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

Re: [ccd-newastro] Re: Question for Ron re: RC scopes

Expand Messages
  • Yahoo - Wodaski
    Well, first, Peter Ceravolo is one of the top optical designers around, and he s fabricated some very nice scopes over the years. So on reputation alone, one
    Message 1 of 36 , Nov 2, 2007
      Well, first, Peter Ceravolo is one of the top optical designers around,
      and he's fabricated some very nice scopes over the years. So on
      reputation alone, one would be interested.

      The design - a quality reflector with a corrector, and multiple focal
      ratios - follows the approach of a number of professional instruments
      and is the way I would go personally (although I might look at other
      than a Cassegrain Dall-Kirkhan design, since the corrector opens up some
      interesting possibilities using other optical designs, even a Newtonian
      - but there is nothing wrong with the DK approach at all. It does have a
      pretty large secondary, but that is not a big issue for imaging - if
      fact the only place where large secondary makes a lot of sense is in
      imaging since contrast is something you normally determine in process.
      There are other large-secondary Cassegrain astrographs out there, such
      as the Takahashi FRC.).

      So this is something worth serious consideration, but I have never used
      one so I can't officially say go get it. <G>

      Ron Wodaski

      Photon Collector wrote:
      > What do you folks think of this dual FL imaging scope?
      >
      > http://www.ceravolo.com/astrograph/astrograph.php
      >
      > ---Frank Rocketman Uroda
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: sforster12
      > To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 8:28 PM
      > Subject: [ccd-newastro] Re: Question for Ron re: RC scopes
      >
      >
      > Thanks Max.
      >
      > I'll keep my eye on these scopes.
      >
      > I'd prefer something with a FL in the 1750-2000mm range due my my
      > skies.
      >
      > Hopefully they'll come up with a little bit faster scope with shorter
      > FL.
      > I wish them the best.
      >
      > I was intrigued with the Ceravolo scope, but I didn't see any prices
      > on the website,
      >
      > STU
      >
      > --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "maxmsm" <maxmirot@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > Actually,
      > >
      > > This was the Celstron 20". It never went into production. These
      > guys
      > > felt since Celstron was not going to jump into high end imaging
      > > scopes they would. They have a observatory in CA and actually are
      > > doing imaging. The results are very nice.
      > > They are former Celstron guys if you look at their Yahoo group.
      > >
      > > "wasn't trying to start a flame war"
      > >
      > > You were n't. This is fair question to ask. They said they starting
      > > to ship 12"s. I have not talk many folks that have one in there
      > > hands yet. It is good question to ask them.
      > >
      > > The optical design is by Dave Rowe. He is one of the better optical
      > > engineers intersted in telescopes. He is responsible for the
      > > bringing in inferometry into the amateur world along with Peter
      > > Ceravolo. He wrote the software for Peter's Len's inferometry
      > > design.
      > >
      > > Peter was also at AIC with his new instrument. It is also a
      > > corrected DK astrograph.
      > > Great mind think alike.
      > >
      > > Peter is a super designer and optician. He work is first rate too.
      > > He had a dual focal length 12" corrected DK astrograph. It is also
      > > beauty.
      > >
      > > It will image at F4.7 and F9 by just changing the corrector. Peter
      > > built it for himself just like the Mak Newt he built in the early
      > > 90s. However, the dual focal lenght design made this a cost a bit
      > > more then competive RCs.
      > >
      > > These astrographs should excede the field correction of the
      > standard
      > > RC by quite a bit. It is important if you are going to a larger
      > > format. I am not sure how much better against the RC with it's
      > > corrector in. However, Peter actually designed the corrector for
      > > ROCS so you could ask him. Better yet get full res images and see
      > > for yourself.
      > >
      > > The design is easier to make so it is unlikely that you get a
      > turned
      > > edge that you see in the RC's
      > >
      > > Max
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "sforster12" <SHFORSTER1@>
      > > wrote:
      > > >
      > > > I wasn't trying to start a flame war re: these scopes. Not
      > having
      > > > seen one except on websites, I'm always a little leary.
      > > >
      > > > That's why I asked if they had been seen in the flesh.
      > > >
      > > > with a newborn at home, I have curtailed my imaging somewhat, and
      > > I
      > > > don't mind letting the playing field level off.
      > > >
      > > > Remember when Celestron announced the 20"?
      > > >
      > > > Well, there is no Celestron 20".
      > > >
      > > > I hope the CDK is a successful line, as the number of
      > > manufacturers
      > > > of these top shelf units is limited.
      > > >
      > > > STU
      > > > --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "maxmsm" <maxmirot@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > The Planewave scope is far from vaporwave scopes. The have sold
      > > a
      > > > > few and are in production with the 20" and 12". The AIC scopes
      > > > were
      > > > > not virtual images.
      > > > >
      > > > > My understanding is the 12"s are going fast. Meade's exit from
      > > the
      > > > > RC/ RCX market just gave them a big openning at the 10K level.
      > > Joe
      > > > > Haberman said his phone really started ringing the day after it
      > > > got
      > > > > out.
      > > > >
      > > > > I was standing next to Joe at AIC when Roland came over.
      > > > > I have never seen him so impressed with someone else's scope.
      > > > >
      > > > > He really thought the design and excution was one of the best
      > > > > things he has seen in quite a while.
      > > > >
      > > > > Some of the Planewave engineers were under contract to design
      > > and
      > > > > develope the CDK orginally for Celestron.
      > > > > Celestron decided that this was not a good market for them. The
      > > > > Planewave folks bought the design back and went in business
      > with
      > > > it.
      > > > >
      > > > > They still have a friendly relationship with Celestron.
      > > Celestron
      > > > > agreed to provide them with coatings. I have never heard
      > > anything
      > > > > bad about Celestron's coatings
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "sforster12" <SHFORSTER1@>
      > > > > wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > The scope looks nice on the website.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > the focal length is more than I can use, at 2500mm.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > STU
      > > > > >
      > > > > > --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, Stephane Murphy
      > > > > > <stephanemurphy@> wrote:
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > I was very interested to learn more about the CDK 12.5, so
      > > > three
      > > > > > weeks ago I went to California to Planewave observatory and I
      > > > had
      > > > > a
      > > > > > chance to play with the CDK 12.5/STL combo and also we took
      > > some
      > > > > > picture with the CDK 20. The result was a perfect flat field
      > > > > across
      > > > > > the entire frame.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > I can confirm that the scopes really exist and very well
      > > made.
      > > > I
      > > > > > placed and order two weeks a go.Stephane
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > To: ccd-newastro@: SHFORSTER1@: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 23:03:17
      > > > > > +0000Subject: [ccd-newastro] Re: Question for Ron re: RC
      > scopes
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Re: The Planewave scope.It looks good, but has one been
      > seen
      > > > in
      > > > > the
      > > > > > flesh yet?Was there one at the AIC on display?STU--- In ccd-
      > > > > > newastro@yahoogroups.com, "maxmsm" <maxmirot@> wrote:>> > You
      > > > > should
      > > > > > look at the Planwave Instruments 12". It is really a > better
      > > > > design
      > > > > > than a standard RC. AT 10K it is the best deal in town > IMO.
      > > I
      > > > > think
      > > > > > the back focus limitations are less and they are > actually
      > > > > producing
      > > > > > them. I had a look at their systems at AIC, nice > job.> >
      > > Max>
      > > > > -
      > > > > --
      > > > > > In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "Frank S Barnes III" >
      > > > <SBarnes@>
      > > > > > wrote:> >> > Hi Stu,> > > > Along with Ron's comments, I
      > might
      > > > add
      > > > > to
      > > > > > determine the> > equipment you will be using in the optical
      > > > train
      > > > > and
      > > > > > add up all the> > distances from the chip to the back of the
      > > > scope
      > > > > > and then compare > it to> > the BFD specs for the model you
      > > are
      > > > > > considering. The RCAs have a> > shorter working BFD than the
      > > > RCOSs
      > > > > of
      > > > > > the same size. The 10" RCOS > BFD> > is spec'd at 12", while
      > > the
      > > > > 10"
      > > > > > RCA is spec'd at 6.5" (+/- 1").> > Something to keep in mind.
      > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > >On 31 Oct 2007 12:25:09 -0000, ccd-
      > > > > newastro@yahoogroups.com
      > > > > > wrote:> > > > >
      > > > > > >__________________________________________________________>
      > > > ____>
      > > > > >
      > > > > > >> > >4a. Question for Ron re: RC scopes> > > Posted
      > > > > by: "sforster12"
      > > > > > SHFORSTER1@ sforster12> > > Date: Tue Oct 30, 2007 7:26 pm
      > > > ((PDT))
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >> > >RC Optical can still supply a Pyrex mirrored 10" scope
      > > at
      > > > f
      > > > > 7
      > > > > > and > > >1700mm FL for about $9400, and if still available, a
      > > > > 12"for
      > > > > > > $1,400 > > >more. The 12" is F6.6 and about 2000mm FL. As I
      > > > > don't
      > > > > > have the > best > > >skies in central NY, should I stick with
      > > a
      > > > > > shorter FL 10", due to > a > > >greater chance of imaging at
      > > > > shorter
      > > > > > FL, or go for the slightly > larger > > >diameter, slightly
      > > > longer
      > > > > FL
      > > > > > scope if I get one at all?> > >> > >Thanks> > >> > >STU> >>
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
    • sforster12
      Ron, I did finally find a price at $19,000 for the Ceravolo scope. The specs are awesome. The Tak BRC at F-5 and 10 diameter would be more in line with my
      Message 36 of 36 , Nov 2, 2007
        Ron,

        I did finally find a price at $19,000 for the Ceravolo scope.

        The specs are awesome.

        The Tak BRC at F-5 and 10" diameter would be more in line with my
        needs/means.

        It also has a 50% central obstruction.

        STU

        --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, Yahoo - Wodaski <yahoo@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > Well, first, Peter Ceravolo is one of the top optical designers
        around,
        > and he's fabricated some very nice scopes over the years. So on
        > reputation alone, one would be interested.
        >
        > The design - a quality reflector with a corrector, and multiple
        focal
        > ratios - follows the approach of a number of professional
        instruments
        > and is the way I would go personally (although I might look at
        other
        > than a Cassegrain Dall-Kirkhan design, since the corrector opens up
        some
        > interesting possibilities using other optical designs, even a
        Newtonian
        > - but there is nothing wrong with the DK approach at all. It does
        have a
        > pretty large secondary, but that is not a big issue for imaging -
        if
        > fact the only place where large secondary makes a lot of sense is
        in
        > imaging since contrast is something you normally determine in
        process.
        > There are other large-secondary Cassegrain astrographs out there,
        such
        > as the Takahashi FRC.).
        >
        > So this is something worth serious consideration, but I have never
        used
        > one so I can't officially say go get it. <G>
        >
        > Ron Wodaski
        >
        > Photon Collector wrote:
        > > What do you folks think of this dual FL imaging scope?
        > >
        > > http://www.ceravolo.com/astrograph/astrograph.php
        > >
        > > ---Frank Rocketman Uroda
        > >
        > >
        > > ----- Original Message -----
        > > From: sforster12
        > > To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
        > > Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 8:28 PM
        > > Subject: [ccd-newastro] Re: Question for Ron re: RC scopes
        > >
        > >
        > > Thanks Max.
        > >
        > > I'll keep my eye on these scopes.
        > >
        > > I'd prefer something with a FL in the 1750-2000mm range due my
        my
        > > skies.
        > >
        > > Hopefully they'll come up with a little bit faster scope with
        shorter
        > > FL.
        > > I wish them the best.
        > >
        > > I was intrigued with the Ceravolo scope, but I didn't see any
        prices
        > > on the website,
        > >
        > > STU
        > >
        > > --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "maxmsm" <maxmirot@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Actually,
        > > >
        > > > This was the Celstron 20". It never went into production.
        These
        > > guys
        > > > felt since Celstron was not going to jump into high end
        imaging
        > > > scopes they would. They have a observatory in CA and actually
        are
        > > > doing imaging. The results are very nice.
        > > > They are former Celstron guys if you look at their Yahoo
        group.
        > > >
        > > > "wasn't trying to start a flame war"
        > > >
        > > > You were n't. This is fair question to ask. They said they
        starting
        > > > to ship 12"s. I have not talk many folks that have one in
        there
        > > > hands yet. It is good question to ask them.
        > > >
        > > > The optical design is by Dave Rowe. He is one of the better
        optical
        > > > engineers intersted in telescopes. He is responsible for the
        > > > bringing in inferometry into the amateur world along with
        Peter
        > > > Ceravolo. He wrote the software for Peter's Len's inferometry
        > > > design.
        > > >
        > > > Peter was also at AIC with his new instrument. It is also a
        > > > corrected DK astrograph.
        > > > Great mind think alike.
        > > >
        > > > Peter is a super designer and optician. He work is first rate
        too.
        > > > He had a dual focal length 12" corrected DK astrograph. It is
        also
        > > > beauty.
        > > >
        > > > It will image at F4.7 and F9 by just changing the corrector.
        Peter
        > > > built it for himself just like the Mak Newt he built in the
        early
        > > > 90s. However, the dual focal lenght design made this a cost a
        bit
        > > > more then competive RCs.
        > > >
        > > > These astrographs should excede the field correction of the
        > > standard
        > > > RC by quite a bit. It is important if you are going to a
        larger
        > > > format. I am not sure how much better against the RC with
        it's
        > > > corrector in. However, Peter actually designed the corrector
        for
        > > > ROCS so you could ask him. Better yet get full res images and
        see
        > > > for yourself.
        > > >
        > > > The design is easier to make so it is unlikely that you get a
        > > turned
        > > > edge that you see in the RC's
        > > >
        > > > Max
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "sforster12"
        <SHFORSTER1@>
        > > > wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > > I wasn't trying to start a flame war re: these scopes. Not
        > > having
        > > > > seen one except on websites, I'm always a little leary.
        > > > >
        > > > > That's why I asked if they had been seen in the flesh.
        > > > >
        > > > > with a newborn at home, I have curtailed my imaging
        somewhat, and
        > > > I
        > > > > don't mind letting the playing field level off.
        > > > >
        > > > > Remember when Celestron announced the 20"?
        > > > >
        > > > > Well, there is no Celestron 20".
        > > > >
        > > > > I hope the CDK is a successful line, as the number of
        > > > manufacturers
        > > > > of these top shelf units is limited.
        > > > >
        > > > > STU
        > > > > --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "maxmsm" <maxmirot@>
        wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > The Planewave scope is far from vaporwave scopes. The
        have sold
        > > > a
        > > > > > few and are in production with the 20" and 12". The AIC
        scopes
        > > > > were
        > > > > > not virtual images.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > My understanding is the 12"s are going fast. Meade's exit
        from
        > > > the
        > > > > > RC/ RCX market just gave them a big openning at the 10K
        level.
        > > > Joe
        > > > > > Haberman said his phone really started ringing the day
        after it
        > > > > got
        > > > > > out.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > I was standing next to Joe at AIC when Roland came over.
        > > > > > I have never seen him so impressed with someone else's
        scope.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > He really thought the design and excution was one of the
        best
        > > > > > things he has seen in quite a while.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Some of the Planewave engineers were under contract to
        design
        > > > and
        > > > > > develope the CDK orginally for Celestron.
        > > > > > Celestron decided that this was not a good market for
        them. The
        > > > > > Planewave folks bought the design back and went in
        business
        > > with
        > > > > it.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > They still have a friendly relationship with Celestron.
        > > > Celestron
        > > > > > agreed to provide them with coatings. I have never heard
        > > > anything
        > > > > > bad about Celestron's coatings
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "sforster12"
        <SHFORSTER1@>
        > > > > > wrote:
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > The scope looks nice on the website.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > the focal length is more than I can use, at 2500mm.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > STU
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, Stephane Murphy
        > > > > > > <stephanemurphy@> wrote:
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > I was very interested to learn more about the CDK
        12.5, so
        > > > > three
        > > > > > > weeks ago I went to California to Planewave observatory
        and I
        > > > > had
        > > > > > a
        > > > > > > chance to play with the CDK 12.5/STL combo and also we
        took
        > > > some
        > > > > > > picture with the CDK 20. The result was a perfect flat
        field
        > > > > > across
        > > > > > > the entire frame.
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > I can confirm that the scopes really exist and very
        well
        > > > made.
        > > > > I
        > > > > > > placed and order two weeks a go.Stephane
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > To: ccd-newastro@: SHFORSTER1@: Wed, 31 Oct 2007
        23:03:17
        > > > > > > +0000Subject: [ccd-newastro] Re: Question for Ron re:
        RC
        > > scopes
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > Re: The Planewave scope.It looks good, but has one
        been
        > > seen
        > > > > in
        > > > > > the
        > > > > > > flesh yet?Was there one at the AIC on display?STU--- In
        ccd-
        > > > > > > newastro@yahoogroups.com, "maxmsm" <maxmirot@> wrote:>>
        > You
        > > > > > should
        > > > > > > look at the Planwave Instruments 12". It is really a >
        better
        > > > > > design
        > > > > > > than a standard RC. AT 10K it is the best deal in town
        > IMO.
        > > > I
        > > > > > think
        > > > > > > the back focus limitations are less and they are >
        actually
        > > > > > producing
        > > > > > > them. I had a look at their systems at AIC, nice >
        job.> >
        > > > Max>
        > > > > > -
        > > > > > --
        > > > > > > In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "Frank S Barnes III" >
        > > > > <SBarnes@>
        > > > > > > wrote:> >> > Hi Stu,> > > > Along with Ron's comments,
        I
        > > might
        > > > > add
        > > > > > to
        > > > > > > determine the> > equipment you will be using in the
        optical
        > > > > train
        > > > > > and
        > > > > > > add up all the> > distances from the chip to the back
        of the
        > > > > scope
        > > > > > > and then compare > it to> > the BFD specs for the model
        you
        > > > are
        > > > > > > considering. The RCAs have a> > shorter working BFD
        than the
        > > > > RCOSs
        > > > > > of
        > > > > > > the same size. The 10" RCOS > BFD> > is spec'd at 12",
        while
        > > > the
        > > > > > 10"
        > > > > > > RCA is spec'd at 6.5" (+/- 1").> > Something to keep in
        mind.
        > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > > > > >On 31 Oct 2007 12:25:09 -0000, ccd-
        > > > > > newastro@yahoogroups.com
        > > > > > > wrote:> > > > >
        > > > > > >
        >__________________________________________________________>
        > > > > ____>
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >> > >4a. Question for Ron re: RC scopes> > > Posted
        > > > > > by: "sforster12"
        > > > > > > SHFORSTER1@ sforster12> > > Date: Tue Oct 30, 2007 7:26
        pm
        > > > > ((PDT))
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >> > >RC Optical can still supply a Pyrex mirrored 10"
        scope
        > > > at
        > > > > f
        > > > > > 7
        > > > > > > and > > >1700mm FL for about $9400, and if still
        available, a
        > > > > > 12"for
        > > > > > > > $1,400 > > >more. The 12" is F6.6 and about 2000mm
        FL. As I
        > > > > > don't
        > > > > > > have the > best > > >skies in central NY, should I
        stick with
        > > > a
        > > > > > > shorter FL 10", due to > a > > >greater chance of
        imaging at
        > > > > > shorter
        > > > > > > FL, or go for the slightly > larger > > >diameter,
        slightly
        > > > > longer
        > > > > > FL
        > > > > > > scope if I get one at all?> > >> > >Thanks> > >> >
        >STU> >>
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > >
        > > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.