Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_dslr_mirrorlesss_winners.thumb.jpg.9deb4a8db27e7485a7bb99d98667c94e.jpg

blinky

Meade 6.3 Reducer with ED80

Recommended Posts

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Edited by Whippy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Rog!

You have a very beautiful :cool:selection of Deep Sky images

on your homepage.

Are some of them made by using the F6.3 reducer?

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

reducer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ach..... Typical everybody has a diffrent view! Think it's going to be a case of better the devil you know then!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I have a WO M90, a Meade F6.3 reducer and a WO SCT adapter but I've never put all three together. I'll give it a go and see what happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whoops error guys in Dave report i see i put the meade 6.3 ,this should have been the 3.3 sorry about that, as i said the meade 3.3 did not work for me ,

Rog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reducer on an SCT screws into the rear cell, not a 1.25 fitting. It'll pretty much give the views that a 8" ~f6.3 SCT would be expected to give, theres no catch really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've successfully used the 2" Orion Prime focus adaptor to mount the SCT accessories to the ED80. This would also work well for the telecompressor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.