Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_2021_annual.thumb.jpg.3fc34f695a81b16210333189a3162ac7.jpg

Focal reducer for C9.25.


merlinxlm
 Share

Recommended Posts

I don't know much about the f3.3 FR except I believe it is only for imaging. I do have the f6.3 for my C9.25 and it is so useful. It is like having two scope and is great for both visual use and imaging. Definitely a good buy. It works with all my eyepieces and binoviewers.

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 3.3 is a dreadful thing used only with tiny chipped CCDs. It dates back to the days of these tiny chips and cannot be used visually.

The 6.3 goes on the back before the diagonal on the standard system. If you don't have a 2 inch back and widefield eyepiece then it will increase your FOV. However, if you do have these then it will not increase your FOV because the baffle tube, I think, is the limiting factor.

It is useful as a flattener and reducer for imaging but personally, for visual use, I'd put the cash into a 2 inch back and nice Nagler or Ethos.

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a 2" back but I do use a 2" diagonal. The pic below shows the field of view through my 30mm Moonfish 80deg eyepiece with and without the focal reducer. So with the FR I can see the whole of the Pleiades. The relative change would be the same for any other eyepiece.

Dave

post-14654-133877608963_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The relative change would be the same for any other eyepiece.

That is not true for the widest field EPs because, as Olly said, you are limited by the baffle tube.

I have a 6.3 reducer for my C9.25 and it is great for imaging but I would not dream of using it to jump to a widefield view for visual. It is such a hassle to fit/unfit and then the focuser needs to be turned 9 or 12 times to find focus (more if you turn it the wrong way to start with).

Cheers,

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.3° is about as wide as you can get with a C9.25. My 42mm LVW gets 1.28° at x56, so, right on the limit.

Using a focal reducer would mean moving to a shorter focal length eyepiece, the 42mm would vignette. So, a bit pointless really, what with that and the extra elements in the light path.

Good for photography though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I accept what you and Olly are saying about being limited by the baffles, but with a 2" diagonal I have spent many an enjoyable session with the FR on and swapping eyepieces according to what I am viewing. Apart from the Moonfish 2" eyepiece I use naglers from 16mm to 5mm and have had no problems. I don't find it that much of a hassle to do the necessary refocussing as I will probably only add or remove the FR once in a session.

Dave

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I accept what you and Olly are saying about being limited by the baffles, but with a 2" diagonal I have spent many an enjoyable session with the FR on and swapping eyepieces according to what I am viewing. Apart from the Moonfish 2" eyepiece I use naglers from 16mm to 5mm and have had no problems. I don't find it that much of a hassle to do the necessary refocussing as I will probably only add or remove the FR once in a session.

Dave

That is interesting Dave. Your 30mm Moonfish 80deg used on a C9.25 with a 6.3 reducer should give a TFOV of 1.62° (If my maths, well spreadsheet actually) is correct. That is way bigger than Mr Spock's figure of 1.3° max and far bigger than I would have though possible without vignetting.

Cheers,

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is interesting Dave. Your 30mm Moonfish 80deg used on a C9.25 with a 6.3 reducer should give a TFOV of 1.62° (If my maths, well spreadsheet actually) is correct. That is way bigger than Mr Spock's figure of 1.3° max and far bigger than I would have though possible without vignetting.

Cheers,

Chris

The above chart was using SkyMapPro, but I have viewed the whole of the pleiades in that scope. I obviously cannot check that at the moment but I will see if I can measure the actual FOV at the next opportunity. As you say "interesting".

Edit: According to SkyMapPro it is 1deg 37min = 1.62 deg :D

Dave

Edited by Dave Smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My feeling is that the SkyMap simulation ignores the baffle tube. I discovered this for myself on my 10 inch SCT when I realized that there was a difference between what I expected to see and what I did see. I just hadn't thought about it.

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK I have just tried it out in daylight on a terrestrial object. I can see the baffle edges coming into the field of view around the edges but by altering the position of my eye can see the whole FOV of the eyepiece but not all at once. The amount that the baffle infringes on the FOV depends heavily on the eye position. With my eye held tight up to the rubber eyecup I can see most of the FOV. I didn't notice this at all when viewing a dark sky and with these WA eyepieces tend to look around anyway.

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've just come across this itemBaader Astronomy Products | alan gee telecompressor mk ii

The specification looks very interesting, f5.9 and a flatter field. Has anybody on the forum had any experience with this, reducer/flattener?

How would it compare to the F6.3 reducer for imaging and viewing?

Thank you.

Sounds interesting. I have the 0.63x reducer and did use it both visually and photographically in the past. Since I have a 2" visual back and matching EPs, I do not use it anymore. If I get back to imaging I will use it again, I suppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi

I have both the the F3 and F6 and whilst not answering your question directly gives you an idea of size of an image using the F3.3 and the adapter,( I am new to astronomy as in a few months myself) and took these playing about just to see how big the FOV was.

So initially (L - R) just a philips webcam no reducer, then a Meade DSI II colour no reducer, then the DSI using the F3 and adapter 15mm, DSI F3 30mm and DSI F3 45mm, target was a small chimney on a house about 200m away.

kej-albums-saturn-march-27th-picture11479-l-r-back-my-sct-scope-webcam-meade-dsi-dsi-f3-reducer-15mm-dsi-f3-reducer-30mm-dsi-f3-reducer-45mm-adapter-tube-spacer.jpg

Edited by KEJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

You can also get the ASA SCT reducer. Claims to be a reducer (x0.77) + field flattener + coma corrector. The blurb talks about upgrading standard SCT optics to HD Edge / ACF type performance.

I think it fits inside a 2 inch focuser as well so you need one of those if you haven't got one already

Not cheap (£390) and not many reviews of it either as far as I can tell

Thanks

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I case anyone is interested when you use a .63 FC with a SCT the maximum eyepiece is 27mm of the 2 inch type. I used 28mm SWA Meade and I never saw any vignetting. I often wondered if you would get away with a 26mm Nagler and a reducer, I have a 24mm UWA I must give it a try.

Alan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can also get the ASA SCT reducer. Claims to be a reducer (x0.77) + field flattener + coma corrector. The blurb talks about upgrading standard SCT optics to HD Edge / ACF type performance.

I think it fits inside a 2 inch focuser as well so you need one of those if you haven't got one already

Not cheap (£390) and not many reviews of it either as far as I can tell

Thanks

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The standard reducer is also referred to as a reducer/corrector. It flattens the field and corrects coma. The ASA may be better, but at quite a hefty price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I case anyone is interested when you use a .63 FC with a SCT the maximum eyepiece is 27mm of the 2 inch type. I used 28mm SWA Meade and I never saw any vignetting. I often wondered if you would get away with a 26mm Nagler and a reducer, I have a 24mm UWA I must give it a try.

Alan.

I think Mr Spock is about right and that with a widefield EP the reducer doesn't get you anywhere you can't go without it. Dave's daytime test is also a good idea, I'd have thought. Also when I did try the reducer with a long FL Panoptic I felt it made for a slightly qyeezy view with some kind of strange but hard-to-identify sense of distortion. I can't repeat the test because I no longer have the kit but I wonder if it was from the soft edge produced by the baffle tube vignetting.

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

This was so useful - been using the Celestron 6.3 focal recucer for a year and disappointed it only increased my FoV on the 9.25" SCT from about 20' to 30'.  I didn't realise you positioned it BEFORE the visual back!!

Looking forward to getting more like the 80' mentioned above and not having to splash out (yet) on the Hyperstar...

Thanks!

Ben

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

Hi there

Some help needed please.  I have an 9.25 (Evo) with a Moonlite focuser.  It is the regular SCT version without the longer flange for inserting the FR. Does anyone know where I would slot the 6.3 focuser in the optical train, using with a ZWO camera or eyepiece for visual. Many thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.