#1  
Old 01-06-2010, 02:18 PM
pmrid's Avatar
pmrid (Peter)
Ageing badly.

pmrid is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Bribie Is.
Posts: 3,127
HOTECH SCA Field Flattener

Hi to all users of these devices. Because there was no documentation with my new HOTECH and nothing on their web site about this issue, I wrote to them recently asking for clarification of the distance that had to be maintained between the SCA and the imaging plane of the CCD/DSLR etc. They have sent a reply which I thought I would share for the benefit of IIS members:

" ..... The SCA Field Flattener requires 55mm distance from the shoulder of the T-thread to your QHY8. You will have to use additional T-thread ring to add up the difference for optimal imaging result. ... "

OK. there you have it.

Peter.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-06-2010, 02:35 PM
h0ughy's Avatar
h0ughy (David)
DOGHOUSE REBORN

h0ughy is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NEWCASTLE NSW Australia
Posts: 30,683
but that is the standard requirement for the QHY8? the DSLR is fine and works well. so it would be the same if you were using a canon lens on the qhy8
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-06-2010, 02:42 PM
pmrid's Avatar
pmrid (Peter)
Ageing badly.

pmrid is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Bribie Is.
Posts: 3,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by h0ughy View Post
but that is the standard requirement for the QHY8? the DSLR is fine and works well. so it would be the same if you were using a canon lens on the qhy8
Hi David. not sure I follow what you're saying. Wouldn't the 55mm distance be a function of the flattener and not the CCD/DSLR? And wouldn't the 55mm requirement be the same for any CCD or DSLR - not just a QHY8?

Peter
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-06-2010, 03:17 PM
h0ughy's Avatar
h0ughy (David)
DOGHOUSE REBORN

h0ughy is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NEWCASTLE NSW Australia
Posts: 30,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmrid View Post
Hi David. not sure I follow what you're saying. Wouldn't the 55mm distance be a function of the flattener and not the CCD/DSLR? And wouldn't the 55mm requirement be the same for any CCD or DSLR - not just a QHY8?

Peter
true - if the distance was already 55mm(or thereabouts) for the canon cameras for example then to be the same the qhy8 - if it were to be parfocal so to speak. so if it was designed for the dslr primarily then the qhy8 would have to be similar - hope i am not talking in circles
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-06-2010, 06:19 PM
pmrid's Avatar
pmrid (Peter)
Ageing badly.

pmrid is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Bribie Is.
Posts: 3,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by h0ughy View Post
true - if the distance was already 55mm(or thereabouts) for the canon cameras for example then to be the same the qhy8 - if it were to be parfocal so to speak. so if it was designed for the dslr primarily then the qhy8 would have to be similar - hope i am not talking in circles
It's simple provided I think in circles and these days, I think that's what I seem to do most of the time.
Peter.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-06-2010, 10:12 PM
allan gould's Avatar
allan gould
Registered User

allan gould is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 4,481
Is the Hotech SCA field flattener the same beast as the GSO Focal reducer being sold by Andrews Coms? Part no CO-001? Or the AstroTech 2" field flattener?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-06-2010, 10:17 PM
h0ughy's Avatar
h0ughy (David)
DOGHOUSE REBORN

h0ughy is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NEWCASTLE NSW Australia
Posts: 30,683
no
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-06-2010, 07:25 AM
allan gould's Avatar
allan gould
Registered User

allan gould is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 4,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by h0ughy View Post
no
Oh!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-06-2010, 07:32 PM
lookus
Registered User

lookus is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: gold coast
Posts: 135
would this flattener work with a zinithstar 66 and an ed80 and a dslr?

thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-06-2010, 08:37 PM
mldee's Avatar
mldee (Mike)
Photon sorter

mldee is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Near Warwick, Qld, Australia
Posts: 514
FR spacing table and reference info

Just finished putting together a little compendium of what I could find on some generic FR's. It may be of help to others.

Just the low-hanging fruit of a few Googles.

Interesting that Meade drastically changed the Focal Length of their f6.3 in 2006 according to one of the references.

All care, no resp
Attached Files
File Type: txt 100607 FR sensor distance list.txt (845 Bytes, 79 views)
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-06-2010, 10:24 AM
allan gould's Avatar
allan gould
Registered User

allan gould is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 4,481
Mike
I think that some of your distances are incorrect as Ive been verifying my Meade f6.3 FR and can state that the correct distance for this is 87mm from chip to back element of lens. See http://timosastro.1g.fi/tools/focalreducer.html
This FR works from 80-106mm with acceptable results. Best is at 87mm. Ive confirmed this and have seen the distance at some sites quoted as 106mm.
The spacing for the f3.3 remains the same at 57mm.
Also the GSO 2" Coma Corrector cant have a spacing of 53mm as it comes with a 2" adapter which is already at 42mm from the back element and a T adapter on a Canon camera would add another ~45mm to the chip. Just measured it on the one I purchased from Andrews. (edit - you're right as I miss read FR for coma corrector).
Also note that the GSO and AstroTech Coma Corrector are not the same beast - many are assuming they are.

Last edited by allan gould; 08-06-2010 at 10:34 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-06-2010, 11:00 AM
mldee's Avatar
mldee (Mike)
Photon sorter

mldee is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Near Warwick, Qld, Australia
Posts: 514
Hi Allan,
Thanks for the inputs. Let's hope we can eventually come up with a set of reliable numbers! It would be nice if others also donated any info on other types of FR's that are known.

Small comment on the Meade info, the default Meade FL from the Timo calc is 260mm, and shows a FR of .67 at 87mm, needs 95mm to achieve .63. No big deal.

Also note comment from http://www.wilmslowastro.com/software/formulae.htm about much shorter FL of post 2006 Meade .63's. Just trying to verify that comment, would you consider your Meade to be pre 2006? I have one of unknown vintage, so will have to suck it and see.

I used 154mm FL (post 2006) as was mentioned as the FL in the other link to get the 57 at .63FR for a Meade. Would be good clarify this for newer post 2006 Meades.

Let's hope we can build on the list, now that there are some easy to use tools to do it.

I put my C8 on the mount yesterday, so will play around this week and post my results.

Cheers,
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-06-2010, 11:30 AM
allan gould's Avatar
allan gould
Registered User

allan gould is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 4,481
Mike
My FR is definately pre 2006. Was purchased in 1996 from Bintel.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-06-2010, 12:31 PM
mldee's Avatar
mldee (Mike)
Photon sorter

mldee is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Near Warwick, Qld, Australia
Posts: 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by allan gould View Post
Mike
My FR is definately pre 2006. Was purchased in 1996 from Bintel.
Good Lord, last century! I'm unsure if I was even born then !

Last edited by mldee; 08-06-2010 at 12:33 PM. Reason: last century
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-06-2010, 02:53 PM
pmrid's Avatar
pmrid (Peter)
Ageing badly.

pmrid is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Bribie Is.
Posts: 3,127
Hi Mike.
I may have missed something but I didn't see the Hotech FR in your list and, since this thread is about the Hotech, I thought this a tad amusing. I don't know the FL of the Hotech but the manufacturer says the optimal separation is 55mm.
Peter.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-06-2010, 03:20 PM
mldee's Avatar
mldee (Mike)
Photon sorter

mldee is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Near Warwick, Qld, Australia
Posts: 514
Hi Peter, Yep, sorry for the unintended hijacking. My intention was to supply the info so folks could work out what they needed. The Hotech appears to not be a Field reducer, but a pure flattener, so the tools probably don't work. I've added the Hotech info to the list anyway, and posted again below.

Cheers
Attached Files
File Type: txt 100607 FR sensor distance list-2.txt (957 Bytes, 34 views)
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-06-2010, 03:44 PM
telemarker's Avatar
telemarker (Keith)
Registered User

telemarker is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 601
Peter,
I noticed that you are using the Hotech FF with the ED127. Could you give us an appraisal of its performance at the edges of the QHY8. Is it a flat field?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-06-2010, 06:32 AM
pmrid's Avatar
pmrid (Peter)
Ageing badly.

pmrid is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Bribie Is.
Posts: 3,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by telemarker View Post
Peter,
I noticed that you are using the Hotech FF with the ED127. Could you give us an appraisal of its performance at the edges of the QHY8. Is it a flat field?
It's not bad. My separation is not quite 55mm (it's 54.2) but it's near enough I think. The edge coma I saw without the FF seems to have been corrected. Here are 3 images from Monday night. See what you think. all 3 are ED127/QHY8 and between 2 and 3 hours of 10min subs. The 4th image of NGC6559 was taken a few weeks before and without the FF.
Peter
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (ophnebNGQH60x3cropweb.jpg)
74.0 KB88 views
Click for full-size image (W_VeilNGQH16x10web.jpg)
155.6 KB84 views
Click for full-size image (B72NGQH11x10web.jpg)
120.9 KB88 views
Click for full-size image (ngc6559ED127web.jpg)
151.0 KB107 views

Last edited by pmrid; 09-06-2010 at 07:27 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-06-2010, 08:12 AM
telemarker's Avatar
telemarker (Keith)
Registered User

telemarker is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 601
Thanks Peter, looks like another item for the shopping list.
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 08:50 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Meade Australia
Advertisement
Astromechanics
Advertisement
OzScopes Authorised Dealer
Advertisement
SkyWatcher Australia
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Lunatico Astronomical
Advertisement
Celestron Australia
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement