Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Telescopes] Digest Number 917

Expand Messages
  • Archer Sully
    ... I haven t had nearly the time to use this scope as I d like, but I have played around with mounting it a bit, and I do have some more comments... 1. The
    Message 1 of 4 , Jan 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      sparc64v@... wrote:

      > For people like Ron who have had the scope for a few more week now,
      > care to gave us some follow ups??
      >
      > Especially comparing them to similar sized RFT, from Tak FS78, to the
      > Chinese 80 F5. On both visual, photo, and CCD performances.

      I haven't had nearly the time to use this scope as I'd like, but
      I have played around with mounting it a bit, and I do have some
      more comments...

      1. The tube is one inch (25mm) too short. There isn't an eyepiece
      in my collection that I don't have to pull out a bit to reach focus,
      even with a 2" (TeleVue) diagonal.

      2. Related to point 1, the tube is difficult to mount and balance
      on a garden variety (in my case, Vixen Polaris) GEM. I can only
      use one of the supplied rings, so the scope is a bit less stable
      than I'd like. I suspect that with a proper adapter it would be
      easier, as I could locate the mounting rings close together and
      use both of them. However, even then the focuser knobs will interfere
      with the head, so that only the full rotation of the focuser won't
      be possible. Shortening the tube won't help this, but adding
      some weight to the business end will.

      3. The focus lock/roller clutch works well. I did a bit of solar
      photography yesterday, and focus stayed put nicely after locking
      everything down. Camera was an OM1, so I wasn't pushing it, but
      I think it will work well for the task that I acquired the instrument
      for (eclipse photography). I'll be posting the images on my own
      website in the coming days for anyone's edification and amusement
      at my very green technique ;-).

      4. The optics and baffling on this scope are excellent. Still haven't
      gotten a proper star test done, but I expect it to be very good. The
      views through the scope are very nice indeed, even though the aperture
      is small.

      Going forward, I expect to fabricate a new adapter plate
      for my current mount for use at home. For travel use, I'll
      have to come up with an appropriate head for a heavy duty camera
      tripod (probably a Velbon Carmagne). This will either involve
      a barn door of some sort (type IV?) or if I'm feeling flush
      perhaps I'll just spring for the Tak Sky Patrol II.

      Archer Sully
      Boulder, CO
    • Ron Wodaski
      I created an illustration that shows how to best balance the Megrez for imaging, but it also applies to the use of weighty eyepieces. The basic idea is to
      Message 2 of 4 , Jan 1, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        I created an illustration that shows how to best balance the Megrez for
        imaging, but it also applies to the use of weighty eyepieces. The basic idea
        is to offset the scope from the center of the mount head by using an
        over-sized dovetail. I uploaded the illustration to the Files section of
        this egroup:

        http://www.egroups.com/files/William-Optics/tips/megrez_CCD.jpg

        Note also the use of an extension tube. You can also use one visually. The
        ideal solution is one that threads onto the diagonal, but a conventional
        extension tube will also work. A threaded extension tube is supplied with
        the Megrez for imaging, if I am not mistaken; I will have to see if there is
        an arrangement that would let you use it with eyepieces as well.

        From an imager's point of view, it is always better to have a shorter tube,
        as one can always make up the difference with extension tubes. There is
        nothing simple you can do about a tube that is too long.

        Ron Wodaski
        The New CCD Astronomy Book
        web site: http://www.newastro.com



        -----Original Message-----
        From: Archer Sully [mailto:archer@...]
        Sent: Monday, January 01, 2001 2:56 PM
        To: telescopes@egroups.com; William-Optics@egroups.com
        Subject: [William-Optics] Re: [Telescopes] Digest Number 917


        sparc64v@... wrote:

        > For people like Ron who have had the scope for a few more week now,
        > care to gave us some follow ups??
        >
        > Especially comparing them to similar sized RFT, from Tak FS78, to the
        > Chinese 80 F5. On both visual, photo, and CCD performances.

        I haven't had nearly the time to use this scope as I'd like, but
        I have played around with mounting it a bit, and I do have some
        more comments...

        1. The tube is one inch (25mm) too short. There isn't an eyepiece
        in my collection that I don't have to pull out a bit to reach focus,
        even with a 2" (TeleVue) diagonal.

        2. Related to point 1, the tube is difficult to mount and balance
        on a garden variety (in my case, Vixen Polaris) GEM. I can only
        use one of the supplied rings, so the scope is a bit less stable
        than I'd like. I suspect that with a proper adapter it would be
        easier, as I could locate the mounting rings close together and
        use both of them. However, even then the focuser knobs will interfere
        with the head, so that only the full rotation of the focuser won't
        be possible. Shortening the tube won't help this, but adding
        some weight to the business end will.

        3. The focus lock/roller clutch works well. I did a bit of solar
        photography yesterday, and focus stayed put nicely after locking
        everything down. Camera was an OM1, so I wasn't pushing it, but
        I think it will work well for the task that I acquired the instrument
        for (eclipse photography). I'll be posting the images on my own
        website in the coming days for anyone's edification and amusement
        at my very green technique ;-).

        4. The optics and baffling on this scope are excellent. Still haven't
        gotten a proper star test done, but I expect it to be very good. The
        views through the scope are very nice indeed, even though the aperture
        is small.

        Going forward, I expect to fabricate a new adapter plate
        for my current mount for use at home. For travel use, I'll
        have to come up with an appropriate head for a heavy duty camera
        tripod (probably a Velbon Carmagne). This will either involve
        a barn door of some sort (type IV?) or if I'm feeling flush
        perhaps I'll just spring for the Tak Sky Patrol II.

        Archer Sully
        Boulder, CO

        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        WYO-unsubscribe@egroups.com
      • Ron Wodaski
        I created an illustration that shows how to best balance the Megrez for imaging, but it also applies to the use of weighty eyepieces. The basic idea is to
        Message 3 of 4 , Jan 1, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          I created an illustration that shows how to best balance the Megrez for
          imaging, but it also applies to the use of weighty eyepieces. The basic idea
          is to offset the scope from the center of the mount head by using an
          over-sized dovetail. I uploaded the illustration to the Files section of the
          Wm. Optics egroup:

          http://www.egroups.com/files/William-Optics/tips/megrez_CCD.jpg

          This technique can be used with any wide-field, fast refractor. Note also
          the use of an extension tube. You can also use one visually. The ideal
          solution is one that threads onto the diagonal, but a conventional extension
          tube will also work. A threaded extension tube is supplied with the Megrez
          for imaging, if I am not mistaken; I will have to see if there is an
          arrangement that would let you use it with eyepieces as well.

          From an imager's point of view, it is always better to have a shorter tube,
          as one can always make up the difference with extension tubes. There is
          nothing simple you can do about a tube that is too long.

          Ron Wodaski
          The New CCD Astronomy Book
          web site: http://www.newastro.com



          -----Original Message-----
          From: Archer Sully [mailto:archer@...]
          Sent: Monday, January 01, 2001 2:56 PM
          To: telescopes@egroups.com; William-Optics@egroups.com
          Subject: [William-Optics] Re: [Telescopes] Digest Number 917


          sparc64v@... wrote:

          > For people like Ron who have had the scope for a few more week now,
          > care to gave us some follow ups??
          >
          > Especially comparing them to similar sized RFT, from Tak FS78, to the
          > Chinese 80 F5. On both visual, photo, and CCD performances.

          I haven't had nearly the time to use this scope as I'd like, but
          I have played around with mounting it a bit, and I do have some
          more comments...

          1. The tube is one inch (25mm) too short. There isn't an eyepiece
          in my collection that I don't have to pull out a bit to reach focus,
          even with a 2" (TeleVue) diagonal.

          2. Related to point 1, the tube is difficult to mount and balance
          on a garden variety (in my case, Vixen Polaris) GEM. I can only
          use one of the supplied rings, so the scope is a bit less stable
          than I'd like. I suspect that with a proper adapter it would be
          easier, as I could locate the mounting rings close together and
          use both of them. However, even then the focuser knobs will interfere
          with the head, so that only the full rotation of the focuser won't
          be possible. Shortening the tube won't help this, but adding
          some weight to the business end will.

          3. The focus lock/roller clutch works well. I did a bit of solar
          photography yesterday, and focus stayed put nicely after locking
          everything down. Camera was an OM1, so I wasn't pushing it, but
          I think it will work well for the task that I acquired the instrument
          for (eclipse photography). I'll be posting the images on my own
          website in the coming days for anyone's edification and amusement
          at my very green technique ;-).

          4. The optics and baffling on this scope are excellent. Still haven't
          gotten a proper star test done, but I expect it to be very good. The
          views through the scope are very nice indeed, even though the aperture
          is small.

          Going forward, I expect to fabricate a new adapter plate
          for my current mount for use at home. For travel use, I'll
          have to come up with an appropriate head for a heavy duty camera
          tripod (probably a Velbon Carmagne). This will either involve
          a barn door of some sort (type IV?) or if I'm feeling flush
          perhaps I'll just spring for the Tak Sky Patrol II.

          Archer Sully
          Boulder, CO

          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          WYO-unsubscribe@egroups.com
        • saltflyboy@netscape.net
          I ve used mine nearly every clear night. This is what I ve found so far: Tube balance - so far not a problem. I have it mounted to an old Vixen Polaris Mount
          Message 4 of 4 , Jan 2, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            I've used mine nearly every clear night. This is what I've found so
            far:

            Tube balance - so far not a problem. I have it mounted to an old
            Vixen Polaris Mount with the Vixen Universal Mounting Plate. Seems to
            balance just fine in this config - using 2"diag and 12mm Nagler. I
            have not tried to do photography yet so unsure how a CCD or 35mm cam
            + T-Adapter would change things. Will try this week. I will say I
            have another 2 inches of forward travel with this plate before the
            rotating focuser would become a problem.

            Focus - I've solved my 1 1/4 eyepiece issues but using a 2" diag and
            a TV 1 1/4 adapter. Will now focus ALL my 1 1/4 eyepieces with plenty
            of travel. Still a problem with 2" eyepieces though - especially my
            12mm Nagler (I hate using this in the 1 1/4 mode), and a custom 2"
            Barlow. I have a 2", 2" high adapter that works well here though.

            Optics - Images are very nice. I'm not the best star tester, but
            rings seem to be the same on both sides of focus and round. Two
            things: cool down - This scope takes longer to cool down then any
            other ref. I've ever owned. not sure why(?). Don't even think about
            pin-point images or star test for nearly 2 hours. Color: Worse then
            I expected quite frankly. I see color with just about any brand
            eyepiece at around 70X (at the edges even lower) - though not bad.
            Really makes images "softer" at 160X or so. Maybe its just me, or my
            eyepieces.... I've taken the scope to around 400X (for giggles...:-)
            and found the images actually hold up on the moon and Jupiter -
            though w/ lots of color. Seems the most comfotable zone though is 50-
            100X. One last thing on the color - most if not all is blue flare -
            very little green - ?

            --- In William-Optics@egroups.com, Archer Sully <archer@m...> wrote:
            > sparc64v@y... wrote:
            >
            > > For people like Ron who have had the scope for a few more week
            now,
            > > care to gave us some follow ups??
            > >
            > > Especially comparing them to similar sized RFT, from Tak FS78, to
            the
            > > Chinese 80 F5. On both visual, photo, and CCD performances.
            >
            > I haven't had nearly the time to use this scope as I'd like, but
            > I have played around with mounting it a bit, and I do have some
            > more comments...
            >
            > 1. The tube is one inch (25mm) too short. There isn't an eyepiece
            > in my collection that I don't have to pull out a bit to reach focus,
            > even with a 2" (TeleVue) diagonal.
            >
            > 2. Related to point 1, the tube is difficult to mount and balance
            > on a garden variety (in my case, Vixen Polaris) GEM. I can only
            > use one of the supplied rings, so the scope is a bit less stable
            > than I'd like. I suspect that with a proper adapter it would be
            > easier, as I could locate the mounting rings close together and
            > use both of them. However, even then the focuser knobs will
            interfere
            > with the head, so that only the full rotation of the focuser won't
            > be possible. Shortening the tube won't help this, but adding
            > some weight to the business end will.
            >
            > 3. The focus lock/roller clutch works well. I did a bit of solar
            > photography yesterday, and focus stayed put nicely after locking
            > everything down. Camera was an OM1, so I wasn't pushing it, but
            > I think it will work well for the task that I acquired the
            instrument
            > for (eclipse photography). I'll be posting the images on my own
            > website in the coming days for anyone's edification and amusement
            > at my very green technique ;-).
            >
            > 4. The optics and baffling on this scope are excellent. Still
            haven't
            > gotten a proper star test done, but I expect it to be very good.
            The
            > views through the scope are very nice indeed, even though the
            aperture
            > is small.
            >
            > Going forward, I expect to fabricate a new adapter plate
            > for my current mount for use at home. For travel use, I'll
            > have to come up with an appropriate head for a heavy duty camera
            > tripod (probably a Velbon Carmagne). This will either involve
            > a barn door of some sort (type IV?) or if I'm feeling flush
            > perhaps I'll just spring for the Tak Sky Patrol II.
            >
            > Archer Sully
            > Boulder, CO
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.