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

Re: [William Optics] Re: WO AFR-IV Adjustable Flattener / 0.8x Reducer

Expand Messages
  • Astro Huyps
    Hi all, quite a few times I see a discussion on the distance for a Eos 40D versus 1000D etc.. well, one thing is sure, these distances (flange to sensor) are
    Message 1 of 18 , Feb 6 4:07 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi all,
       
      quite a few times I see a discussion on the distance for a Eos 40D versus 1000D etc..  well, one thing is sure, these distances (flange to sensor) are all the same. So once you have found the optimum for the 1000D you have found it for any Eos camera (either APS-C or full frame).
       
      Kind regards
      Ronald Huyps
       
       
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 12:52 AM
      Subject: RE: [William Optics] Re: WO AFR-IV Adjustable Flattener / 0.8x Reducer

       

      Hi All,

      I understand where people are coming from with regards to the exact distance

      From CCD to FF lens however I just put it on and did a few test shots and luckily enough

      That 76 on the AFR-IV works well with my EOS 1000D and FLT 110

      I will (If we get any clear skies!!) try my D40 (This might be different)

      Hmm...

      Interestingly I have just measured the distance from the EOS 1000D to the Field Flattener lens

      And it is actually as stated on the field flattener 76mm

      Then again it is designed for DSLR’s.

      (Pretty much as Steve stated in the earlier mail.)

      I was lucky enough to be asked to review the AFR-IV for one of the UK sellers (And ended up buying the one I reviewed).

      This said with regards to the (17.5 mm for my SXVR M25C), question I would hope William Optics would at

      Least acknowledge the mail they are normally pretty good.

      Many thanks for the comment on the photo’s guy’s :-)

      Kind regards,

      --

      Paul Gordon

      paul@.... uk

      http://www.madpc. co.uk

      From: William-Optics@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:William- Optics@yahoogrou ps.com] On Behalf Of aissopou
      Sent: 06 February 2010 19:41
      To: William-Optics@ yahoogroups. com
      Subject: [William Optics] Re: WO AFR-IV Adjustable Flattener / 0.8x Reducer

       

      Hi all AFR-IV owners,

      I quite agree with Perry ("Edisonian" approach). WO has produced a nice adjustable Flattener (very nice shots by Paul), has provided exact spacing recommendations (to the tenth of mm) for 3 FLT models, but does not provide the very simple piece of information of what is the remaining distance form the FF flattener to the CCD surface according to the FF ring settings.
      Of course one would experiment for the best distance (that's the beauty of an adjustable FF) but knowing the exact distance of my CCD to CCD barrel (17.5 mm for my SXVR M25C), I don't see why I should be left in the dark regarding FF barell distances which would give me a good starting point as opposed to wild guessing. And it is definetely a piece of information available to WO since they designed the FF!

      I am surprised that Christian has not received a reply since my email to WO support was answered back almost immediately.

      Regards to all,
      Tasos

      --- In William-Optics@ yahoogroups. com, Stephen Tate <stephen.tate@ ...> wrote:
      >
      > Hi All,
      >
      > I never normally do this and please don't anybody take this the wrong way.
      >
      > Superviking805 -- Great advice. I have FLT110 and AFR-IV and DSLR maybe I'm luck but I put the camera on guessed the correct distance and took a photo then moved a little to see what happened and so on.
      >
      > If you are luck enough to have a cooled CCD which is a little more tricky to fit then I can see that this could be seen as a little more trouble.
      >
      > I measured the distance by placing a small ruler in the tube with a lense cloth on the bottom and twisted to see what happened.
      >
      > I can also see the point of view that I have spent all of the money and I want to just put the FF on and not have to play with any settings but I have never done that with any astro gear.
      >
      > I think that we have seen a number of times the results of using the AFR-IV on a correct scope so it does work -- Thanks Paul Gordon images look great.
      >
      > Maybe Perry is correct Please lets start to post the distance for the Scope and Camera which will be of more use.
      >
      > so FLT 110 with AFR-IV and Canon Xsi std T mount : AFR-IV distance 74mm (measured by plastic ruler)
      >
      > Steve Tate
      >

      __._,_.__



      __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4842 (20100206) __________

      The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

      http://www.eset. com

    • christian_hennes@agilent.com
      Hi Paul, You wrote 76, so I understand 76 mm while the WO site recommend 73.5 mm. Did you arrive to this distance by trials and checks on the stars at corners?
      Message 2 of 18 , Feb 7 7:24 AM
      • 0 Attachment

        Hi Paul,

         

        You wrote 76, so I understand 76 mm while the WO site recommend 73.5 mm. Did you arrive to this distance by trials and checks on the stars at corners?

         

        Thanks,

        Christian

         

        Christian Hennes

        ST Global Account Manager

        Agilent Technologies France

        Parc Club du Moulin à Vent

        33, avenue du Docteur Georges Lévy

        69693 Vénissieux

        tel: 04 78 77 84 44

        GSM: 06 72 99 04 04

        FAX: 04 78 77 84 40

        christian_hennes@...

        www.agilent.com

         

        From: William-Optics@yahoogroups.com [mailto:William-Optics@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul Gordon
        Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2010 10:19
        To: William-Optics@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: RE: [William Optics] Re: WO AFR-IV Adjustable Flattener / 0.8x Reducer

         

         

        Hi Christian,

         

        Mine is set to 76 for my FLT-110 and Canon EOS 1000D.

        If I get a chance I will try my 40D to see if it different to this.

        I took these with the setup: -

        Horse-Flame

        http://www.madpc.net/Images/Latest-Images/FLT110/Horse-Flame-20-12-2009.jpg

         

        M42

        http://www.madpc.net/Images/Latest-Images/FLT110/m42-10-12-2009.jpg

         

        http://www.madpc.net/Images/Latest-Images/FLT110/M42-22-12-2009.jpg

         

         

        --

        Paul Gordon

        paul@...

        http://www.mill-judo-club.co.uk

         

         

        From: William-Optics@yahoogroups.com [mailto:William-Optics@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of christian_hennes@...
        Sent: 06 February 2010 07:58
        To: William-Optics@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: RE: [William Optics] Re: WO AFR-IV Adjustable Flattener / 0.8x Reducer

         

         

        Hello AFR-IV owners,

         

        I got a FLT-132 and the AFR-IV flattener + a Canon 40D. I am also trying to figure out the correct distance to set on the flattener. I have send 2 mail to WO and did not get answer yet. From the WO site, the 66-86 mm refers to lens-to-chip distance. They also mention 71.5 mm as the correct distance for the FLT-132. A good info would be to know the exact distance from the lens to the back plane of the AFR-IV. As we can measure the chip to lens connection plan on cameras, we could calculate easily the lens-to-chip distance.

         

        I hope WO will answer and provide this distance.

         

        Christian



        __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4840 (20100205) __________

        The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

        http://www.eset.com

      • Paul Gordon
        Hi Christian, ‘Did you arrive to this distance by trials and checks on the stars at corners?’ Yes this is what I did. -- Paul Gordon paul@madpc.co.uk
        Message 3 of 18 , Feb 7 2:54 PM
        • 0 Attachment

          Hi Christian,

           

          Did you arrive to this distance by trials and checks on the stars at corners?’

          Yes this is what I did.

          --

          Paul Gordon

          paul@...

          http://www.mill-judo-club.co.uk

           

           

          From: William-Optics@yahoogroups.com [mailto:William-Optics@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of christian_hennes@...
          Sent: 07 February 2010 15:24
          To: William-Optics@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: RE: [William Optics] Re: WO AFR-IV Adjustable Flattener / 0.8x Reducer

           

           

          Hi Paul,

           

          You wrote 76, so I understand 76 mm while the WO site recommend 73.5 mm. Did you arrive to this distance by trials and checks on the stars at corners?

           

          Thanks,

          Christian

           

          Christian Hennes

          ST Global Account Manager

          Agilent Technologies France

          Parc Club du Moulin à Vent

          33, avenue du Docteur Georges Lévy

          69693 Vénissieux

          tel: 04 78 77 84 44

          GSM: 06 72 99 04 04

          FAX: 04 78 77 84 40

          christian_hennes@...

          www.agilent.com

           

          From: William-Optics@yahoogroups.com [mailto:William-Optics@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul Gordon
          Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2010 10:19
          To: William-Optics@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: RE: [William Optics] Re: WO AFR-IV Adjustable Flattener / 0.8x Reducer

           

           

          Hi Christian,

           

          Mine is set to 76 for my FLT-110 and Canon EOS 1000D.

          If I get a chance I will try my 40D to see if it different to this.

          I took these with the setup: -

          Horse-Flame

          http://www.madpc.net/Images/Latest-Images/FLT110/Horse-Flame-20-12-2009.jpg

           

          M42

          http://www.madpc.net/Images/Latest-Images/FLT110/m42-10-12-2009.jpg

           

          http://www.madpc.net/Images/Latest-Images/FLT110/M42-22-12-2009.jpg

           

           

          --

          Paul Gordon

          paul@...

          http://www.mill-judo-club.co.uk

           

           

          From: William-Optics@yahoogroups.com [mailto:William-Optics@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of christian_hennes@...
          Sent: 06 February 2010 07:58
          To: William-Optics@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: RE: [William Optics] Re: WO AFR-IV Adjustable Flattener / 0.8x Reducer

           

           

          Hello AFR-IV owners,

           

          I got a FLT-132 and the AFR-IV flattener + a Canon 40D. I am also trying to figure out the correct distance to set on the flattener. I have send 2 mail to WO and did not get answer yet. From the WO site, the 66-86 mm refers to lens-to-chip distance. They also mention 71.5 mm as the correct distance for the FLT-132. A good info would be to know the exact distance from the lens to the back plane of the AFR-IV. As we can measure the chip to lens connection plan on cameras, we could calculate easily the lens-to-chip distance.

           

          I hope WO will answer and provide this distance.

           

          Christian



          __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4840 (20100205) __________

          The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

          http://www.eset.com

           

          __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4844 (20100207) __________

           

          The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

           

          http://www.eset.com

           

          __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4845 (20100207) __________

           

          The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

           

          http://www.eset.com



          __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4845 (20100207) __________

          The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

          http://www.eset.com
        • Stephen Tate
          Hi All, though that I would post this link taken with FLT110 AFR-IV and Canon Xsi just last night. Distance -- do not know exactly as I noticed that I had
          Message 4 of 18 , Feb 7 5:54 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi All,

            though that I would post this link taken with FLT110 AFR-IV and Canon Xsi just last night. Distance -- do not know exactly as I noticed that I had moved it slightly but the stars at all corners are still well corrected


            (sorry for Facebook link but it was the quickest ) 

            With all of the testing that i have done unless i am at either of the extremes then the images are good with little/no distortion in the star image. Am I lucky or am I doing something wrong?  The only issue I have is that i do not seem to have reducing power as claimed i.e. FR of 0.8x. But then if I remember there were issues with this in the first generation which is what mine is as it was bought from the UK in may 2009.

            Steve Tate



          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.