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

Re: AFR-IV Flattener + WO90 + CANON 40D

Expand Messages
  • jose.mtanous
    Gianluca, Read the post, IN FOCUS adding an extension tube will make things worse. You cannot do much about it. Cheers, Jose
    Message 1 of 10 , Oct 7, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Gianluca,

      Read the post, "IN FOCUS" adding an extension tube will make things worse.

      You cannot do much about it.

      Cheers,

      Jose

      --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "inZet" <gsordiglioni@...> wrote:
      >
      > Just add an extension tube... what's the problem?
      > It works? So it's not a failure... right? Perhaps a misunderstanding where WO should add a note "you'll need an extension tube".
      > I may be wrong, but I suspect all those lens-to-chip problems with WO FFs are only with Canon's.
      >
      > Gianluca
      >
      >
      > --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "vlad_bungle" <pyr0@> wrote:
      > >
      > > You are not going to believe this Aaron,
      > > This is my first post, and I joined because I have the exact same problem!
      > > FF4 + Meg90FD + Canon 300D
      > > As with you... approx 20mm more in-focus needed.
      > >
      > > Looks like WO have produced FF4 failure #3!
      > > Don't they test these things one their scopes?
      > > This is getting rediculous.
      > > Not happy.
      > >
      > > Simon
      >
    • vlad_bungle
      I can t beleive it either. Would have been nice of them to test it before I burnt a hole in my pocket. They were directly advertising it as suitable for the
      Message 2 of 10 , Oct 7, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        I can't beleive it either.
        Would have been nice of them to test it before I burnt a hole in my pocket.

        They were directly advertising it as suitable for the Megrez90, already that has been removed from the product description.
        They are now marketed for the FLTs only, even though the product is not available on WOnline anymore.

        I did notice though that the text behind the thumbnail image still shows Megrez90, wonder how quickly that will be removed now I've told them it's there ;)
        Screengrab: http://members.westnet.com.au/foo2/WO.gif



        --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "jose.mtanous" <jmtanous@...> wrote:
        >
        > Sorry to read this dudes.
        >
        > I can't believe it. The simplest test would reveal this. WO should add a small note in their website, "not suitable for the M90".
        >
        > I have a Megrez 90 and I am very disappointed with the FF3, but it reach focus.
        >
        > Regards,
        >
        > Jose
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "vlad_bungle" <pyr0@> wrote:
        > >
        > > You are not going to believe this Aaron,
        > > This is my first post, and I joined because I have the exact same problem!
        > > FF4 + Meg90FD + Canon 300D
        > > As with you... approx 20mm more in-focus needed.
        > >
        > > Looks like WO have produced FF4 failure #3!
        > > Don't they test these things one their scopes?
        > > This is getting rediculous.
        > > Not happy.
        > >
        > > Simon
        > >
        > > --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, on_still <no_reply@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Hi All,
        > > > Just got the AFR-IV Flattener from WO.
        > > > With alot of Excitement i set it up with WO 90 megrez and my Canon 40D and... seems that there is not enough in-focus. i need about 15 mm more in-focus to get into focus.
        > > > Any help would be Appreciated.
        > > >
        > > > Thanks,
        > > > Arnon
        > > >
        > >
        >
      • gbealnz
        There seems to be a common thread here. Not so long ago I voiced my dismay at the FLT132 focuser being less than what is required, and the fact that when you
        Message 3 of 10 , Oct 7, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          There seems to be a common thread here. Not so long ago I voiced my dismay at the FLT132 focuser being less than what is required, and the fact that when you use the dedicated field flattener, the focuser is at all but full extension.
          While I'll stop short of saying they simply make the scopes and hope that it works, this latest revelation has me wondering.
          I, and I expect you too, have no intention of bagging W/O, I love my FLT, but man oh man, why do they produce stuff like this. It is minor attention to detail that lets them down. I posted in an effort to see if they actually listened to the masses, but the thread got hijacked by a laser finder deviation, and I simply gave up.
          I hope you can rectify the issues you have, I couldn't.
          Gary

          --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "vlad_bungle" <pyr0@...> wrote:
          >
          > I can't beleive it either.
          > Would have been nice of them to test it before I burnt a hole in my pocket.
          >
          > They were directly advertising it as suitable for the Megrez90, already that has been removed from the product description.
          > They are now marketed for the FLTs only, even though the product is not available on WOnline anymore.
          >
          > I did notice though that the text behind the thumbnail image still shows Megrez90, wonder how quickly that will be removed now I've told them it's there ;)
          > Screengrab: http://members.westnet.com.au/foo2/WO.gif
          >
          >
        • inZet
          Uh, sorry, I misread the post.
          Message 4 of 10 , Oct 7, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Uh, sorry, I misread the post.


            --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, Steve L <zorlac@...> wrote:
            >
            > Err... they require more **IN** focus, not out focus...
            >
            > inZet wrote:
            > > Just add an extension tube... what's the problem?
            >
          • vlad_bungle
            Message 5 of 10 , Oct 21, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              I received the following from WO when placing an order yesterday:

              >Regarding FlatIV: it was made for latest M90, FLT98, FLT110 and 132.
              >Latest M90 (introduced in october 2009) is shorter and FlatIV works with it.
              >Please, send FlatIV back to us and we will issue full refund to you.
              >ATB,
              >WO.
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.