RayD

23 minutes ago, moise212 said:

I would say that's wise.

OTOH, I waited a few months for this adapter to become available, while the one for the Newtonian was already available for long. I also waited a few weeks for an AZ-EQ5 Berlebach tripod, while one for HEQ5 was already in stock and actually on mine it is written HEQ5. Not to mention for how long I waited for the flattener for the 72ED...

Hopefully this info comes up on search engines. It would be useful also if FLO and others updated their offers to reflect this.

Yes I fully understand what you're saying.  

Unfortunately in many cases, as with the corrector, retailers like FLO have the same information as us so only get to see the product when it arrives, just as we do.  To be fair to @FLO, as soon as they were aware this was the same corrector they immediately updated their site and even offered a refund to those who bought one and already had one for their 80ED. You can't get better or fairer than that in my book.  I suspect that they would do the same wherever this applies, or at least would confirm that the alternative was the same fit.  Naturally I can't speak for other suppliers (I'm not speaking for FLO either, just my experience of them), but this is just another reason why I prefer to use FLO as my experience shows that they are totally honest and do the right thing.

In industry it makes commercial sense to reuse parts where possible.  Take a look at the motoring industry for a clear example of this, where underneath the badge of one car lies a completely different one (Jaguar and Ford Mondeo springs to mind).

6 minutes ago, moise212 said:

I've a few 2" compression adapters for my Newtonians and the adapter for the 72ED. They are identical.

I don't doubt that for one minute.  Equally I have several M54 fittings here that I have tried and they don't fit, so anyone buying an adaptor who doesn't have newt ones to try, or doesn't want to play a game of hit and miss, is probably better getting the FLO ones, I would have thought.

5 minutes ago, Susaron said:

One more thing to add. The usual FLO compression ring suitable for the ED80/ED100 etc. does not fit into the ED72, as the internal drawtube thread is M54, you need to use the compression ring for the SW newtonians, so instead of using this:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/adapters/flo-compression-ring-adapter-synta-skywatcher.html

Use this one:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/adapters/flo-compression-ring-adapter-for-skywatcher-newtonians-m54.html

Regarding the reducer spacing I have checked my numbers with my QHY168, (another nightmare of camera with a lot of spacers), and it gives me around 56.5mm, when I use the camera with the Baader Mpcc I need around 57 to 57.5 mm to eliminate the coma, I will see what happens with the ED72.

Cheers.

There are actually a few custom adaptors that FLO has had specially made specifically for the 72ED due to the thread cut of the draw tube.  You can find the compression one here and there is also a M42 (T) and M48 one, which are all very good and work well with this OTA.

16 minutes ago, moise212 said:

Of that I'm pretty sure too. But if they act upset, maybe SkyWatcher could lean an ear towards them and maybe tell them some additional information. I've a feeling that if I asked SkyWatcher directly, I would receive no answer.

TS state that their 72ED with the 0.79x reducer/flattener works with a 65mm backfocus. I hope I will be able to test next week the 6/8/10mm M48 spacers and see which one fits better.

But I also do wonder if SkyWatcher do actually test their products. I mean, did they take at least a picture through this scope and the flattener? How did it look like?

This might be the last of the SkyWatcher products I buy new, maybe only if I find some tested sh bargains.

It's a pity that FLO need to provide extra check and fix for some of the scopes or that we need to sort out how a new product works. It is expected that we don't read the manual, but at least provide all the needed parts.

I'm certain that FLO get as frustrated as we do when things don't fit together, especially when they are from the same manufacturer.

I think the pressure was on SW to release a FR for this 'scope, so they felt utilising the 80ED one would be the best solution.  However, as you rightly say, some accurate spacing details would have been useful for sure.

I notice now that TS has relegated the SW corrector to options rather than recommended.  I wonder if this was a conscious decision?  It will get ironed out, I'm sure, and a small run of clear skies will enable me to get a definitive spacing requirement.  I'm sure there is someone out there who can calculate it, but I didn't even get an E in A level maths, so that's beyond me.

30 minutes ago, moise212 said:

I'm increasingly disappointed by SkyWatcher lately with their strategy. The 150ED seems to have a lot of issues, the flattener for the 72ED was supposed to be a dedicated one and I waited since February to receive a flattener for actually an 80ED. Should I knew that by that time... Oh well, I hope at least we can figure out the spacing.

I wonder if @FLO has more priority to get an answer from SW about the correct distance for the 72ED + flattener.

I have a feeling they were in the dark with this as much as we were, and were also expecting a dedicated corrector.  I'm sure they are trying to find out as much as possible, and also keeping an eye on our testing as it is all a bit of an unknown at the minute.

Thanks @moise212 very useful information. 

I think the spacing for the SW corrector is going to be different anyway as it is optimised for the 80ED meaning the 55mm is @ 600mm FL (f7.5).  With the 72 being 420mm FL (f5.8) I would have thought this will need some fettling, with the shorter FL needing more spacing (I think I'm right here but could equally be wrong and it needs less as my tiny brain finds it all very confusing).  The difference in spacing could be a fair bit.  As such I doubt very much that the standard 11mm T-ring is going to work perfectly with this corrector on the 72ED without additional spacing.

I am still waiting for some clear skies here to carry out any meaningful testing, but for me at the moment it seems the OVL FF works a little better, but it isn't a reducer.  However, at f5.8 I personally don't think the reducer element is essential as it is pretty quick anyway.

These are all just my thoughts and opinions of course, and I could be way off the mark and am happy to be corrected, but I am still actively trying to test and provide updated reviews.

3 hours ago, Susaron said:

I have an ED72 since June, and with 1.25'' like the Baader Zoom when the set up is 20 or 24mm is not possible to achive focus. I have no other 1.25'' pieces as I keep my eyepieces to 3 ES 100º ones (20mm, 9mm and 5,5mm), with all off them being 2'' I achieve focus without problem, but as said when you increase the distance adding the 2'' to 1.25'' adapter from the diagonal in order to use 1.25'' pieces is not possible to get in focus at lower magnification.

Cheers.

Yes I can see your problem if you are using 1 1/4" low power eyepieces.  All mine above 11mm are 2", but even at 11mm I only have around 4.6mm inward travel left with the adaptor in the diagonal.

I would say that SW probably intend for this to be use with 2" eyepieces, especially at low powers, and is why it is only supplied with a 2" thumbscrew adaptor on the draw tube (this is only an assumption).

It is all very close as you can see @Stu.  I believe there are some low profile diagonals out there, so perhaps placing the reducer in the draw tube adaptor and then a low profile 1 1/4" adaptor in that may do the trick?  I certainly welcome your thoughts.

5 minutes ago, alcol620 said:

Thanks Ray, that seems to be the answer, except that GuLinex can still focus with similar set up. The answer for me seems to be to remove the tube extension I added and find another way of achieving a better balance of the set up

Definitely I would say.  I struggle with balance also with my FSQ106, and just use external weights and longer dovetails in various manners to get there.

By way of example.  If you imagine you have everything working and focusing with no extensions between your draw tube and your FR.  You have the correct (70mm) spacers between your FR and your camera sensor.  Now imagine at this point your draw tube is sticking out 50mm.  Add a 25mm spacer to the end of the draw tube, and the camera sensor will be 25mm out from where it needs to be to achieve focus, so you will need to wind the draw tube in 25mm to bring the sensor back to the focal point.

In your case if you have an extension between the draw tube and the FR, that distance is how far your draw tube needs to go in, and if this is more than what would be sticking out with no extension, then it won't be possible to achieve focus.

Just now, alcol620 said:

But could put it out of the range of the focuser??

Yes if you then can't rack the draw tube in far enough to get the sensor to the focal point. 

6 minutes ago, alcol620 said:

Further research suggests to me that adding an extension tube to the existing scope will move the focal point also forward by the length of the extension tube. (please correct me if I am wrong). This would have the effect of having to move the focuser tube also forward by the same amount? (quite a long way). Hence it could move the focus point so far forward that it is not possible to focus the image - the situation I find myself in.

However, the only issue here is that GuLinex has an almost identical set up but can achieve focus.

Regards Alec

Yes.  The only reason you would normally add an extension tube is if you need to extend the tube to reach the focal point, such as using a guide camera on Celestron Startravel OTA.  In your case, whatever the length of the extender between the end of the draw tube and the FR, is the amount the draw tube needs to go in, so actually doesn't achieve anything as this would put the camera sensor in the same place anyway.

12 minutes ago, alcol620 said:

presumably we are increasing the focal length by adding the tube extension?

I don't think this changes it.  The focal length is the point from the lens cell that the light converges and effectively comes to focus (in simplified terms) so this doesn't change with an extension as it will still be 360mm (or maybe 330mm in your case) until you add the FR then this then changes to 260mm.

As always I could be wrong and this is only my understanding in my tiny brain.

2 minutes ago, GuLinux said:

Indeed. But the 60/360 scope is the newer model. Mine (and I assume, his as well) are 60/330. He mentioned he gets a focal length of 260, which is 330 * 0.79, so I think he has the older model too.

And with FL < 350 the distance should indeed be 70mm.

But possibly there's been some miscalculation in the length of the spacer, so maybe trying a shorter distance might help indeed.

No problem, I didn't know there were older and newer versions with different focal lengths, just trying to help.  I've found that with focal reducers intended for varying focal length scopes there is often some fettling to do. 

I just looked on the TS site and it does refer to this being dependant on the focal length of the telescope, and then gives the relative figures, so I think it is the native FL of the telescope (360mm in your case) which determines the spacing.

Just now, alcol620 said:

Thanks Ray, I was under the impression that with the reducer/flattener in the chain that the FL is down to 260?

I could be wrong (I often am) but I've always calculated it using the native FL of the OTA it is being fitted to.  This is what I did on my TS80 with the TS2.5 and it worked perfectly.  Certainly worth a go if you have some short spacers in there that you can remove.

I think the FR from TS is 70mm up to 350mm FL, so at 360mm (65mm up to 420mm) you're a tad over so you could try removing 5mm of spacing and having another go.

7 minutes ago, Marky1973 said:

So do I. Trapped a cable and think the power socket now has a loose connection....fingers crossed it is that easy....only had it a couple of weeks so didn't want to try opening myself.....still beating myself up for being so stupid and careless....

Fingers crossed.  

Happens to us all I'm sure, Mark.  I hadn't even mounted my Mesu200 and it fell over (fortunately on a carpeted floor) and damaged a servo.  I had to drive it to Mesu in Holland and Lucas replaced the motor for me.  Expensive mistake that one!

1 minute ago, Marky1973 said:

Hi Ray

Not tried yet - I was just playing around when it turned up. Sadly (very very frustratingly) I damaged my Horizon just before the reducer arrived so I don't have the camera to test it out at the moment! ? I haven't tried it with a DSLR either....sorry! If we get some clear weather I can try it out, but not looking great at the moment! Very wet!

Ok no problem, thanks, Mark. Sorry to hear about the Horizon, hopefully nothing too serious.

9 minutes ago, Marky1973 said:

Well, it wouldn't be the first time I had bought something twice! ? Thought it was odd it wasn't threaded specifically for the ED72! ?  What's more worrying is I never even looked at the reducer and noticed that it was printed with ED80 on the side!! The adapter fits very well though and the whole thing fits nicely. Now you mention it the instructions in the box are for the ED80 as it shows the retention ring, etc on the drawtube which seemed off, but makes sense. Tried it out with my 2" nose-piece and that works well. Will see how it all fits up when I get the Horizon back from Atik. The nosepiece might actually be favourable if you need to adjust the position of the camera as, without a retention ring on the drawtube, the adapter will only screw up tight into one orientation. I want to use the adapter as it is more "robust" but will have to see if that works when the filter wheel/camera is all in place and whether I can orient them the way I want. 

Interesting then that the reducer/flattener doesn't have to be finely tuned to the scope? Does it have any affect on the distance from reducer to sensor or will that still be the standard 56mm (ish)?

Hi Mark.  I notice you mention you tried this with a nosepiece.  Did this achieve focus ok?

23 minutes ago, FLO said:

We have learned the Evostar 72ED’s 0.85x reducer is the 0.85x reducer for Evostar 80ED, with a thread adapter. They are the same. So if someone already owns the reducer for 80ED then they need only our FLO 2” nosepiece adapter to use it with the 72ED. 

HTH

Thanks for confirming, Steve.  

Just one thing I'm worried about is the inward focus distance if using this with the nosepiece and thumbscrew fitting.  At the moment I achieve focus with 14mm between the metal back and the FR mating surface.  If the nosepiece collar is 3mm, say, and the connector is 12mm (this is the measured length) then I'm not sure this is going to work.  Below pic is mine last night in focus.  I'm happy to test this if it helps as I think it is going to be really close.

On the other hand I could have my sums wrong and be talking total rubbish, which wouldn't be the first time!

It's a great app and really appreciated as a gift.

Of course you will never beat V1.0 eyeballs and V2.1 upturned palm by way of forecasting suitability for astronomy, but Clear Outside comes a close second 

4 hours ago, Astrokev said:

Thanks Ray. 

I'm insulating the warm room so the membrane will help there. The scope room probably won't be insulated but here the membranes function will be to stop water penetration in the event of the cladding being breached ( which I think is a distinct possibility st some point !). 

Exactly that, Kev.  It is simply another layer to prevent water etc. working its way in where it isn't wanted and, when considered against the overall cost, it's almost a no-brainer.

A breathable membrane is only necessary if you are insulating the inside.  It allows the moisture which will build up between the insulation and the membrane to escape, preventing damp and mould, but also provides a water tight external face to prevent the insulation getting wet.  If you have nothing going on the inside as far as insulation goes, then it is not necessary to install a membrane at all, but it does provide a water barrier if your cladding starts to move.

3 minutes ago, DRT said:

the mechanism is shown in the pictures on the Berlebach website https://www.berlebach.de/?bereich=details&amp;id=99&amp;sprache=english

What a simple but effective design.  That's great.  I love the fact that the footrest moves also.

This is the first time I've looked at one of these and I'm really impressed.

I like that, Derek.  Does the seat move up and down?  It looks like it goes to whatever height you want and then wedges in that position?  Looks very nice indeed.