Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b83b14cd4142fe10848741bb2a14c66b.jpg

Meade 6.3 Reducer with ED80

blinky

By blinky
in Discussions - Cameras

Recommended Posts

blinky

blinky

Posted
Posted

I have a WO FF II and I see that somebody is wanting to swap a Meade 6.3 reducer for one. Does anybody know if this will work better than the FF II in the ED80? I dont want to swap for something not as good but I have a feeling I am not getting the best out of the ED80 with the WO Reducer.

I would appreciate you folks thoughts on this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mostschaedel

mostschaedel

Posted
Posted

Hi Blinky!

I have tested the Meade and Celestron F6.3 reducers personally.

In my personal opinion each of them this is a piece of rubbish!:)

Would not spend a dime on them.

They were built and sold for SCT`s and not refractors.

They bring horrible vignetting.

With the WO FF II i have no experience.

Edited by Whippy because of naughty words!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CELESCOPE

CELESCOPE

Posted
Posted

Oh dear have to disagree there , i use the celestron 6.3 reducer all the time in both the Equinox 80 and 120 , gives a pretty good coma free field. i certainly have no complaints on this item , after trying a few reducers before that i had real problems with coma , none since the use of the 6.3 ,

But of course this is only my opinion ,others may say different.

Rog:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CELESCOPE

CELESCOPE

Posted
Posted

Hi Gerald, yup all my images are mainly using the 6.3 reducer, recent ones over the last few months are prime with the 120 Equinox. also the 6. 3 will not work with the Equinox 66.different fitting on that one .

Rog

I have to say i,m not sure with the meade 6.3 not sure if this gives such a good flat field as the Celestron.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ben Ritchie

Ben Ritchie

Posted
Posted
If yes, then i think i had bad luck with my version of the

reducer.

Quite possible - to complicate things there was (at least) one duff batch of the Meade reducers where the focal length was wrong, and as I understand it also some 'fakes' out there. My understanding (as Rog says) is that the f/6.3 reducer can work well with the 80ED although you need extension tubes to reach focus.

i use the celestron 6.3 reducer all the time in both the Equinox 80 and 120 , gives a pretty good coma free field.

I think it's astigmatism(-free) for a refractor, not coma?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mostschaedel

mostschaedel

Posted
Posted
Hi Gerald, yup all my images are mainly using the 6.3 reducer, recent ones over the last few months are prime with the 120 Equinox. also the 6. 3 will not work with the Equinox 66.different fitting on that one .

Rog

I have to say i,m not sure with the meade 6.3 not sure if this gives such a good flat field as the Celestron.

:)

Hi Roger!

When i tested the Meade reducer it showed a very severe vignetting. Therefore i was very disappointed.

When i look at your images i cant see this kind of vignetting.

Do you use flat fields to remove the vignetting

of the reducer? Are the images you show cropped?

Or is your reducer doing only minimal vignetting?

Gerald

P.S.: Sorry to all for the "naughty" word. This was not my intention,

i thought i dont know naughty words. My english needs to be

polished...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CELESCOPE

CELESCOPE

Posted
Posted

Hi , the celestron 6.3 if set up correctly ie with the filter wheel attached and spaced correctly will not give any vignetting,also its pretty good near perfect for flat fields with no coma , none of my images are cropped.

Trailing the 3,3 reducer was acomplete disaster , i never went down that road again , as u rightly said loads of coma .

hope that helps.

Rog

Link to comment
Share on other sites
centroid

centroid

Posted
Posted
Rog

I have to say i,m not sure with the meade 6.3 not sure if this gives such a good flat field as the Celestron.

:)

I think you'll find that they are identical, and most likely made in the same factory, just branded differently.

There a several images on my website, taken with the Celestron 6.3 FR attached to an ED80. I've not yet tried it on the 80mm Meade APO, but I really don't think I'll find it any different.

On the SCT of course, it also works perfectly.

So, IMO, the Celestron 6.3 FR is anything but rubbish, as would also be the case for its Meade twin.

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Merlin66

Merlin66

Posted
Posted

If the CCD is positioned correctly, 110mm behind the reducer, the results should be good.

The Meade instruction manual, states that it can be successfully used on the ( original optional LX200) F6.3 version of the SCT. So it would appear to be pretty versatile.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
philsail1

philsail1

Posted
Posted

Hello All,

A verry interesting thread for me as I'm thinking would a focal reducer be a better propostion as an addition to my f10 Celestron C8 SCT or leave well alone and stick with using my Orion Optics 8" f4.5 Newt for "afocal" astrophotogarphy?

The reason behind my query is that I'm thinking of letting one of the scopes go this summer -after I've given them a good comparison test (as I really like both scopes!).

I'm favouring keeping the Celestron SCT - as I personally like it's rear focusing and viewing position better than the Newtonian's top of the tube side viewing. However, I fear that I will miss the Orion's excellent wide field views.

What I would like to know is - "would say a Celestron f6.3 focal reducer, actually reduce the f10 SCT enough to achieve similar bright, wide field views that the Orion f4.5 gives me? (Oh! and also, as I have a 2" WO adaptor and 2" WO diagonal on the SCT, would I have to reduce to 1.25" to allow the focal reducer to fit?).

Sorry for "hi-jacking" "Blinky's" thread, but I wonder can anyone advise?

Regards,

philsail1

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Merlin66

Merlin66

Posted
Posted

The x0.63 screws onto the back of the rear cell; you can then use a SCT>2" adaptor to use the rest of your gear. Just remember the back focus from the reducer to the eyepiece/ CCD is designed to be 110mm, so you may need a spacer?

The views at f6.3 won't obviously be as wide as f4.5, but satisfying never the less.

There are other reducers: Optec have the NextGen x0.5 ( in 2" fittings), there are others....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
philsail1

philsail1

Posted
Posted

Ah! the focal reducer actually screws into the "internal" threads of the backplate of the scope - and then obviously the 2" adapter will screw onto the "external" threads of backplate.

Thanks very much for your answers "GazOC" and "Merlin66."

And it will reduce the focal length for f10 to f6.3.

Sounds good.

I'll contact Steve at FLO and order one!

Regards,

philsail1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • 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.