Gina's Esprit 80ED Pro Unboxing and First Impressions

[Gina]

Have to take a look at that Riccardi flattener/reducer after all Gina - I think that gives you an extra 15-25mm of useable space (and 0.75x reduction).

Me, I might just go back to saving for a Takahashi after all.

It's all back in the melting pot, isn't it?!   Anyway, we get this spacing sorted out in time...

[Sp@ce_d]

Have to take a look at that Riccardi flattener/reducer after all Gina - I think that gives you an extra 15-25mm of useable space (and 0.75x reduction).

Me, I might just go back to saving for a Takahashi after all.

Been battling with this too.. I very nearly went Borg but my 314L+'s sample rate didn't come out very favorable with them & I'm hooked on my triple shooter setup.. (albeit at differing FL at the moment). Changing scopes AND CCD's at the same time is just way too much. 2 or 3 Esprit 80's are not that out of reach in the short term in comparison.. well apart from actually getting my hands on one... having paid for it... arghhh..

Come on Gina.. I wish you clear skies.. I feel so guilty..  I cant believe I'm out imaging again for the 6th time in a week!! I've had more usable hours subs in total this past week than the whole of last season!!!!

[Xplode]

Great looking scopes this new Esprit's 

I was gonna buy a Esprit 100 myself, but chose a TS 100mm quadruplet instead to avoid the problems with focal reducer distance and to be able to use filter wheel and OAG on a DSLR without problems if i want to.

Sorry to read about the confusion on focal reducer distance 

[Gina]

Looks like the confusion of back focus with the Esprit 80ED FF has be resolved.  JohnC64 is getting good results with the distance given in the FLO web site - 54.9mm from mating surface.  Now it's "back to the drawing board" for me.

With a Canon EOS DSLR and the SW supplied 48mm to EOS adapter we have 10.7mm and the camera back focus of 44mm a total of 54.7mm.  OK that checks (near enough).

Now for the Atik 460EX... 

SW FF to 48mm = 11mm

FLO 48mm to T2 = 10mm

Atik EFW2 including adapters = 23.5

Astrodon filter = 1mm (filters ar 3mm thick)

Atik 460EX = 13mm

Total = 58.5  OMG!!   That's 3.6mm too much

Edited November 5, 2013 by Gina

[Gina]

Looks like it would need Teleskop Service to the rescue   This amounts to nearly £40 including carriage and VAT

[Sp@ce_d]

Gina last time I checked FLO didn't do the adapters needed so I got some from TS. But then found out Bern at MA stock them too when I needed more. It's the same spacing for my 314's & Efw2 on the ED80 & both my WO's

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gina]

More calculations...  The 48mm to T2 adapter would need to be 6.4mm optical length.  The thread on the SW adapter is 6mm long.  That leaves 0.4mm for the thickness of the adapter    I think the TS adapter would add a bit more than this even though it is just made of thin metal.  I know because I used to have one but it became "cold welded" to another adapter and I ruined it getting it off   I think it would add about a mm or so onto the end of the 48mm thread.

A special adapter from 48mm to 54mm to fit the EFW2 would be the ideal solution.  The Atik T2 to 54mm FW adapter is 1.5mm thick so we want an adapter with 48mm female thread to 54mm male and an optical length of 7.9mm.

It's no good - I NEED a lathe NOW

[JohnC64]

how about this
http://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p4041_TS-Adapter-M54-to-M48--2---filter-thread---M48-Adapter-for-Filterwheels-and-Filter.html

Or is it the wrong way around. 

[Gina]

BOTTOM LINE :- Well, it now seems that I can't use my Atik imaging kit with the Esprit 80ED with supplied field flattener without either making or getting made a special adapter because with standard kit the back focus is too long

This is ridiculous - I think Skywatcher have shot themselves in the foot if their flattener wont work with standard and very popular Atik imaging kit!

[dmahon]

I agree, making things with a 55mm backfocus is backwards in the days of CCDs. I'd have thought most people buying the scope will use a CCD.

You should be able to get a zero length M48 to T2 adapter.

[Gina]

how about this

http://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p4041_TS-Adapter-M54-to-M48--2---filter-thread---M48-Adapter-for-Filterwheels-and-Filter.html

Or is it the wrong way around. 

No, that's the right way round but we need it to be just a little bit longer but may be able to gain enough by padding out threads or using a very short T2 extension tube between FW and camera.  I'll do yet more calculations

[dmahon]

You can get M48 extension rings to go in front of the OAG. If you extend between filterwheel and camera you'll need to extend the OAG camera too.

[JohnC64]

You should be able to get a zero length M48 to T2 adapter.

http://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p2839_TS-T2-M48-adaptor---zero-profile.html

And with a T2 extension plumbed into that, then should be able to get it exact if using some delrin spacers http://www.firstlightoptics.com/adaptors/baader-t2-delrin-spacer-ring-set.html

Edited November 5, 2013 by JohnC64

[Gina]

You can get M48 extension rings to go in front of the OAG. If you extend between filterwheel and camera you'll need to extend the OAG camera too.

There is nothing like enough room to get an OAG and filter wheel in the light path of the SW flattener and obtain the right back focus.  It's even difficult to fit the FW in.  55mm flattener back focus is hopeless for CCD imaging!

In fact with the smaller sensor area of the 460EX I think I'll try the scope WITHOUT the flattener    Or maybe with the flattener and the back focus well out - but that does defeat the purpose of the flattener.

If I wasn't thinking of trying a mono modified cooled DSLR with built in FW and no change in back focus, and/or buying my own mini lathe to make adapters, I would be thinking of returning the flattener.  Or even scope as well and getting a Borg or something.

I think it's a great pity that Skywatcher didn't consider making their more upmarket kit compatible with CCD imaging - a tremendous failing IMO!

I have to say I feel very disappointed with this scope and flattener - it showed so much promise.  In fact more than disappointed - quite upset - I had such great plans for all this new kit :(

Edited November 5, 2013 by Gina

[Bubbles82]

Would certainly try it without the flattener before getting too upset:),you might be surprised at the results but would agree it would make sense to have a flattener steered towards CCD imaging available too.don't get me wrong we all use quite varied setups but one with a bigger back focus requirement would allow for these differences and adding spaces is easy but we can't shorten the optical path with filters wheels OAG's. I think that feedback to skywatcher is the key here either through email or retailers Like FLO who have a good relationship with skywatchers uk wholesaler. I really hope you get a solution to this but this really does make me consider buying anything at its launch in future and being a pro version type scope I really would have hoped that skywatcher would have understood that most people spending £1000+ on scope for imaging would more than likely be using an CCD based setup so offering a flattener for both formats of imaging DSLR and CCD would be common sense

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[dmahon]

What is the backfocus requirement for an Atik camera/filterwheel/OAG combo (inc glass effect)?

It's about 58mm for the Starlight Xpress equivalent, which is usually within tolerance for 55/56mm designed flatteners (certainly is for TRF-2008) - especially with a relatively small chip.

[AndyUK]

Gina, I don't know if it will fit, but as someone else posted, the 0.75x Riccardi reducer *might* do the trick - On my 80/f6 the spacing requirement is a very generous 81mm.  TS list a number of spacings, including the SW150 triplet (74mm), but of course with the Esprit 80 being so new, they probably haven't had the chance to ascertain what the spacing is yet.  It might be worth monitoring their website, or sending them an email, perhaps...?  They're certainly not the cheapest flattener/reducers ( ), but if it will work, it would take you down to a fairly interesting 300/f3... .

[Gina]

Would certainly try it without the flattener before getting too upset:),you might be surprised at the results but would agree it would make sense to have a flattener steered towards CCD imaging available too.don't get me wrong we all use quite varied setups but one with a bigger back focus requirement would allow for these differences and adding spaces is easy but we can't shorten the optical path with filters wheels OAG's. I think that feedback to skywatcher is the key here either through email or retailers Like FLO who have a good relationship with skywatchers uk wholesaler. I really hope you get a solution to this but this really does make me consider buying anything at its launch in future and being a pro version type scope I really would have hoped that skywatcher would have understood that most people spending £1000+ on scope for imaging would more than likely be using an CCD based setup so offering a flattener for both formats of imaging DSLR and CCD would be common sense

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yes, sometime in the distant future when we get some clear night sky I will definitely be trying it without flattener.  For a start I want to PA my new mount and then see how well that does unguided.  Also, without flattener I will be able to have OAG and filter wheel.

[Gina]

What is the backfocus requirement for an Atik camera/filterwheel/OAG combo (inc glass effect)?

It's about 58mm for the Starlight Xpress equivalent, which is usually within tolerance for 55/56mm designed flatteners (certainly is for TRF-2008) - especially with a relatively small chip.

67mm altogether.  When I thought the back focus was 75mm (76mm allowing for filters) I added a 9mm extension tube which I happened to have and that added up to 76mm.  I though I had it cracked

[Gina]

Gina, I don't know if it will fit, but as someone else posted, the 0.75x Riccardi reducer *might* do the trick - On my 80/f6 the spacing requirement is a very generous 81mm.  TS list a number of spacings, including the SW150 triplet (74mm), but of course with the Esprit 80 being so new, they probably haven't had the chance to ascertain what the spacing is yet.  It might be worth monitoring their website, or sending them an email, perhaps...?  They're certainly not the cheapest flattener/reducers ( ), but if it will work, it would take you down to a fairly interesting 300/f3... .

The Riccardi is a 3" whereas the Esprit is 2.7".  It might be possible with a suitable adapter.  A reducer would certainly be nice   Pricey though.

[RogerTheDodger]

Here's the scope, camera etc. reassembled with digital callipers showing FF to RW spacing.

Imaging setup 03.jpg

But just when I shall get to try it heavens knows

Weather forecast for tonight...

Weather 31st October.PNG

Gina, what is that bit in between the OAG and the EFW2? mine is right up against the EFW2...

[Gina]

Gina, what is that bit in between the OAG and the EFW2? mine is right up against the EFW2...

IMG_20131105_185915.jpg

It's a 9mm T2 extension tube used to bring the flattener face to the sensor to the 76mm I thought I needed.

[RogerTheDodger]

Ah... I was wondering

[ollypenrice]

I've had to have custom extenders made for both TEC and Takahashi rear elements and it is a bit of a pain in the wallet. It's even worse if you get it wrong, which seems likely in view of Skywatcher's state of confusion. They should also clearly state the unflattened image circle.

Atik backfocus varies from camera to camera.

I agree that getting themselves hung up on DSLRs at this end of the market is pretty daft but they're not the only ones to do it.

However, I wouldn't get hung up on using an OAG at these lengths either, though for the dual rig I dare say you'd need to guide on an image-central guidestar.

Olly

[Gina]

I've had to have custom extenders made for both TEC and Takahashi rear elements and it is a bit of a pain in the wallet. It's even worse if you get it wrong, which seems likely in view of Skywatcher's state of confusion. They should also clearly state the unflattened image circle.

Atik backfocus varies from camera to camera.

I agree that getting themselves hung up on DSLRs at this end of the market is pretty daft but they're not the only ones to do it.

However, I wouldn't get hung up on using an OAG at these lengths either, though for the dual rig I dare say you'd need to guide on an image-central guidestar.

Olly

Thank you Olly   You raise some interesting points   With the proposed 4 scope setup there will always be one free that I could put the guide camera on.  And I still have the ST80 I could bung on somewhere if I find I can use all 4 scopes for imaging   Also, many DSOs can be imaged without extended exposures and may prove OK without guiding with the EQ8.  Or I can have the OAG on the MN190 and guide that way, as I have in the past.  What I really need now are some clear nights

I shall be getting a mini lathe and plan to make my own adapters etc.  I also have uses besides astro for a lathe.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Gina