Go Back   IceInSpace > Equipment > Eyepieces, Barlows and Filters
Register FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #1  
Old 03-08-2009, 01:28 PM
CoolhandJo's Avatar
CoolhandJo (Paul)
Registered User

CoolhandJo is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,809
What's the best field flattener for DSLR?

I was wondering what was the best field flattener/reducer for use with DSLR when imaging through an ED80. And also the same question when imaging through an SCT (10")?

I used my meade F6.3 on my LX200 and it left a nasty vignetting ring on the DSLR Canon 350d image!

I hear that Williams Optics P-Flat 2 may be the way to go with an ED80, but what about the SCT?

Last edited by CoolhandJo; 03-08-2009 at 02:48 PM. Reason: Spelling
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-08-2009, 07:09 PM
TheDecepticon
Registered User

TheDecepticon is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,223
It seems that the Baader MPCC is a quality product that is designed for fast reflectors, however many users are reporting good results with refractors also. This is what I use on my DSLR with a reflector. I believe William Optics does a couple as well. Hope that helps.
Gray.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-08-2009, 07:33 PM
[1ponders]'s Avatar
[1ponders] (Paul)
Retired, damn no pension

[1ponders] is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Obi Obi, Qld
Posts: 18,778
ED80 and FR review
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-08-2009, 08:53 PM
CoolhandJo's Avatar
CoolhandJo (Paul)
Registered User

CoolhandJo is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,809
Thanks Paul. Very very helpful link. Thanks Gray also. I will check out the Williams I think
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-08-2009, 07:53 AM
multiweb's Avatar
multiweb (Marc)
ze frogginator

multiweb is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 22,079
When I saw the title the answer came up to me straight away: the best field flattener for a DSLR is a TAK FSQ106 Seriously the baader MPCC is very good and versatile. I have one and love it. I heard the WO are good too but there are many different types (I,II & III now I believe) so you need to figure out which one will work for your combo?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-08-2009, 08:06 AM
[1ponders]'s Avatar
[1ponders] (Paul)
Retired, damn no pension

[1ponders] is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Obi Obi, Qld
Posts: 18,778
Marc for the stock standard ED80 the WO II works a treat, the WOIII doesn't float the boat (Got this info from Kris at WO ) but the WOIV is supposed to do the job. I hope to test one at Astrofest. Interstingly the WOII is hopeless on the WO Megrez 72FD and it apparently needs the WOIII. Sometimes I guess its a case of trial and error. What we need is to have a "Refractor and Reducer Party" sometime/somewhere to trial all the combinations. Shouldn't take more than a month of imaging to get it right.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-08-2009, 08:43 AM
Kal's Avatar
Kal (Andrew)
1¼" ñì®våñá

Kal is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,845
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoolhandJo View Post
I used my meade F6.3 on my LX200 and it left a nasty vignetting ring on the DSLR Canon 350d image!

I hear that Williams Optics P-Flat 2 may be the way to go with an ED80, but what about the SCT?
With regards to the SCT, the F6.3 reducer/corrector that you have is going to be the best option available. Unless you get a coma free design such as an RC or a meade ACF, you won't be able to produce a large corrected image onto a CCD/CMOS chip. Your best bet is to crop the image, use a camera with a smaller chip, or to take flat frames to remove the vignetting effect.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-08-2009, 10:20 AM
Kal's Avatar
Kal (Andrew)
1¼" ñì®våñá

Kal is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,845
Actually I should mention that both the RC and the ACF still have field curvature (their designs eliminate coma).

The new Celestron EdgeHD SCT scopes are coma free and flat field, but the prices in Australia are ridiculous.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-08-2009, 11:37 AM
Bassnut's Avatar
Bassnut (Fred)
Narrowfield rules!

Bassnut is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Torquay
Posts: 5,065
I use an AP0.67f reducer with a 40D on a 12" ACF, works well, dont know if it works with a classic SCT though.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-08-2009, 04:37 PM
wasyoungonce's Avatar
wasyoungonce (Brendan)
Certified Village Idiot

wasyoungonce is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mexico city (Melb), Australia
Posts: 2,359
I was reading over at Cloudy nights...before the site went bung...a few weeks back about an astrotech field flattener for the likes of the ED80.

It is not a reducer but from the images I saw it flattened the field very well indeed.

Probably google for some comparison images. (I think these are the images...not sure cannot get into cloudynights).

This site shows an opposing view on the astrotech flattener! hard to tell, maybe the distances between focal plane & camera were not right.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-08-2009, 04:57 PM
Bassnut's Avatar
Bassnut (Fred)
Narrowfield rules!

Bassnut is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Torquay
Posts: 5,065
I remember a few years back, maybe 2006, there was a manufacturing fault with Meade and Celestron F6.3 reducers (same factory, many ended up in OZ, including mine), they were assembled incorrectly or something, how old is yours?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-08-2009, 08:41 PM
CoolhandJo's Avatar
CoolhandJo (Paul)
Registered User

CoolhandJo is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,809
Thanks for links guys.
Fred, I purchased mine way back in about 2001 or 2002! Have had no trouble with it on a smaller chip through the F10. Just now using the DSLR through LX200gps. Attached the result.
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (Eagle-Nebula-f6.3-through-F.jpg)
123.1 KB108 views
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-08-2009, 08:56 PM
Kal's Avatar
Kal (Andrew)
1¼" ñì®våñá

Kal is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,845
Paul,

There is either something wrong with your 6.3 reducer, or you have the spacing incorrect.

As an example of what image size you should be able to get with your scope, check out this pic taken with an 8" SCT with 6.3 reducer with an Apogee 16 megapixel CCD. Various sensor sizes are indicated, your camera would be the third size out (or third size in), and you should be getting very minimal vignetting with your 350D.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-08-2009, 09:19 PM
CoolhandJo's Avatar
CoolhandJo (Paul)
Registered User

CoolhandJo is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal View Post
Paul,

There is either something wrong with your 6.3 reducer, or you have the spacing incorrect.

As an example of what image size you should be able to get with your scope, check out this pic taken with an 8" SCT with 6.3 reducer with an Apogee 16 megapixel CCD. Various sensor sizes are indicated, your camera would be the third size out (or third size in), and you should be getting very minimal vignetting with your 350D.
Kal - excellent! no need to purchase another reducer! thanks for this post!

The reducer is ok with my CCD, so I reckon its the spacing. I estimate that its sitting about 80mm away from the chip. Too close I'd say?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-08-2009, 09:21 PM
Kal's Avatar
Kal (Andrew)
1¼" ñì®våñá

Kal is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,845
If you look at the info page for that pic (here) he says that he was using 106mm spacing, although he has an 8" you have a 10". I'm sure theres someone here with actual experience that will be able to let you know of the correct spacing
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


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 08:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement