Imaging and a WO ZS66 or Megrez 72?

[Black Knight]

I've a hankering for a something a little more widefield than my current ED80. I know that both of these scopes are now discontinued, but what are they like for imaging purposes? Are they good imaging scopes? I know nothing about WO scopes, apart from the fact they look really tasty, so I'm afraid you'll have to forgive my ignorance on this subject

[steppenwolf]

I can only comment on the Megrez 72 but it is beautifully made, rewardingly heavy and robust. The optics are pretty good too although the control of chromatic aberration is not quite as good as the ED 80 but then, the ED80 has always been especially stunning value for money for imaging. I mainly use mine as a grab 'n go instrument for observing but it is also part of my dual imaging rig where I use it for mono imaging with a WO 0.8X Focal Reducer/Field Flattener. Here are a couple of images taken with the relatively small sensor of my SXVF- H9 which has the same sensor as your ATIK 314L+

[Black Knight]

Thanks very much for replying Steve. Those images are terrific, that FOV is great . Actually a reducer/flattener question was going to be my follow-up supplementary question . I feel a plan starting to come together now ....

[steppenwolf]

The reducer/flattener that I used was the WO FR III which seems well matched to the Megrez 72. I also have a WO FR IV but not used it with the Megrez 72 yet.

[Chris]

Hi Andy, I've been imaging with a WO66 DS Apo for about a year now and I have to say its a delight, especially know I've managed to pick up a WO FRII which brings it down to f/4.7!. I was going to buy the FRIII from FLO but James adviced that it was shown not to be that great with the 66, so you might wan't to bear this in mind if you get a WO66.

The field of view even before the reducer/flattenner was very good, I imaged m31 a while ago and the whole thing fitted with plenty to spare, I even cropped it down a bit! The OTA is beautifully finished and its much more compact and lighter than the ED80 so great for a portable imaging rig.

Literally the only down side I can think of is that you need to back focus quite a way to achieve focus with DSLR's so unless you have something like a flattener or spacer in the imaging train you get a bit of focuser sag if you have a lot of kit hanging off it, this can cause some orthoganality showing eggy stars in one corner for example. Once the reducer/flattener is on you don't have to back focus so much so theres no sag issue.

hth

Chris

[Chris]

This is M31 unguided, cropped and before I got the reducer/flattener. Please excuse my lack of data on this one, plus not much in the way of darks, flats, bias, LP filter etc you get the idea, basically I'm just showing you the FOV not the quality images this scope can produce in the right hands. Actually I'll also post m51 which is a bit smoother as another example, but unfortunately this is also cropped.

Edit: I've dug out a single 2 min sub on M31 to give you a more scientific idea of the FOV:)

[Coco]

I while back I did some comparisons using the 413L chipset as a bench mark, The scopes or focal langths were - (Outer Rectangle Nikon 180mm) - (Middle Rectangle megrez 72 @ 0.8X) - (centre Rectangle 8" Quattro 800mm )

I used CDC's finder rectangle to work out what was needed over common targets of interest.. So for the large popular targets I would be thinking about less than 200mm focal length with the 314L

IC 1396 -

NGC 7000

M45

[Black Knight]

Hi Andy, I've been imaging with a WO66 DS Apo for about a year now and I have to say its a delight, especially know I've managed to pick up a WO FRII which brings it down to f/4.7!. I was going to buy the FRIII from FLO but James adviced that it was shown not to be that great with the 66, so you might wan't to bear this in mind if you get a WO66.

The field of view even before the reducer/flattenner was very good, I imaged m31 a while ago and the whole thing fitted with plenty to spare, I even cropped it down a bit! The OTA is beautifully finished and its much more compact and lighter than the ED80 so great for a portable imaging rig.

Literally the only down side I can think of is that you need to back focus quite a way to achieve focus with DSLR's so unless you have something like a flattener or spacer in the imaging train you get a bit of focuser sag if you have a lot of kit hanging off it, this can cause some orthoganality showing eggy stars in one corner for example. Once the reducer/flattener is on you don't have to back focus so much so theres no sag issue.

hth

Chris

Thanks Chris. So, just a FRII with the WO66 then, OK. I'm loving that FOV with your M31 Chris. I assume that was taken with a DSLR?

[Chris]

Hi yes, just a standard 1100D:)

[Black Knight]

So for the large popular targets I would be thinking about less than 200mm focal length with the 314L

Yeah, I've also been thinking in terms of a telephoto lens as well! . I remember seeing mentioned some time ago on SGL an adapter that would allow you to attach a conventional camera lens to a CCD. But I've no idea what you would call these, so my googling has been a bit on the hopeless side

[Black Knight]

Hi yes, just a standard 1100D:)

It's a great picture

[J_M_Franklin]

Yeah, I've also been thinking in terms of a telephoto lens as well! . I remember seeing mentioned some time ago on SGL an adapter that would allow you to attach a conventional camera lens to a CCD. But I've no idea what you would call these, so my googling has been a bit on the hopeless side

Sorry if this is daft and stating the obvious, but are you talking about a T2 mount thread adapter...these have a 42mmx0.75mm pitch thread on them and a T adapter for your specific camera..

If this is not what your talking about...I'll shush up..

[Coco]

Yeah, I've also been thinking in terms of a telephoto lens as well! . I remember seeing mentioned some time ago on SGL an adapter that would allow you to attach a conventional camera lens to a CCD. But I've no idea what you would call these, so my googling has been a bit on the hopeless side

I made an adapter a few years ago

http://stargazerslou...300#entry875139

http://stargazerslou...a +100

A cheap one for testing can be made like this...

http://www.deepfield...les/canon2atik/

[Black Knight]

I made an adapter a few years ago

http://stargazerslou...300#entry875139

http://stargazerslou...a +100

A cheap one for testing can be made like this...

http://www.deepfield...les/canon2atik/

Actually Guy, your thread could well be where I'd seen this before, it certainly looks familiar!

[Black Knight]

Sorry if this is daft and stating the obvious, but are you talking about a T2 mount thread adapter...these have a 42mmx0.75mm pitch thread on them and a T adapter for your specific camera..

If this is not what your talking about...I'll shush up..

I was just pondering the possibility of attaching a DSLR lens to my Atik CCD

[Black Knight]

Just found this, I guess this is the right sort of thing http://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p4389_M48---2--filteradapter-for-Canon-EOS-lenses--only-14-5mm-length-.html

[Coco]

Just found this, I guess this is the right sort of thing http://www.teleskop-...mm-length-.html

Yes thats posh version, I'd buy one next time as it took ages to make the last one, I butchered it to fit micro 4/3 , and then gave up..

[marcosscriven]

This is M31 unguided, cropped and before I got the reducer/flattener. Please excuse my lack of data on this one, plus not much in the way of darks, flats, bias, LP filter etc you get the idea, basically I'm just showing you the FOV not the quality images this scope can produce in the right hands. Actually I'll also post m51 which is a bit smoother as another example, but unfortunately this is also cropped.

Edit: I've dug out a single 2 min sub on M31 to give you a more scientific idea of the FOV:)

Oh my goodness - that image of Andromeda is amazing! I clicked on this thread as I happen to have an WO 72mm megrez, but I purchased it (my first scope), on the basis that living in London I'd really like something easily transportable, rather than for AP. However, having seen this, I *really* want to be able to do it!

I see in your sig the kind of equipment you need, but presumably something like the HEQ5 mount would be too large to carry on a train (with everything else)?

Also, when you say a 2 minute 'unguided' sub, do you mean unguided as in no feedback loop (that is relying entirely on the EQ mount tracking accuracy)?

[Black Knight]

Oh my goodness - that image of Andromeda is amazing! I clicked on this thread as I happen to have an WO 72mm megrez, but I purchased it (my first scope), on the basis that living in London I'd really like something easily transportable, rather than for AP. However, having seen this, I *really* want to be able to do it!

I see in your sig the kind of equipment you need, but presumably something like the HEQ5 mount would be too large to carry on a train (with everything else)?

Also, when you say a 2 minute 'unguided' sub, do you mean unguided as in no feedback loop (that is relying entirely on the EQ mount tracking accuracy)?

The image of M31 taken by Chris (Starfox) was using a WO66 DS rather than a Megrez 72. Unguided would be without using a guidescope or guide camera, so relying on polar alignment and mount tracking only. I'm not really sure what sort of mount you could get away with your Megrez 72. An EQ5? An EQ3? Maybe, I don't know. Best to let someone else answer that one!

[ollypenrice]

I have the ZS66 with dedicated flattener. It has the usual WIlliam Optics hallmarks of reasonable optics, pretty finish and fashion triumphing somewhat over form. The main tube is absurdly short, so far too much drawtube is extended by the time the camera is at focus and a long extender is needed to compound the issue. The focuser just about works if the rig isn't too heavy but larger CCD's can't be used on it. It sags and slips. Stuart has ordered a Feathertouch upgrade and I might do likewise.

Used in narrowand the lens is remarkable, so much so that I'm thinking of using it to catch Ha in parallel with our Takahshi FSQ for the colour. Clearly Steve and I are thinking along similar lines here. This is one of my efforts as a beginner using the Atik 16HR (Sony 285 chip.)

Used in broadband imaging the 66 doesn't, however, get within a million miles of the Tak (nor should one expect it to) and produces quite large stars and less resolution. It's still worth having though.

Beware of the Petzval 66. This is poor lens with dreadful colour correction.

If I sound a bit 'anti-WO' it's because they rely heavily on cosmetics for their sales and have produced some downright bad equipment including focusers that simply did not work at all. I'm just trying to put a balance of viewpoints forward and look objectively past the glamour!

Olly

[ollypenrice]

I have the ZS66 with dedicated flattener. It has the usual WIlliam Optics hallmarks of reasonable optics, pretty finish and fashion triumphing somewhat over form. The main tube is absurdly short, so far too much drawtube is extended by the time the camera is at focus and a long extender is needed to compound the issue. The focuser just about works if the rig isn't too heavy but larger CCD's can't be used on it. It sags and slips which is what you'd expect from a Crayford roller driving a smooth hard anodised finish instead of a proper matte steel strip. Stuart has ordered a Feathertouch upgrade and I might do likewise, or maybe a Telescope House R and P.

Used in narrowand the lens is remarkable, so much so that I'm thinking of using it to catch Ha in parallel with our Takahshi FSQ for the colour. Clearly Steve and I are thinking along similar lines here. This is one of my efforts as a beginner using the Atik 16HR (Sony 285 chip.) The image has all sorts of beginner errors like lack of exposure time and over sharpening but the ability of the lens to resolve detail in NB is pretty clear.

Used in broadband imaging the 66 doesn't, however, get within a million miles of the Tak (nor should one expect it to) and produces quite large stars and less resolution. It's still worth having though.

Beware of the Petzval 66. This is poor lens with dreadful colour correction.

If I sound a bit 'anti-WO' it's because they rely heavily on cosmetics for their sales and have produced some downright bad equipment including focusers that simply did not work at all. I'm just trying to put a balance of viewpoints forward and look objectively past the glamour! It's a telling fact, though, that I haven't sold the 66 and have plans for it in my widefield tandem rig...

Olly

[Black Knight]

Thanks very much for your input Olly, very useful and as always very much appreciated. Definitely sounds like I should be thinking in terms of replacing the focuser if I decide to move forward with the WO66. Then it's a case of waiting till one crops up, and the piggy bank is a little fuller than it is now!

Edit: can't type on a phone!

[Coco]

Thanks very much for your input Olly, very useful and as always very much appreciated. Definitely sounds like I should be thinking in terms of replacing the focuser if I decide to move forward with the WO66. Then it's a case of waiting till one crops up, and the piggy bank is a little fuller than it is now!

Edit: can't type on a phone!

I would save up for the EF200 L F/2.8 and one of these http://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p4511_T2-adapter-for-Canon-EOS-lenses--only-14-5mm-length-.html

The 200L will need a tripod foot also there are cheap good copies on ebay.. It will make a killer widefield.. You have an ED80 so the WO66 isnt going to give you a worthy amount of real estate from what you already have.

[ollypenrice]

I would save up for the EF200 L F/2.8 and one of these http://www.teleskop-...mm-length-.html

The 200L will need a tripod foot also there are cheap good copies on ebay.. It will make a killer widefield.. You have an ED80 so the WO66 isnt going to give you a worthy amount of real estate from what you already have.

Guy makes a very fair point in terms of relative focal lengths.

Olly

[Black Knight]

I would save up for the EF200 L F/2.8 and one of these http://www.teleskop-...mm-length-.html

The 200L will need a tripod foot also there are cheap good copies on ebay.. It will make a killer widefield.. You have an ED80 so the WO66 isnt going to give you a worthy amount of real estate from what you already have.

Thanks Guy, it's definitely worth thinking about. Is this the lens you're referring to? http://www.procamerashop.co.uk/product/Canon_EF_200mm_f%7C2.8L_II_USM_34085