ICEINSPACE
Moon Phase
CURRENT MOON
Waxing Crescent 28.6%
|
|
12-07-2010, 11:03 PM
|
|
Photon sorter
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Near Warwick, Qld, Australia
Posts: 651
|
|
Question: Canon 1000d Sensor to mount distance
I want to take some SCT FR6.3 shots with my 1000d. Does anybody know the distance from front of bayonet mount to sensor, so I can calculate spacing for various brands of FR's?
Thanks,
|
12-07-2010, 11:31 PM
|
Seriously Amateur
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,279
|
|
Mike - I am pretty sure that all Canon EOS cameras are 44mm - can someone else confirm that?
Adam
|
13-07-2010, 05:46 PM
|
|
Photon sorter
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Near Warwick, Qld, Australia
Posts: 651
|
|
Thanks Adam, seems about right.
I'm doing a little project to try and verify Focal Reducers' published focal length figures, just using handheld FR, sunlight and a piece of white paper to adjust for focus point with tape measure.
Did my Meade 6.3, 3.3, Antares 6.3 and 5, and GSO 5. All 2" or T size and got some interesting numbers today.
Some jibe quite well with published figures, some are totally different. After I play with them + spacing in my C8, I'll publish them here for others' possible edification.
|
16-07-2010, 12:31 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Junortoun Vic
Posts: 8,909
|
|
Reducer spacings v's effective focal ratio
I've prepared a spreadsheet which may be of interest. It calculates the final effective focal length and f ratio for various reducer fl's and spacings.
It also takes into account the changes in EFL due to the primary mirror shift in an SCT (based on Chris Lords original data, but updated)
You need to measure the final image plate scale (CCDInspector) to verify the optical train and actual spacings.
Ken
|
16-07-2010, 01:24 PM
|
|
Photon sorter
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Near Warwick, Qld, Australia
Posts: 651
|
|
Thanks for that info Ken, I'll add the spreadsheet to my little text file I've been compiling, showing all the trivia relating to various focal reducers, it's quite handy. I'll link the most recent copy here for your review.
I've tried the Antares 6.3 a couple of nights ago with my 1000d and it gave very good results at my suspected distance, 85mm, very little star distortion too. Interesting that as I wanted to keep my Meade 209 (remote) electric focuser attached, I put the FR and spacer array with the camera, at the back of the focuser. Little or no vignetting on the C8.
I'm presently looking for a used Celestron 6.3, as its longer FL would allow me to put it in front of the focuser directly on the OTA, which is my preferred position. With the QHY8 Pro I'd have more latitude due to shorter internal sensor distance.
I want to verify similarly for the other FR's I've collected, but been too busy.
Will be interesting to see how they jibe with your spreadsheet calcs. It was strange that some of the FL's I saw were so different to the published ones. Only a real star test will tell.
I like the range of FL's and speeds that a C8 or such will give with FR's or a Hyperstar for the really wide stuff. Suits my type of imaging activities, which are basically happy snaps.
Cheers,
|
16-07-2010, 01:31 PM
|
|
Photon sorter
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Near Warwick, Qld, Australia
Posts: 651
|
|
BTW Ken, (forgot to ask in my previous post), your 3.3 numbers don't seem to reflect a focal reduction to 3.3, but up in the 7's. Am I misunderstanding something?
|
16-07-2010, 02:39 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Junortoun Vic
Posts: 8,909
|
|
Mike,
The spreadsheet is reflecting the x0.63 reducer focal length in cell A26 (240mm) - change this value to 88 for the x0.33 reducer and you'll see the results.
I should make the entry of user focal lengths a bit more obvious!
|
16-07-2010, 03:04 PM
|
|
Photon sorter
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Near Warwick, Qld, Australia
Posts: 651
|
|
Doh! Bit silly of me not to realise that..Spoon feeding is so uncool
|
16-07-2010, 03:09 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Junortoun Vic
Posts: 8,909
|
|
That's OK!
The original layout had fixed values for the reducer focal lengths, but I quickly found out that not all "standard" Meade/ Celestron reducers are the same. Also there are Orion, Antares, Optec, SkyWatcher and Lumicon reducers etc which are very different!!
|
16-07-2010, 04:40 PM
|
|
Photon sorter
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Near Warwick, Qld, Australia
Posts: 651
|
|
True, BTW, as one last final question, do you see anything wrong with my "old schoolboys trick" of using the FR like a kid's magnifying glass, with the sun's image to measure the FL?
All of them gave a very clear image on the white cardboard of the cloudy sky/pinpoint sun when at hand-held focus, I then just measured the distance from Paper to rear of lens (glass) and assumed that to be the ~focal length. Is that OK?
|
16-07-2010, 05:02 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Junortoun Vic
Posts: 8,909
|
|
Nothing wrong with that method.
You'll get a very close approximation. The final answer will come from measuring the plate scale of the image.
|
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 04:08 PM.
|
|