Go Back   IceInSpace > Equipment > ATM and DIY Projects

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #1  
Old 20-03-2024, 10:49 AM
bojan's Avatar
bojan
amateur

bojan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 6,974
Idea for tilter for EOS camers, to compensate for sensor tilt..

Since I have a small tilt issue with my Canon 60D now, after IR filter removal (~20-25 /um, it was not easy to put the sensor tilt screws back in precisely the same position), I came up with idea how to sort it out without dismantling the camera again and without putting a too big hole in my budget..

The solution is to modify existing T2-EOS adapter (from ebay) to allow tilt.
All I need to do is to widen a hole in outer ring (with EOS adapter), and to add a collar (and glue it) on inner ring (with T2 thread).

Such new, enlarged adapter insert has to be machined (add curvature on outer edge) to allow tilting and three M3 threads need to be added on the bottom side for tilt adjustment.
Also, something elastic (rubber ring? steel spring?) needs to be inserted to allow precise adjustment for those couple of 1/10's of mm.


EDIT:
Of course, the simpler solution is to add suitable shims between insert and outer ring, with just a small reduction in insert ring diameter (0.2~3 mm to allow for tilt).
This solution is better for smaller tilt adjustment.. I will have to check first with shims between camera and adapter (bayonet)
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (c_67.jpg)
35.0 KB23 views
Click for full-size image (c_68.jpg)
16.5 KB29 views
Click for full-size image (c_69.jpg)
28.2 KB31 views
Click for full-size image (c_86.jpg)
206.8 KB41 views

Last edited by bojan; 20-03-2024 at 04:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-05-2024, 11:23 PM
Cyberman (Rob)
Registered User

Cyberman is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 128
Bojan, looking at your abberation analysis, it might be the distance from sensor to corrector that needs adjustment.The coma looks similar in all 4 corners. I could be wrong as I am only a beginner. I am sure there are more experienced people than me on IIS that could help. Rob.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-05-2024, 08:06 AM
Ryderscope's Avatar
Ryderscope (Rodney)
Registered User

Ryderscope is offline
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Glanmire, NSW
Posts: 2,220
Just to back up what Rob has said, it is worth getting the set back distance correct before trying to adjust the tilt. The concentric stars around the edge of the field indicate that there is too much spacing and therefore the set back distance needs to be reduced. See attached diagram. Reviewing your attached aberration diagram, it does indicate that the stars in the top right have a very slightly reduced concentric nature to them so you may find some residual tilt there once the set back distance is correct.

A quick test that can be done to confirm this is to move the focuser inwards by very small amounts whilst taking test images. You should see the concentric stars move towards round stars whilst the stars in the centre go out of focus.

CS,
Rodney
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (IMG_1080.jpeg)
135.7 KB23 views
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-05-2024, 09:25 AM
bojan's Avatar
bojan
amateur

bojan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 6,974
Thanks Rob and Rodney for comments :-)
As to distance from flattener... My setup is C11 and FF-FR.

I believe the image Rodney supplied is applicable to refractors only..
After hours spent playing with varying sensor to FF-FR distance by +/- 10mm, and using both Celestron and Meade FR, there was no significant differences in behavior that I could detect. So my conclusion was it was FR thing, and sudden increase in field curvature away from centre (both C and m Meade behave almost the same way), in the area already affected by vignetting (~6mm away from sensor centre).. So I decided to crop out the corners of the frame and keep only central square where those aberrations are not visible.
https://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/...75#post1558975


Generally there is not much info on the subject out there.. just a lot of confusion..
Funny thing, the best results re filed curvature I obtained with my "own" flattener - 50mm doublet (200mm FL) that came from old russian binoculars, but the coma and CA is slightly increased. (BTW, I have thread on this subject on forum, link is here.

Anyway.. at the moment I put this project (tilter) on hold for a while, but I will revive it when my circumstances allow.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-05-2024, 01:10 PM
Ryderscope's Avatar
Ryderscope (Rodney)
Registered User

Ryderscope is offline
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Glanmire, NSW
Posts: 2,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by bojan View Post
Thanks Rob and Rodney for comments :-)
As to distance from flattener... My setup is C11 and FF-FR.

I believe the image Rodney supplied is applicable to refractors only..
After hours spent playing with varying sensor to FF-FR distance by +/- 10mm, and using both Celestron and Meade FR, there was no significant differences in behavior that I could detect. So my conclusion was it was FR thing, and sudden increase in field curvature away from centre (both C and m Meade behave almost the same way), in the area already affected by vignetting (~6mm away from sensor centre).. So I decided to crop out the corners of the frame and keep only central square where those aberrations are not visible.
https://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/...75#post1558975


Generally there is not much info on the subject out there.. just a lot of confusion..
Funny thing, the best results re filed curvature I obtained with my "own" flattener - 50mm doublet (200mm FL) that came from old russian binoculars, but the coma and CA is slightly increased. (BTW, I have thread on this subject on forum, link is here.

Anyway.. at the moment I put this project (tilter) on hold for a while, but I will revive it when my circumstances allow.
Iím interested in the observation that the spacing diagram is applicable to refractors only. Ive heard this stated before but have never been able to track down any primary sources that confirm this. Do you have evidence to state that it is applicable only to refractors? If yes, I would very interested to peruse this. Also, it would informative to execute the test with racking the focuser in and out as I mentioned above with your system as I believe that it would give you more clues as to the issue. It could also answer the questions as to whether the diagram is applicable to refractors only.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-05-2024, 01:16 PM
bojan's Avatar
bojan
amateur

bojan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 6,974
No other evidence, except only a note on the top of the diagram (attached), which appears to be the same/similar to images you supplied but from the whole page (??)
Also, as I mentioned earlier, my setup is C11 (SCT), and I haven't observed much difference between star images in corners of APS sensors when I varied the distance... definitely nothing similar to what diagrams suggest.


BTW.. in this post (link below), there is a link to Telescope Optics website, where simulation of the C11+FR can be found.
At the time I was dealing with this, I had only Meade FR, which is slightly different in design to Celestron, but similar in performance.
I was thinking about putting those numbers into OSLO and play with simulation.. maybe soon.



https://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/...4&postcount=37
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (Reducer-CCD correct distance (refractors).jpg)
87.1 KB12 views

Last edited by bojan; 05-05-2024 at 02:16 PM.
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 01:45 PM.

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