX455 camera is released I know it will be built solidly. But ideally, I hope issues of limited BF will be addressed because I would predict most people will be pairing this camera with systems utilizing focal reducers and having tight limitations on back-focus.