Adam J

Sure its not cross threaded?

Can't help with that I use an autofocuser.

You can use it visually or as a guide scope at f5.5, I never expected it to work for imaging without a corrector, nothing would.

It certainly looks like you either dont have the corrector reducer fitted or you have fitted it incorrectly. The corrector should be fitted directly after the focusing ring. You then add the shortest of the three extension tubes after the corrector and the sensor should be 55mm from the end of that tube not the end of the corrector. Adam

Are you using a diagonal? If not the. You will need an extension tube instead.

Except the cls CCD should block IR.

That is a reflection of some sort probably between the focal reducer and the filter. Could be a poorly applied AR coating on either component. How old is the reducer?

As discussed above they have two types for each band pass 4nm /6.5nm. it's just a matter of getting the correct set for his f ratio.

They look unmounted to me. The wheel will take either. Baader edge blacken their filters so they may look mounted. If people talk about mounted 36mm filters that can sometimes mean there is a aluminium Rig around the outer edge of the filter. But there are no threads and it will still fit in the EFW recess. You just have to be more careful when mounting unmounted filters when handling them or tightening them into the wheel with the masks. Hold on the edge with latex gloves and don't over tighten the retaining screws. Baader have an arrow on the side which tells you which way to point them.

I don't see where it says mounted?

There are two types at 6.5nm on says high speed the other not.

Take a look on FLOs site looks like the wait was very short and the new Baader filters are available in 3 different types, just go for the 6.5nm cmos optomised set and i suspect you will be sorted.

I had it and it was better in some ways and worse in others. Better: Lateral CA correction. Worse: AR coatings. The real answer is to go for a long barrel 4 element corrector or something like the ES coma corrector. But if you are having issues with star shape you may well be better off upgrading the focuser than messing about with different correctors. The above is a four panel mosaic, two with the Baader MPCC MK3 and the other two with the max field. Bonus points if you can identify which panels used which corrector. Adam

I suspect legally no.

They are better by a factor of two in terms of light pollution and sky glow rejection. However they are not going to be double the value for money. If you want value for money go with the original SHO set and maybe upgrade the OIII to the new filters when they become available as OIII is going to show a bigger performance advantage than the SII and Ha filters.

Here: https://www.baader-planetarium.com/en/blog/new-baader-cmos-optimized-ultra-narrowband-and-highspeed-filters/ Make sure you order the correct set for your f-ratio.

I think that the Baader lrgb are decent. I own Baader LRGB and Astrodon SHO. I would call the Baader 8.5nm OIII dated and it still gives reflections like pretty much anyone but AD and Chroma OIII. Baader are now bringing out a CMOS optimised SHO set that I would wait for it it was my choice. https://www.baader-planetarium.co.uk/shop/baader-lrgb-filtersets/

With the amount FLO sell I doubt they are old stock.

If I went about correcting web pages I would do nothing else. But here is the correct chart, as you see the UV cut lacks the spike present below 380nm in the version you posted. https://www.baader-planetarium.co.uk/shop/baader-lrgb-filtersets/ The old Baader ir only cut was used in as L in the older chars are opposed to the UV/ir cut. Or at least that's as far as I can determine.

Baader lum pass is no wider than the L2 if you wanted narrower you would need L3. That Baader chart you posted earlier is in error as it the line for their IR cut filter not the UV/IR filter that is included in the modern set. If you look here they have the correct pass band for the UV/IR cut. As you see it's about 410nm. https://www.baader-planetarium.com/en/baader-uvir-cut--l-filter.html The older version of the LRGB chart is the one you posted. There is a newer version of that chart knocking about. FLO have the old one on their site.

The Esprit 100 is fine for 400-680nm

Don't go Optolong on an Esprit 100 the blue and lum are too wide to be fully corrected. Any of the others are narrower but I would say Astronomik if you can afford them or Baader. I say this as a Esprit 100 user.

Take care with the 4040 sensor it's actually 4 sensors stitched together each independently calibrating it can cause calibration artifacts with the joins between quadrants visible. They would have had to have addressed that if you wanted to use it for imaging rather than scientific applications.

This looks more like a colimation issue to me but the only way is to rotate the camera and see of the worst corner moves or stays orientated to the sensor.

looks to me that the focus is poor across the entire image and so its difficult to make an assessment of tilt or colimation. Really you need to repeat the test with better focus.