So I bought a Redcat.

As of now the jury is out on what I think about it. I like the idea behind the design, but if there is a fatal flaw I think it is the inability for the user to adjust the distance between the third and fourth element of the telescope. The nice thing about other setups is you have control over the distance between the flattener and the imaging chip so you can make those fine adjustments as you need to. Here, with the four-element design you are kind of stuck with what they give you.

The other thing I did not like is the madlads actually glued in the screws that hold the lens cells down into the body! If you are like me and use any WO scope in the cold, then you'll know you probably have to loosen the screws on the cells a bit to avoid the "iron-cross" stars from them pinching. Well, can't do that on the Redcat!  I am kinda mad about that, because I think I have some pinched optics as well.

It's kind of funny to think that so far, my little ASKAR 180 is the preferred telescope out here. The only downside to the ASKAR is the bloating in the blue channel, so any kind of broad band just isn't going to happen within the city limits. It's top notch with narrowband though! I feel like if I can get the issues with this Redcat squared away, it will be a fine addition to my collection, well, while I am out in Montreal anyways.

I am starting to think I have "to many cooks in the kitchen" in regards to telescopes.
-----------------------------
Anyways, here is my second go at the Bubble Nebula and all its friends. A little bit of a wider field than last time. Given the issues I had to deal with, I think it turned out alright. It was a real pain to process because of the issues especially in the corners. The only way I could deal with it was to give the data a very soft processing without doing anything too intense and then downscaling it massively to hide some of the major problems.