Finder

[Gottzi]

Is it possible to turn my skywatcher 6x30 straight through finder into a RACI?

 

 

[JamesF]

5 minutes ago, Gottzi said:

Is it possible to turn my skywatcher 6x30 straight through finder into a RACI?

Possibly, but perhaps not easily.  I imagine the tube will need shortening for a start, to account for the extra length added to the optical path by the new optics.  How much it needs shortening is another awkward question.

James

[Merlin66]

No, not easily. The tube has to be cut then you need to manufacture an adaptor to hold a new prism assembly.

Much easier to find a s/h RACI version.

 

[joe aguiar]

Ya agreed that lens is made for a certain focal length so will need to cut it down then add a small diagonal then a ep.

Everything will need to be perfect or it will be blurry or not focus.

Maybe try to trade yours for what u want and throw some cash in to other person. Since 90 degree finder is normally higher price

Joejaguar 

Edited October 25, 2019 by joe aguiar

[Alan64]

https://www.365astronomy.com/SkyWatcher-6x30-Right-Angled-Finderscope.html

However, right-angle finder-scopes are more common and popular in the 50mm size...

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/finders/astro-essentials-9x50-right-angled-erecting-finderscope.html

With your "Bird Jones" at a 1000mm focal-length, and just as my own, ours would benefit from a 50mm, whether an 8x50 or 9x50 RACI...

Those are attached to my "Bird Jones" reflector within those images.  This is my own...

If collimated well, they are quite good for the medium-to-high powers, as befits a longer focal-length combined with a spherical primary.

If you'd like to consider a 50mm RACI, the telescope's finder-base should be reinforced, if not already.  I added a steel plate to my telescope, underneath the base on the inside of the tube...

For a 6x30, such is not really necessary.  Also, it could be that your finder-base is already reinforced, I do not know.

[Gottzi]

1 hour ago, Alan64 said:

https://www.365astronomy.com/SkyWatcher-6x30-Right-Angled-Finderscope.html

However, right-angle finder-scopes are more common and popular in the 50mm size...

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/finders/astro-essentials-9x50-right-angled-erecting-finderscope.html

With your "Bird Jones" at a 1000mm focal-length, and just as my own, ours would benefit from a 50mm, whether an 8x50 or 9x50 RACI...

Those are attached to my "Bird Jones" reflector within those images.  This is my own...

If collimated well, they are quite good for the medium-to-high powers, as befits a longer focal-length combined with a spherical primary.

If you'd like to consider a 50mm RACI, the telescope's finder-base should be reinforced, if not already.  I added a steel plate to my telescope, underneath the base on the inside of the tube...

For a 6x30, such is not really necessary.  Also, it could be that your finder-base is already reinforced, I do not know.

Thanks Alan64, I take it the reinforcement is simply because of the extra weight involved with the 9x50?

[Alan64]

9 hours ago, Gottzi said:

Thanks Alan64, I take it the reinforcement is simply because of the extra weight involved with the 9x50?

EDIT: That somewhat, but to a greater extent the bulk, and it is worth the addition if you feel you'd benefit from the larger finder-scope.  With a 32mm Plossl, 31x is the lowest power you would have to assist the finder-scope in hunting for objects.  31x is not particularly low in power, but it is within the low-power range.  So that's where the larger finder-scope would compensate.

But then, the 6x30 is at a lower power, 6x.  It just doesn't have a particularly large light-gathering aperture.  There are those that prefer a 6x30 over a 8x or 9x 50mm, and for that lower, 6x power.  But if you observe under considerable light-pollution, then the larger finder-scope would indeed be of greater benefit.  I suspect that larger finder-scopes evolved as artificial-lighting increased, particularly near or within the cities of the world.

Edited October 26, 2019 by Alan64

[johninderby]

Depends on the brand of scope. Some use reinforcements and some don’t. The weight of the 9x50 isn’t the problem. It’s more a problem with smaller scopes where someone might use the finder bracket as a handle to pickup the scope.

Have to say I’ve never had a problem with scopes that don’t use any reinforcement. 
 

Also depends on what you are looking at. For a small mak used for lunar / planetary the 6x30 is more than adequate. For a wider field scope the 9x50 is better for hunting DSOs.

Edited October 26, 2019 by johninderby

[Gottzi]

Yeah I'm viewing from the back garden at Bortle 5, when the clouds actually clear.

[johninderby]

Another thing is the 6x30 has a wider field of view than the 9x50. So the 6x30 is better for finding bright things such as planets but the 9x50 is better for finding faint things.

So one type is not always best. Get the one that suits your scope and what you want to observe.

Then there is the Telrad vs QuikFinder argument. 😁

 

Edited October 26, 2019 by johninderby

[Alan64]

7 hours ago, Gottzi said:

Yeah I'm viewing from the back garden at Bortle 5, when the clouds actually clear.

Bortle-5 is quite good.  I'm under 4 to 5 myself.  You can catch quite a few deep-sky objects with your telescope under those skies.

I tried to find an 8x50 there in the UK.  There are a few, but for a considerably-higher price, particularly compared to here in the U.S. where I'm located. 

[Gottzi]

Looks like I might be getting an couple of clear nights tomorrow and Monday according to my Clear Outside App🤞🏻

[Alan64]

7 hours ago, johninderby said:

Depends on the brand of scope. Some use reinforcements and some don’t. The weight of the 9x50 isn’t the problem. It’s more a problem with smaller scopes where someone might use the finder bracket as a handle to pickup the scope.  Have to say I’ve never had a problem with scopes that don’t use any reinforcement.  Also depends on what you are looking at. For a small mak used for lunar / planetary the 6x30 is more than adequate. For a wider field scope the 9x50 is better for hunting DSOs.

The larger the tube, the greater the need for a plate.  The plate also gives peace-of-mind, especially if the finder-scope is bumped hard and/or the user is indeed in the habit of using it as a handle.  The latter can occur in an instant, without even thinking.

Larger, fender-type washers on the inside, before the nuts, would also afford a bit of rigidity.

7 hours ago, johninderby said:

Another thing is the 6x30 has a wider field of view than the 9x50. So the 6x30 is better for finding bright things such as planets but the 9x50 is better for finding faint things.  So one type is not always best. Get the one that suits your scope and what you want to observe. 

The planets and other bright objects can certainly be found easily enough at 9x.  A 9x50 is only good for deep-sky hunting due to the 50mm aperture; certainly not the 9x magnification.  Of course, as the aperture increases, so the power; can't get past that.  Although I do wonder why Synta is such a stickler for a 9x50 instead of an 8x50.  

[johninderby]

Everybody is entitled to their opinion.

 

Edited October 26, 2019 by johninderby

[Gottzi]

Thanks everyone for your input. Think the fat man in a red suit might be bringing me a 9x50 RACI  🤞🏻 Then I'll be able to choose between the 2.

Edited October 26, 2019 by Gottzi

[Alan64]

Yes, you'd be able to compare the two apertures, right-angled or no.

I don't have a right-angle finder-scope myself, and I need one for my 127mm Maksutov.  It's not much larger than your catadioptric, but it has a focal-length of 1900mm(!).  I'm seriously looking to converting a short 70mm refractor, very short, into a finder-scope, as that Maksutov is going to need all the help it can get when perched upon my manual mounts.