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

Re: Megrez 80 FD with Meade 0.63 focal reducer

Expand Messages
  • Barry Carter
    Bob, very nice M45. Is this full frame, or did you do any cropping? The edge stars look VG. I have a Celestron .63 FR that I intend to try out with the ZS
    Message 1 of 9 , Jan 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Bob, very nice M45. Is this full frame, or did you do any
      cropping? The edge stars look VG. I have a Celestron .63 FR that I
      intend to try out with the ZS 105mm, f/7. Hope my results are as
      good.

      http://www.barrie-tao.com/wotriplet.html

      Ciao...Barry


      --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "reim58" <reim58@y...> wrote:
      >
      > I went out to a dark site and wanted to try a Meade .63 focal
      > reducer on this scope to see how it performed. The weather did not
      > behave that night and I called it a night around 10:00 as high
      > clouds came in. I
      > was only able to get 12 shots at 3 minutes each on M45 before
      seeing
      > just got too bad. The Meade .63 focal reducer
      > brings it down to f4.3. The results were much better than I
      > expected. The stars held together quite well and I had about the
      same
      > amount of vignetting as when not using the focal reducer. CA is now
      > visible with this setup however its not that bad and doing a 50%
      > reduction in size will hide most of it. Overall this was my best
      shot
      > of M45 (which surprised me) and it was only 36 minutes worth. I
      > wanted to do at least 1 hour on this object. Again the 10:1 focus
      > adjustment made it so easy to get to a near critical focus.
      >
      > Link to picture.
      > http://www.pbase.com/reim58/image/54214816/original
      >
      > Here is a link to the setup.
      > http://www.pbase.com/reim58/image/54215483/original
      >
      >
      > Bob Reim
      >
    • reim58
      There was no cropping in that shot. It was only reduced in size. Yes I thought the stars look good also. I just got done doing a test of this lens with and
      Message 2 of 9 , Jan 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        There was no cropping in that shot. It was only reduced in size.
        Yes I thought the stars look good also. I just got done doing a
        test of this lens with and without the focal reducer. I used a box
        with black text on a white backgound. This is an easy way to see
        how well the scope does with and without the reducer. The results
        is it's not as sharp with the reducer but its close. So I plan on
        using this reducer in the future.
        Bob

        --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "Barry Carter"
        <chiron666@s...> wrote:
        >
        > Bob, very nice M45. Is this full frame, or did you do any
        > cropping? The edge stars look VG. I have a Celestron .63 FR that
        I
        > intend to try out with the ZS 105mm, f/7. Hope my results are as
        > good.
        >
        > http://www.barrie-tao.com/wotriplet.html
        >
        > Ciao...Barry
        >
        >
        > --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "reim58" <reim58@y...>
        wrote:
        > >
        > > I went out to a dark site and wanted to try a Meade .63 focal
        > > reducer on this scope to see how it performed. The weather did
        not
        > > behave that night and I called it a night around 10:00 as high
        > > clouds came in. I
        > > was only able to get 12 shots at 3 minutes each on M45 before
        > seeing
        > > just got too bad. The Meade .63 focal reducer
        > > brings it down to f4.3. The results were much better than I
        > > expected. The stars held together quite well and I had about the
        > same
        > > amount of vignetting as when not using the focal reducer. CA is
        now
        > > visible with this setup however its not that bad and doing a 50%
        > > reduction in size will hide most of it. Overall this was my best
        > shot
        > > of M45 (which surprised me) and it was only 36 minutes worth. I
        > > wanted to do at least 1 hour on this object. Again the 10:1 focus
        > > adjustment made it so easy to get to a near critical focus.
        > >
        > > Link to picture.
        > > http://www.pbase.com/reim58/image/54214816/original
        > >
        > > Here is a link to the setup.
        > > http://www.pbase.com/reim58/image/54215483/original
        > >
        > >
        > > Bob Reim
        > >
        >
      • Barry Carter
        Thanks. This gives me an idea of using one of those resolution type test charts. I have nothing but clouds hear, so all optical testing will have to be
        Message 3 of 9 , Jan 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks. This gives me an idea of using one of those resolution type
          test charts. I have nothing but clouds hear, so all optical testing
          will have to be indoors; prehaps using pinhole or steel ball as
          outlined in Suiter. My basement is over 50 ft long, so I have the
          room.

          Ciao...Barry




          --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "reim58" <reim58@y...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > There was no cropping in that shot. It was only reduced in size.
          > Yes I thought the stars look good also. I just got done doing a
          > test of this lens with and without the focal reducer. I used a
          box
          > with black text on a white backgound. This is an easy way to see
          > how well the scope does with and without the reducer. The results
          > is it's not as sharp with the reducer but its close. So I plan on
          > using this reducer in the future.
          > Bob
          >
          > --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "Barry Carter"
          > <chiron666@s...> wrote:
          > >
          > > Bob, very nice M45. Is this full frame, or did you do any
          > > cropping? The edge stars look VG. I have a Celestron .63 FR
          that
          > I
          > > intend to try out with the ZS 105mm, f/7. Hope my results are
          as
          > > good.
          > >
          > > http://www.barrie-tao.com/wotriplet.html
          > >
          > > Ciao...Barry
          > >
          > >
          > > --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "reim58" <reim58@y...>
          > wrote:
          > > >
          > > > I went out to a dark site and wanted to try a Meade .63 focal
          > > > reducer on this scope to see how it performed. The weather did
          > not
          > > > behave that night and I called it a night around 10:00 as high
          > > > clouds came in. I
          > > > was only able to get 12 shots at 3 minutes each on M45 before
          > > seeing
          > > > just got too bad. The Meade .63 focal reducer
          > > > brings it down to f4.3. The results were much better than I
          > > > expected. The stars held together quite well and I had about
          the
          > > same
          > > > amount of vignetting as when not using the focal reducer. CA
          is
          > now
          > > > visible with this setup however its not that bad and doing a
          50%
          > > > reduction in size will hide most of it. Overall this was my
          best
          > > shot
          > > > of M45 (which surprised me) and it was only 36 minutes worth. I
          > > > wanted to do at least 1 hour on this object. Again the 10:1
          focus
          > > > adjustment made it so easy to get to a near critical focus.
          > > >
          > > > Link to picture.
          > > > http://www.pbase.com/reim58/image/54214816/original
          > > >
          > > > Here is a link to the setup.
          > > > http://www.pbase.com/reim58/image/54215483/original
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > Bob Reim
          > > >
          > >
          >
        • jason_milani
          Call me naive but i didn t realize you could use a focal reducer designed for an f/10 scope and make it work on an f/6 - f/7 scope. If this really works, i m
          Message 4 of 9 , Jan 3, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Call me naive but i didn't realize you could use a focal reducer
            designed for an f/10 scope and make it work on an f/6 - f/7 scope.
            If this really works, i'm going to try my f/3.3. reducer on my
            Anniversary Fluorite doublet!!

            --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "reim58" <reim58@y...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > There was no cropping in that shot. It was only reduced in size.
            > Yes I thought the stars look good also. I just got done doing a
            > test of this lens with and without the focal reducer. I used a
            box
            > with black text on a white backgound. This is an easy way to see
            > how well the scope does with and without the reducer. The results
            > is it's not as sharp with the reducer but its close. So I plan on
            > using this reducer in the future.
            > Bob
            >
            > --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "Barry Carter"
            > <chiron666@s...> wrote:
            > >
            > > Bob, very nice M45. Is this full frame, or did you do any
            > > cropping? The edge stars look VG. I have a Celestron .63 FR
            that
            > I
            > > intend to try out with the ZS 105mm, f/7. Hope my results are
            as
            > > good.
            > >
            > > http://www.barrie-tao.com/wotriplet.html
            > >
            > > Ciao...Barry
            > >
            > >
            > > --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "reim58" <reim58@y...>
            > wrote:
            > > >
            > > > I went out to a dark site and wanted to try a Meade .63 focal
            > > > reducer on this scope to see how it performed. The weather did
            > not
            > > > behave that night and I called it a night around 10:00 as high
            > > > clouds came in. I
            > > > was only able to get 12 shots at 3 minutes each on M45 before
            > > seeing
            > > > just got too bad. The Meade .63 focal reducer
            > > > brings it down to f4.3. The results were much better than I
            > > > expected. The stars held together quite well and I had about
            the
            > > same
            > > > amount of vignetting as when not using the focal reducer. CA
            is
            > now
            > > > visible with this setup however its not that bad and doing a
            50%
            > > > reduction in size will hide most of it. Overall this was my
            best
            > > shot
            > > > of M45 (which surprised me) and it was only 36 minutes worth. I
            > > > wanted to do at least 1 hour on this object. Again the 10:1
            focus
            > > > adjustment made it so easy to get to a near critical focus.
            > > >
            > > > Link to picture.
            > > > http://www.pbase.com/reim58/image/54214816/original
            > > >
            > > > Here is a link to the setup.
            > > > http://www.pbase.com/reim58/image/54215483/original
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > Bob Reim
            > > >
            > >
            >
          • Stephen Hamilton
            I have used my Meade 6.3 reducer extensively with my Megrez 80 SD. This image was taken a couple of years ago with that setup:
            Message 5 of 9 , Jan 3, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              I have used my Meade 6.3 reducer extensively with my Megrez 80 SD. This image was taken a couple of years ago with that setup:

              http://astro.hcadvantage.com/AstroPhotos.aspx?img=4

              It is a 4 frame mosaic done in Ha and while there was a little field rotation (my fault), no vingetting is noticeable at all.

              Stephen P. Hamilton
              http://astro.hcadvantage.com
              36° 45' 28" , -76° 15' 40"


              -----Original Message-----
              From: jason_milani [mailto:jason_milani@...]
              Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 8:14 PM
              To: William-Optics@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [William-Optics] Re: Megrez 80 FD with Meade 0.63 focal reducer

              Call me naive but i didn't realize you could use a focal reducer
              designed for an f/10 scope and make it work on an f/6 - f/7 scope.
              If this really works, i'm going to try my f/3.3. reducer on my
              Anniversary Fluorite doublet!!

              --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "reim58" <reim58@y...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > There was no cropping in that shot. It was only reduced in size.
              > Yes I thought the stars look good also. I just got done doing a
              > test of this lens with and without the focal reducer. I used a
              box
              > with black text on a white backgound. This is an easy way to see
              > how well the scope does with and without the reducer. The results
              > is it's not as sharp with the reducer but its close. So I plan on
              > using this reducer in the future.
              > Bob
              >
              > --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "Barry Carter"
              > <chiron666@s...> wrote:
              > >
              > > Bob, very nice M45. Is this full frame, or did you do any
              > > cropping? The edge stars look VG. I have a Celestron .63 FR
              that
              > I
              > > intend to try out with the ZS 105mm, f/7. Hope my results are
              as
              > > good.
              > >
              > > http://www.barrie-tao.com/wotriplet.html
              > >
              > > Ciao...Barry
              > >
              > >
              > > --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "reim58" <reim58@y...>
              > wrote:
              > > >
              > > > I went out to a dark site and wanted to try a Meade .63 focal
              > > > reducer on this scope to see how it performed. The weather did
              > not
              > > > behave that night and I called it a night around 10:00 as high
              > > > clouds came in. I
              > > > was only able to get 12 shots at 3 minutes each on M45 before
              > > seeing
              > > > just got too bad. The Meade .63 focal reducer
              > > > brings it down to f4.3. The results were much better than I
              > > > expected. The stars held together quite well and I had about
              the
              > > same
              > > > amount of vignetting as when not using the focal reducer. CA
              is
              > now
              > > > visible with this setup however its not that bad and doing a
              50%
              > > > reduction in size will hide most of it. Overall this was my
              best
              > > shot
              > > > of M45 (which surprised me) and it was only 36 minutes worth. I
              > > > wanted to do at least 1 hour on this object. Again the 10:1
              focus
              > > > adjustment made it so easy to get to a near critical focus.
              > > >
              > > > Link to picture.
              > > > http://www.pbase.com/reim58/image/54214816/original
              > > >
              > > > Here is a link to the setup.
              > > > http://www.pbase.com/reim58/image/54215483/original
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > Bob Reim
              > > >
              > >
              >








              Yahoo! Groups Links
            • reim58
              Hi Stephen, I see you also use a LX90. How does the LPI work as an autoguider? It took me 7.5 pounds to get my LX90 balanced. How much did you use for that
              Message 6 of 9 , Jan 3, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Stephen,
                I see you also use a LX90. How does the LPI work as an autoguider?
                It took me 7.5 pounds to get my LX90 balanced. How much did you
                use for that shot?

                Focal Reducer: I was quite impressed with how well the .63 reducer
                did. I plan on using this setup quite a bit now. I have used the
                F3.3 reducer on my LX90 and the vignetting was very bad.

                Vignetting link
                http://www.pbase.com/reim58/image/25797670

                Now this vignetting really shows up since I am using a DSLR which
                has a large chip. If you using a small chip for imaging then you
                might not notice it that much.

                --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Hamilton"
                <shamilton@h...> wrote:
                >
                > I have used my Meade 6.3 reducer extensively with my Megrez 80
                SD. This image was taken a couple of years ago with that setup:
                >
                > http://astro.hcadvantage.com/AstroPhotos.aspx?img=4
                >
                > It is a 4 frame mosaic done in Ha and while there was a little
                field rotation (my fault), no vingetting is noticeable at all.
                >
                > Stephen P. Hamilton
                > http://astro.hcadvantage.com
                > 36° 45' 28" , -76° 15' 40"
                >
                >
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: jason_milani [mailto:jason_milani@y...]
                > Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 8:14 PM
                > To: William-Optics@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: [William-Optics] Re: Megrez 80 FD with Meade 0.63 focal
                reducer
                >
                > Call me naive but i didn't realize you could use a focal reducer
                > designed for an f/10 scope and make it work on an f/6 - f/7
                scope.
                > If this really works, i'm going to try my f/3.3. reducer on my
                > Anniversary Fluorite doublet!!
                >
                > --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "reim58" <reim58@y...>
                wrote:
                > >
                > >
                > > There was no cropping in that shot. It was only reduced in size.
                > > Yes I thought the stars look good also. I just got done doing a
                > > test of this lens with and without the focal reducer. I used a
                > box
                > > with black text on a white backgound. This is an easy way to
                see
                > > how well the scope does with and without the reducer. The
                results
                > > is it's not as sharp with the reducer but its close. So I plan
                on
                > > using this reducer in the future.
                > > Bob
                > >
                > > --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "Barry Carter"
                > > <chiron666@s...> wrote:
                > > >
                > > > Bob, very nice M45. Is this full frame, or did you do any
                > > > cropping? The edge stars look VG. I have a Celestron .63 FR
                > that
                > > I
                > > > intend to try out with the ZS 105mm, f/7. Hope my results are
                > as
                > > > good.
                > > >
                > > > http://www.barrie-tao.com/wotriplet.html
                > > >
                > > > Ciao...Barry
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "reim58" <reim58@y...>
                > > wrote:
                > > > >
                > > > > I went out to a dark site and wanted to try a Meade .63
                focal
                > > > > reducer on this scope to see how it performed. The weather
                did
                > > not
                > > > > behave that night and I called it a night around 10:00 as
                high
                > > > > clouds came in. I
                > > > > was only able to get 12 shots at 3 minutes each on M45
                before
                > > > seeing
                > > > > just got too bad. The Meade .63 focal reducer
                > > > > brings it down to f4.3. The results were much better than I
                > > > > expected. The stars held together quite well and I had about
                > the
                > > > same
                > > > > amount of vignetting as when not using the focal reducer. CA
                > is
                > > now
                > > > > visible with this setup however its not that bad and doing a
                > 50%
                > > > > reduction in size will hide most of it. Overall this was my
                > best
                > > > shot
                > > > > of M45 (which surprised me) and it was only 36 minutes
                worth. I
                > > > > wanted to do at least 1 hour on this object. Again the 10:1
                > focus
                > > > > adjustment made it so easy to get to a near critical focus.
                > > > >
                > > > > Link to picture.
                > > > > http://www.pbase.com/reim58/image/54214816/original
                > > > >
                > > > > Here is a link to the setup.
                > > > > http://www.pbase.com/reim58/image/54215483/original
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > > Bob Reim
                > > > >
                > > >
                > >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
              • Stephen Hamilton
                You are absolutely correct about the 3.3. My assumption was that this was created when CCD chips were still commonly very small and as is still true with many
                Message 7 of 9 , Jan 3, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  You are absolutely correct about the 3.3. My assumption was that this was created when CCD chips were still commonly very small and as is still true with many of the intro CCDs such as the SAC8, DSI, etc. My 416XTE, not that much larger then my DSI causes definite vingetting with the 3.3 unless it is used with no (or 15mm) extensions only effectively making it a .5, not 3.3. You need to be pretty close to the chip to use it with anything larger then 1/3" CCDs in my opinion. I have used it with the Megrez also and get a very wide field but had other not so nice issues to deal with. With a DSLR, it is pretty much out all together.

                  I run between 5 and 7.5 pounds on the LX90 depending on the setup. The Megrez weighs a bit more then my ETX90 so if I am guiding, I use the ETX and probably only need 5 pounds. With the Megrez on there, I use 7.5 simply due not only to its weight but length; I can only set it back on the scope so far.

                  The LPI works fine for guiding, especially with the new Envisage. Still, due to it lower sensitivity, you either need to go longer on your guide exposures or use brighter stars. My DSI-Pro (or the regular DSI) definitely makes a better guider due to its sensitivity, but I have used the LPI quite often and since I generally use guide exposures of 1-2 seconds, I've never really had many problems with finding a suitable guide star. Except around M51; heaven help me, I don't think there ARE any stars around that thing LOL.

                  Stephen P. Hamilton
                  http://astro.hcadvantage.com
                  36° 45' 28" , -76° 15' 40"


                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: reim58 [mailto:reim58@...]
                  Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 10:39 PM
                  To: William-Optics@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [William-Optics] Re: Megrez 80 FD with Meade 0.63 focal reducer


                  Hi Stephen,
                  I see you also use a LX90. How does the LPI work as an autoguider?
                  It took me 7.5 pounds to get my LX90 balanced. How much did you
                  use for that shot?

                  Focal Reducer: I was quite impressed with how well the .63 reducer
                  did. I plan on using this setup quite a bit now. I have used the
                  F3.3 reducer on my LX90 and the vignetting was very bad.

                  Vignetting link
                  http://www.pbase.com/reim58/image/25797670

                  Now this vignetting really shows up since I am using a DSLR which
                  has a large chip. If you using a small chip for imaging then you
                  might not notice it that much.
                • reim58
                  Your setup sounds just like mine. I also use 5 pounds when I use my ETX90 as my guide scope. I have been using the same ring set to hold my Megrez 80 as the
                  Message 8 of 9 , Jan 4, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Your setup sounds just like mine. I also use 5 pounds when I use my
                    ETX90 as my guide scope. I have been using the same ring set to hold
                    my Megrez 80 as the ETX90. Its not a good fit since the rings are
                    large and I can't get much adjustment on the plastic thumb screw for
                    adjusting the 80mm scope. What rings to you use to hold the Megrez
                    scope and also do you use the DSI as a standalone autoguider (ie, no
                    laptop). I use a Meade 208 as a autoguider and I use it in
                    standalone mode. I like this feature but the 208 did take some
                    getting use to (its not the easiest thing to operate).

                    Bob

                    --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Hamilton"
                    <shamilton@h...> wrote:
                    >
                    > You are absolutely correct about the 3.3. My assumption was that
                    this was created when CCD chips were still commonly very small and as
                    is still true with many of the intro CCDs such as the SAC8, DSI,
                    etc. My 416XTE, not that much larger then my DSI causes definite
                    vingetting with the 3.3 unless it is used with no (or 15mm)
                    extensions only effectively making it a .5, not 3.3. You need to be
                    pretty close to the chip to use it with anything larger then 1/3"
                    CCDs in my opinion. I have used it with the Megrez also and get a
                    very wide field but had other not so nice issues to deal with. With
                    a DSLR, it is pretty much out all together.
                    >
                    > I run between 5 and 7.5 pounds on the LX90 depending on the setup.
                    The Megrez weighs a bit more then my ETX90 so if I am guiding, I use
                    the ETX and probably only need 5 pounds. With the Megrez on there, I
                    use 7.5 simply due not only to its weight but length; I can only set
                    it back on the scope so far.
                    >
                    > The LPI works fine for guiding, especially with the new Envisage.
                    Still, due to it lower sensitivity, you either need to go longer on
                    your guide exposures or use brighter stars. My DSI-Pro (or the
                    regular DSI) definitely makes a better guider due to its sensitivity,
                    but I have used the LPI quite often and since I generally use guide
                    exposures of 1-2 seconds, I've never really had many problems with
                    finding a suitable guide star. Except around M51; heaven help me, I
                    don't think there ARE any stars around that thing LOL.
                    >
                    > Stephen P. Hamilton
                    > http://astro.hcadvantage.com
                    > 36° 45' 28" , -76° 15' 40"
                    >
                    >
                    > -----Original Message-----
                    > From: reim58 [mailto:reim58@y...]
                    > Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 10:39 PM
                    > To: William-Optics@yahoogroups.com
                    > Subject: [William-Optics] Re: Megrez 80 FD with Meade 0.63 focal
                    reducer
                    >
                    >
                    > Hi Stephen,
                    > I see you also use a LX90. How does the LPI work as an
                    autoguider?
                    > It took me 7.5 pounds to get my LX90 balanced. How much did you
                    > use for that shot?
                    >
                    > Focal Reducer: I was quite impressed with how well the .63 reducer
                    > did. I plan on using this setup quite a bit now. I have used the
                    > F3.3 reducer on my LX90 and the vignetting was very bad.
                    >
                    > Vignetting link
                    > http://www.pbase.com/reim58/image/25797670
                    >
                    > Now this vignetting really shows up since I am using a DSLR which
                    > has a large chip. If you using a small chip for imaging then you
                    > might not notice it that much.
                    >
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.