Go Back   IceInSpace > Equipment > Equipment Discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #1  
Old 10-04-2021, 03:54 PM
Packen104 (Ken)
Registered User

Packen104 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Yeppoon, Queensland
Posts: 5
How far should a camera be mounnted behind a CPC925?

My ASI 1600mm camera is mounted 90mm behind the CPC925 and I seem to be experiencing vignetting, the outer corners of my images are much brighter.
Focus is fine at that distance but would a longer of shorter distance produce a flatter field?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-04-2021, 04:16 PM
Zuts
Registered User

Zuts is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Packen104 View Post
My ASI 1600mm camera is mounted 90mm behind the CPC925 and I seem to be experiencing vignetting, the outer corners of my images are much brighter.
Focus is fine at that distance but would a longer of shorter distance produce a flatter field?
Please someone correct me if i am wrong but

1. If you are not using a flattener or reducer then there is only one place to put the camera and that is at the focus point. You may need some adaptors to reach focus.
2. If you are using a flattener/reducer then the chip surface must be 55mm behind the back surface of the glass. Chip surface to top of camera is 6.5 mm and ZWO provides enough adapters to make up the 55 mm.

An edge 9.25 is different as it has a build in corrector so you need to get the celestron recommended spacing from back surface of corrector to chip.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-04-2021, 04:29 PM
Outcast's Avatar
Outcast (Carlton)
Always gonna be a NOOB...

Outcast is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cairns, Qld
Posts: 1,285
Stumbled across this... you may (or not) find it helpful...

A few pages in it has recommended spacing of 146.05mm... has a bunch of other interesting & potentially useful information both in the table & throughout the article..

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/use...-25-Final_.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-04-2021, 04:44 PM
Merlin66's Avatar
Merlin66 (Ken)
Registered User

Merlin66 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Junortoun Vic
Posts: 8,904
Carlton,
The Celestron paper refers to the EDge design not the CPC design.
The standard backfocus would be 125mm from the rear cell.
If a x0.63 reducer is used the backfocus is 110mm
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-04-2021, 04:49 PM
Outcast's Avatar
Outcast (Carlton)
Always gonna be a NOOB...

Outcast is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cairns, Qld
Posts: 1,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merlin66 View Post
Carlton,
The Celestron paper refers to the EDge design not the CPC design.
The standard backfocus would be 125mm from the rear cell.
If a x0.63 reducer is used the backfocus is 110mm
Doh!!... my mistake... for some reason I thought I read he had the EdgeHD... possibly I conflated the OP & the first response...

Thanks for pointing that out Ken... I'd hate to steer someone down the incorrect path..

Cheers
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 14-04-2021, 10:56 AM
Packen104 (Ken)
Registered User

Packen104 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Yeppoon, Queensland
Posts: 5
I am not currently using a flattener, I also have trouble with that getting the appropriate distance when trying to use it.


Thanks for the info. Looks like the 90mm is a bit short.


I was a bit confused in that it does seem to focus OK using the CPC focus knob.
I assumed that that would provide the correct path distance from the main mirror to the sensor.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 14-04-2021, 12:08 PM
The_bluester's Avatar
The_bluester (Paul)
Registered User

The_bluester is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Kilmore, Australia
Posts: 3,342
Within reason on the vanilla C925 (As in not an Edge and not using a reducer/corrector) the exact camera spacing is less important. If you apply too much spacing then you will have to move the mirror further up the tube and might introduce vignetting from the baffle tube cutting light off. Another effect is that if you change the distance between the mirrors, you actually change the effective focal length somewhat. I would try it with the camera mounted as close as is practicable to the rear cell and see how it looks, but the focus knob will need quite a bit of twirling to get in from 90mm to say 45mm.

What I can't quite work out though is the description of vignetting making the corners brighter, vignetting should see the light levels fall off as you get further off center in the image. So long as vignetting is not severe you should be able to largely correct it with flat frames though.

I am using a C925 (Which used to be a CPC925 until I removed it from the fork mount) with a Celestron 0.63 reducer/corrector and an Astronomik L3 luminance filter (With resolved a huge reflection issue I used to have) and a ZWO ASI294MC pro. It is producing results the really are pleasing for what was supposed to be a visual instrument. This is one I am still working on the processing of from my C925.

https://www.astrobin.com/full/v74z82/0/?nc=user
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 07:34 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement