Go Back   IceInSpace > Equipment > Astrophotography and Imaging Equipment and Discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #21  
Old 22-12-2014, 08:31 AM
Peter.M's Avatar
Peter.M
Registered User

Peter.M is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 947
I used a qhy9 with an oag and a mpcc. I got precise parts to make a adaptor from the filter wheel to the camera with a length of about 1mm. With this you get 16mm from chip to fw 21m fw 11mm tsoag9 then I needed a 5 mm adaptor from the fw to the oag and I was at around 55mm.

I still think the .73 reducer corrector would be a better option for a super fast newt because it does not impact the secondary size
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 22-12-2014, 08:40 AM
alpal's Avatar
alpal
Registered User

alpal is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter.M View Post
I used a qhy9 with an oag and a mpcc. I got precise parts to make a adaptor from the filter wheel to the camera with a length of about 1mm. With this you get 16mm from chip to fw 21m fw 11mm tsoag9 then I needed a 5 mm adaptor from the fw to the oag and I was at around 55mm.

I still think the .73 reducer corrector would be a better option for a super fast newt because it does not impact the secondary size


Hi Peter,
you must have removed the nose piece to do that?

cheers
Allan
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 22-12-2014, 08:58 AM
Peter.M's Avatar
Peter.M
Registered User

Peter.M is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 947
Quote:
Originally Posted by alpal View Post
Hi Peter,
you must have removed the nose piece to do that?

cheers
Allan
If you mean the optical window that usually goes between the filter wheel and the camera , yes I don't use that
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 22-12-2014, 09:02 AM
alpal's Avatar
alpal
Registered User

alpal is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter.M View Post
If you mean the optical window that usually goes between the filter wheel and the camera , yes I don't use that
OK - that explains it.

I didn't want to go down that path so that the inside of my camera is not exposed to humidity.

cheers
Allan
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 22-12-2014, 10:00 AM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 17,877
Diffraction limited is 1/4 wave. Orion Optics (who make the mirrors for this scope anyway) offer a 1/10th wave mirror. I think that would be important. F4 is probably a little more forgiving and less "fiddle factor" and bug chasing involved. This is supposed to be a relaxing hobby!

Greg.


Quote:
Originally Posted by alpal View Post
Hi Greg,
I'd probably be better off with something like this which would work
with all the equipment I have now:

http://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/...rbon-tube.html



TS UNC 10" f/4 Newtonian telescope with German made carbon tube and 2" ACUN focuser
... Aperture 250mm - Focal length 1000mm - with optimized focus position for maximum illumination
... 94% reflection high quality diffraction limited optic - each telescope is tested on our optical bench
... only ca. 11kg weight with cradle rings!


I could always upgrade the mirrors & other parts at a later date for more performance.
At least it's light too!


cheers
Allan
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 22-12-2014, 12:03 PM
alpal's Avatar
alpal
Registered User

alpal is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregbradley View Post
Diffraction limited is 1/4 wave. Orion Optics (who make the mirrors for this scope anyway) offer a 1/10th wave mirror. I think that would be important. F4 is probably a little more forgiving and less "fiddle factor" and bug chasing involved. This is supposed to be a relaxing hobby!

Greg.
Thanks Greg,
What about the QHY9 mono cameras?

I wonder if they can be re-engineered to give a shorter back focus?
Someone may be selling shorter nose pieces -
I have yet to find out.

Maybe a few mm could be taken off the front of the camera
by reducing the housing in some way -
& another few on the thickness of the filter wheel?

QHY should have done this anyway.
Unless I can solve the back focus problem I can forget upgrading to any other Newt.

I don't want to remove the nose piece.
As you can see from the picture below I have used the QHY9's proper
desiccant barrel which attaches to the side of the camera
to remove any moisture from inside the camera.
They can't tell you at QHY to do that &
also tell you that you can run it without the nose piece.
The desiccant wouldn't work.

Don't get me wrong -
the QHY9m camera is great -
it's just not designed for Newts. where you need to use a larger than 2" focuser.

For 2" focusers:
The 2" RCC1 solves that problem by giving it 91.5mm of back focus to play with.


cheers
Allan
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (QHY9 dessicant.jpg)
159.6 KB38 views
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 22-12-2014, 01:49 PM
rustigsmed's Avatar
rustigsmed (Russell)
Registered User

rustigsmed is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Mornington Peninsula, Australia
Posts: 3,950
Hi allan,

which OAG and filterwheel are you using? it may be easier getting a thinner version of either of these to achieve the correct CC spacing?

Rusty
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 22-12-2014, 02:25 PM
graham.hobart's Avatar
graham.hobart (Graham stevens)
DeepSkySlacker

graham.hobart is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: hobart, tasmania
Posts: 2,214
newts etc

Watching this thread with interest as next year will be assembling what I think will be FLI microline/ SX FW and OAG/ MPCC coma corrector all on f4 Newt.
I hope!!!
Graham
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 22-12-2014, 02:43 PM
alpal's Avatar
alpal
Registered User

alpal is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by rustigsmed View Post
Hi allan,

which OAG and filterwheel are you using? it may be easier getting a thinner version of either of these to achieve the correct CC spacing?

Rusty


Hi Rusty,
My image train is here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/24719437@N03/8029429824/

It's a TS9 OAG - 0nly 9mm of back focus.
The filter wheel is the QHY9 standard 5 filter design.

cheers
Allan
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 22-12-2014, 02:45 PM
alpal's Avatar
alpal
Registered User

alpal is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by graham.hobart View Post
Watching this thread with interest as next year will be assembling what I think will be FLI microline/ SX FW and OAG/ MPCC coma corrector all on f4 Newt.
I hope!!!
Graham

Hi Graham,
That's good,
Hopefully the FLI camera will have less back focus problems?
Will it work with a 3" focuser/coma corrector?

cheers
Allan
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 22-12-2014, 03:08 PM
rustigsmed's Avatar
rustigsmed (Russell)
Registered User

rustigsmed is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Mornington Peninsula, Australia
Posts: 3,950
hi Al,

obviously you can't get thinner than the TSOAG9, I can't find the width of the standard CFW?
as you only need about 3mm maybe the new ultra thin CFW2 may work? http://www.optcorp.com/qhy-medium-ul...ycfw2-mus.html (17mm).

Rusty
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 22-12-2014, 07:51 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 17,877
Its thin at 17mm but it looks like the adapters that go on each side may attach to the outside of it (the holes for screws?).

So that will lose the thinness advantage (it may add 10mm or more?). The FLI filter wheel has a recessed area for the adapters and the CFW 4/5 is 20mm thick.

Greg.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 22-12-2014, 07:58 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 17,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by alpal View Post
Hi Graham,
That's good,
Hopefully the FLI camera will have less back focus problems?
Will it work with a 3" focuser/coma corrector?

cheers
Allan
The FLI Microline 8300 has 16mm of back focus (the chip is 16mm inside the camera in other words). The SX Mini USB filter wheel is about 53mm from one side of the adapter to the sensor surface of a FLI Microline with a 50mm male threaded adapter (I am not sure if that is the SCT adapter they refer to on their website).

So if the scope has 90mm backfocus it should have room for the MPCC within that.

The SX Mini USB filter wheel seems well built plus a built in OAG would be really handy.

My usual setup is an Astrodon MMOAG which is very solid and a reliable unit but it takes about 35-40mm of backfocus. The FLI CFW 4/5 takes up 20mm or a tad less.

Greg.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 22-12-2014, 10:21 PM
alpal's Avatar
alpal
Registered User

alpal is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by rustigsmed View Post
hi Al,

obviously you can't get thinner than the TSOAG9, I can't find the width of the standard CFW?
as you only need about 3mm maybe the new ultra thin CFW2 may work? http://www.optcorp.com/qhy-medium-ul...ycfw2-mus.html (17mm).

Rusty
Hi Rusty,
I just made a rough measurement with my measuring tape &
my 5 filter , filter wheel is 18.5mm across - the main section.
That is not allowing for any coupling distance.
It is difficult to compare without an engineering drawing of both units.

cheers
Allan
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 22-12-2014, 10:23 PM
alpal's Avatar
alpal
Registered User

alpal is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregbradley View Post
Its thin at 17mm but it looks like the adapters that go on each side may attach to the outside of it (the holes for screws?).

So that will lose the thinness advantage (it may add 10mm or more?). The FLI filter wheel has a recessed area for the adapters and the CFW 4/5 is 20mm thick.

Greg.
Hi Greg,
as I said they should supply an engineering drawing of both units.
I can't find a drawing that compares them.

cheers
Allan
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 22-12-2014, 10:24 PM
alpal's Avatar
alpal
Registered User

alpal is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregbradley View Post
The FLI Microline 8300 has 16mm of back focus (the chip is 16mm inside the camera in other words). The SX Mini USB filter wheel is about 53mm from one side of the adapter to the sensor surface of a FLI Microline with a 50mm male threaded adapter (I am not sure if that is the SCT adapter they refer to on their website).

So if the scope has 90mm backfocus it should have room for the MPCC within that.

The SX Mini USB filter wheel seems well built plus a built in OAG would be really handy.

My usual setup is an Astrodon MMOAG which is very solid and a reliable unit but it takes about 35-40mm of backfocus. The FLI CFW 4/5 takes up 20mm or a tad less.

Greg.

HI Greg,
The FLI Microline 8300 looks like a better design.

cheers
Allan
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 22-12-2014, 10:27 PM
alpal's Avatar
alpal
Registered User

alpal is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,602
I got an email back from TS.
They reckon you do what Peter has done & run the QHY9 without
the nose piece because the filter wheel & coma corrector are left in place & protect the camera from dust -
I don't know whether it's air tight from moisture.

cheers
Allan
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 23-12-2014, 07:51 AM
alpal's Avatar
alpal
Registered User

alpal is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,602
Update:

I have written to Theo at Gamma about the QHY9m use with a 3" focuser & coma corrector.

I await his reply.

cheers
Allan
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 23-12-2014, 08:42 AM
multiweb's Avatar
multiweb (Marc)
ze frogginator

multiweb is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 22,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by alpal View Post
Update:

I have written to Theo at Gamma about the QHY9m use with a 3" focuser & coma corrector.

I await his reply.

cheers
Allan
The QHY9 mono is a pretty small sensor so you don't need a huge corrected imaging circle. You'll be alright IMHO.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 23-12-2014, 11:14 PM
alpal's Avatar
alpal
Registered User

alpal is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by multiweb View Post
The QHY9 mono is a pretty small sensor so you don't need a huge corrected imaging circle. You'll be alright IMHO.

Thanks,
The design of both the 12" f/3 & the 10" f/4 seemed to call for a larger focuser -
a 3" type otherwise there was 75% vignetting at the focuser.
Maybe I'd get away with it using only a KAF8300 chip with a 22mm diagonal?


Anyway Theo replied & it's ok to remove the nose piece & connect
the QHY9m camera directly to the filter wheel.
Then I gain another 15mm at least giving me 70mm - 15mm = 55mm of back focus.

This corrector:
http://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/...orr--Feld.html

A 3" type from ASA - top quality - allows 58mm of back focus
so I would have 3mm up my sleeve to place spacers.

Removing the nose piece only causes more power to be used to cool the camera
as it must cool a greater quantity of air.
On hot days I might not be able to reach the -30°C I have been using - maybe only -15°C .


cheers
Allan
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 10:57 AM.

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