#1  
Old 01-07-2021, 02:20 PM
Hans Tucker (Hans)
Registered User

Hans Tucker is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,773
AP130GTX Question

Any owner of a AP130GTX imaged, without any reducer, at the native f6.3. Does the scope need the Prime Focus Field Flattener or do people opt to go faster and use the QUADTCC?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-07-2021, 03:13 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 17,169
Depends on the size of the sensor.

A full frame sensor will need the flattener. An APSc sensor probably also but these smaller sensors like the ASI533 may not.

Quad TCC gives F4.5 and a wider field of view with excellent correction. Its very sensitive to spacing. The flattener is more forgiving.

I have and use both. My 130GT is essentially the same performance as the GTX per Roland. The GTX has a bit wider colour correction but mainly it was to
make all lenses spherical and easier to make as opposed to the GT which has an aspherical lens element.

Greg.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-07-2021, 08:56 PM
DavidTrap's Avatar
DavidTrap (David)
Really just a beginner

DavidTrap is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 3,011
I have the both. Haven't yet used the flattener, but thought it might give me the option of a slightly longer focal length that might suit some objects.

I assume that the flattener will be needed for the full frame sensor I have.

DT
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-07-2021, 11:22 PM
Peter Ward's Avatar
Peter Ward
Galaxy hitchhiking guide

Peter Ward is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 7,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans Tucker View Post
Any owner of a AP130GTX imaged, without any reducer, at the native f6.3. Does the scope need the Prime Focus Field Flattener or do people opt to go faster and use the QUADTCC?
I have both the FFC and QUAD reducer. The faster f-ratio is moot, it's more a case of wider field.

As for edge correction, in native format at F6.3 neither of will 35mm or APS_C cut it.

In either case stars look like small comets at the edges.

A hairy eyeball won't notice. Royal Greenwich might. The Malin's certainly will.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 13-07-2021, 07:33 AM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 17,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidTrap View Post
I have the both. Haven't yet used the flattener, but thought it might give me the option of a slightly longer focal length that might suit some objects.

I assume that the flattener will be needed for the full frame sensor I have.

DT
Yes defintely.

Also the spacing for the Quad is extremely sensitive. I spent another couple of hours on it last night and got it to ideal. But just a few mm wrong gives you rather bad corner stars with the QHY600.

Those 1mm thick spacer rings AP sells are essential.

Expect to take a while.

Greg.
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 01:50 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Limpet Controller
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
NexDome Observatories
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement