ICEINSPACE
Moon Phase
CURRENT MOON
Waxing Crescent 40%
|
|
09-12-2011, 12:02 PM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 43
|
|
Celstron focal reducer
I refuse to pay what ozscopes are asking for the f6.3 reducer
OPT & Optics Planet wont ship to Aus...there is a way around this but thought you guys might have better, easier way or can point me to a reasonably priced reducer?
|
09-12-2011, 12:14 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 957
|
|
Buy a meade one for $169 from Bintel. No difference. Or buy one 2nd hand from me. I have a near new 6.3 Meade reducer you can have for $120 inc postage
|
09-12-2011, 02:33 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Glenhaven
Posts: 4,161
|
|
Or consider Hirsch. I bought my 6.3 from them via ebay. I have not seen any complaints about quality.
|
09-12-2011, 02:58 PM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NSW Country
Posts: 3,586
|
|
I have the Meade and the Celestron reducers, they look the same at first glance, but the Meade is not as good as the celestron.
They often come up second hand, give astromart etc. a look
|
09-12-2011, 03:38 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,193
|
|
I have a Celestron reducer never used if you want to make me an offer
|
09-12-2011, 05:31 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 957
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poita
I have the Meade and the Celestron reducers, they look the same at first glance, but the Meade is not as good as the celestron.
They often come up second hand, give astromart etc. a look
|
I have both as well and cant say I have noticed visualy or imaging any difference...Some of earlier ones were made in Japan and supposedly better bt dont think this is case any more for either brand.
|
10-12-2011, 12:34 AM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NSW Country
Posts: 3,586
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cventer
I have both as well and cant say I have noticed visualy or imaging any difference...Some of earlier ones were made in Japan and supposedly better bt dont think this is case any more for either brand.
|
Odd, there is a huge difference between the two I have. Both are Japanese.
|
10-12-2011, 01:12 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 717
|
|
What's the huge difference - in quality? in fit&finish? or you can see something lacking one from the other when looking through them and results are like chalk & cheese? Would be interested to know for reference
Cheers
Bill
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poita
Odd, there is a huge difference between the two I have. Both are Japanese.
|
|
13-12-2011, 01:47 AM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NSW Country
Posts: 3,586
|
|
Fit and finish look about the same, though the coatings look different, but the real difference is in the quality both visually and when photographing.
The Meade has a focal length of about 145mm vs 230mm for the Celestron, so they are quite different and back-focus issues are obviously more pronounced with one over the other.
|
15-12-2011, 02:07 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 717
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poita
... though the coatings look different, but the real difference is in the quality both visually and when photographing.
...
|
Thanks Peter - so which is the better one? in quality of both visually & photographing? Is it the Meade or Celestron?
Cheers
Bill
|
15-12-2011, 02:54 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Junortoun Vic
Posts: 8,916
|
|
Peter,
I'm surprised you have a x0.63 Meade reducer with a focal length of 145mm...
There was "one bad batch" produced to my knowledge before it was corrected and the focal length reverted to the 220mm.
I had two or three reducers (both Meade and Celestron) over the years - not much to choose between them.
The current x0.63 reducers are all 220mm focal length.
|
15-12-2011, 07:20 AM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 43
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merlin66
Peter,
I'm surprised you have a x0.63 Meade reducer with a focal length of 145mm...
There was "one bad batch" produced to my knowledge before it was corrected and the focal length reverted to the 220mm.
I had two or three reducers (both Meade and Celestron) over the years - not much to choose between them.
The current x0.63 reducers are all 220mm focal length.
|
so what does this "focal length" mean to me? would someone like to please explain to this.... um..... idiot
|
15-12-2011, 08:13 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Junortoun Vic
Posts: 8,916
|
|
Like any lens the reducer has a focal length, this is the distance from the lens to the point of focus. i.e. if you used it to image the Sun onto a piece of paper, when the image on the paper is smallest, it's at the focal point.
This distance for a x0.63 reducer is usually 220mm.
Why is this important?
When fitted to the telescope, the actual reduction (ie x0.63) is achieved with a fixed distance between the lens and the CCD chip in the camera, for the standard reducer this distance is 105mm.
If the focal length of the reducer is say only 145mm, then this distance would be close to 70mm - a big difference from the anticipated 105mm.
Hope this helps.
|
15-12-2011, 12:07 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Sunbury, Vic. and Talairan, France
Posts: 142
|
|
I have seen many focal reducers that appear to have a single lens, maybe just the cheap ones but i can not find any optical data on the better ones. My question is, do they not introduce chromatic abberation ?
|
15-12-2011, 06:17 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Junortoun Vic
Posts: 8,916
|
|
Peter,
The smaller 1.25" filter screw-in type reducers you may have seen, are achromatic doublets and were initially designed for use with small chipped webcam to give a wider field of view.
The larger Celestron/ Meade reducers were designed for SCT's.
Yes, there's always a compromise... there will be some chromatic aberrations (minor) and some field distortion (lack of flat field).
|
15-12-2011, 09:35 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 4,485
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poita
Fit and finish look about the same, though the coatings look different, but the real difference is in the quality both visually and when photographing.
The Meade has a focal length of about 145mm vs 230mm for the Celestron, so they are quite different and back-focus issues are obviously more pronounced with one over the other.
|
Peter, with those specifications you wound up with one of the bad reducers from Meade. Presumably they were made in China to incorrect specifications which they later reverted to the original, without offers of replacement.
I have a Meade made in Japan and it's excellent and have taken many photos at f6.3 with flat stars to the edge with my 10" SCT.
|
16-12-2011, 12:42 AM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NSW Country
Posts: 3,586
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merlin66
Peter,
I'm surprised you have a x0.63 Meade reducer with a focal length of 145mm...
There was "one bad batch" produced to my knowledge before it was corrected and the focal length reverted to the 220mm.
I had two or three reducers (both Meade and Celestron) over the years - not much to choose between them.
The current x0.63 reducers are all 220mm focal length.
|
I checked it again, the Meade is definitely 145, guess I got a lemon.
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +10. The time is now 01:50 PM.
|
|