|
Post by Dragon Man on Sept 23, 2017 7:06:58 GMT
Yes Alex, I quoted the US prices on the website. No good converting it to Aussie dollars because it fluctuates too much. People looking at the website prices can convert it themselves to their current dollars (or pounds or Drachmas or whatever) The camera you ordered is the exact same one as the RisingTech camera, just $17 cheaper. But I do notice that the company you ordered from likes a bit of false advertising: They didn't 'make' these cameras They are Touptek cameras made by Touptek. Same as many other vendors sell. The other Vendors also show photos of the factory workers making them (the exact same photos) but don't claim to make them. But anyway, besides all that, the camera is a great little camera. Lets just hope you got one of the later models that has slightly better Amp Glow reduction. Toupsky works fine. I have it, but prefer RisingSky. The only difference is RisingSky has adjustable Back point. Here's the 3 factory written softwares available to use: and of course you can use other software if you want, like: PHD Nebulosity MaxIm DL SharpCap MetaGuide Fire Capture Astro Art and probably others.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2017 9:00:54 GMT
The layout of the menus is certainly easier to follow than the LN300 I'm looking forward to play with the new camera. My first was a GSTAR EX colour - good introduction but it's limitations became quickly apparent. The LN3PP was a great next step for me. Showed me just how "incestuous" the camera fraternity can be... This new camera I'm hoping is the next good step for me, and is able to give me better anti light pollution control. I noticed in another thread that one fellow is using a light pollution filter with their IMX224 - I nearly got rid of my filter! I'm glad I didn't now!!! What I really like about the LN300 is because it's an analogue camera I can just plug it into a CRT or a portal DVD player and it works . I know I can't do this with the new camera Made things very easy for my lazy arse self... Alex.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Man on Sept 23, 2017 11:41:10 GMT
True Alex. It's so easy to connect an Analogue camera to a little portable TV or even a little car reversing monitor. Makes life easy. But unfortunately they just don't have the resolution. Atleast the 224 can be connected by a simple USB cable straight into a little 10" laptop. Just as easy as using an Analogue and a monitor. Actually easier because you don't need separate power supply. The laptop is the camera's power supply I have done this on a club night. One of our members had his big dob out and I asked if I could test the 224 in it. I carried the little laptop over to his scope and put the 224 in using a negative adaptor and had the Moon on screen in seconds. Here's a negative adaptor. It's used for getting more 'inward' focus on reflectors when using a Focal Reducer: No external power source. Just the laptop and camera
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2017 13:28:40 GMT
Clever adapter, Ken, I had thought about how to achieve further in-travel, and your custom piece is perfect for this small camera. Did you make it or have it made for you? Shame though that those 0.5X focal reducers are not good in Newts. I've tried one in my 8" f/4 Newt, and the field curvature was horrendous. Alex.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Man on Sept 23, 2017 14:59:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by davy on Sept 23, 2017 18:37:41 GMT
Nice wee project for uncle John 😁
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2017 23:08:13 GMT
In travel for my Newt is no problem. They have LOTS. The refractors are another matter.
The Newts however, like I said earlier are no good with the generic eyepiece focal reducer. Malincam I see has an FR for Newts - anyone use these?
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Man on Sept 24, 2017 2:37:40 GMT
Focal reducers work different in cameras than they do with eyepieces. Try the one you have with the camera first. The Mallincam one is still just an ordinary focal reducer. Focal Reducers are also mild field flatteners so there should be less curvature than not using one.
It's strange that you have plenty of in travel in your newts but less in your refractors. That is the reverse of what everyone else has.
As an example, I have to attach extension tubes on my refractors because focus is waaaaayyy outwards with a focal reducer. All my reflectors need more inwards travel. Check and make sure you aren't using a Barlow instead of a Focal Reducer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2017 23:11:35 GMT
Ken, I never said my Newts were "standard"! . They have been modified by your's truly, I honestly have never tried a focal reducer with my refractors, so it's something I need to try. Focal reducers actually work exactly the same with cameras as with eyepieces. Like eyepieces, they are designed for either a convex focal plane (produced by refractors, SCT's and Maks) or a concave focal plane (Newts), and better ones are designed for specific focal length and focal ratio. Match the eyepiece/focal reducer to the right focal plane, and the image thrown up is nice and flat. Have an optical mismatch between the eyepiece/focal reducer and the focal plane, and you end up with amplified aberrations such as field curvature, pin cushion and astigmatism. Especially as the focal ratio of the scope is made faster and faster, the aberrations become more and more amplified. You may have noticed that there are a variety of focal reducers/field flattners specific to a particular scope. This is because these are designed for a very specific scopes with a very specific focal ratio, and they are not interchangeable. Even coma correctors are designed for specific focal ratio range. These inexpensive eyepiece fitting focal reducers do a REASONABLE job in refractors, SCTs and Maks as a general all purpose reducer, but are not quite good enough for large format AP. They don't do a good job in Newts. My f/4 newt does not respond well to these. I got significant field curvature when I used one, even on the little 1/3" chip. That's why I'm wanting to know of people's experiences with the FR for Newt's from Mallincam.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Man on Sept 25, 2017 4:16:52 GMT
Alex, thanks for the clarification. That's stuff we need to know And I forgot you make your own reflectors
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2017 6:06:53 GMT
Ken, optical matching of EPs to scopes is one aspect that is next to never mentioned. Most people as a result expect an EP to work exactly the same in all scopes. They don't. And when things go wrong because they used an EP in the wrong scope type, they lay crap all over that EP. The Baader Hyperion is one such example. These were designed for use with a convex focal plane. Pop them into a Newt, especially a fast Newt, and you can see a huge amount of field curvature and pin cushion. There's nothing wrong with these eyepieces. Put them in a frac, SCT or Mak, and they are outstanding. Of the entire Baader Hyperion line, only the 5mm actually performs really, really well in Newts. In my 8" f/4 Newt, this eyepiece is sharp pretty much across the entire FOV. Every other focal length Hyperion is not an optical match at all*. The diagram below gives some idea of what happens with optical matching and mis-matching: * Contemporary EP design is based on a set of image parameters, AFOV as an example, this means there is actually nothing to indicate that the model range of an EP line make use of the same lens design. This is why you see some EP lines quoted as "using 5 to 7 element designs". A plossl EP is a STRICT lens design, 4 elements in 2 groups. Doesn't matter if its an 85mm plossl or a 4mm plossl, they all have the same lens arrangement. What you get with plossls is typically a 52° AFOV (upto a max 32mm in 1.25"). But as the focal length gets smaller, the eye lens gets smaller and the eye relief gets shorter. However, most contemporary EP designs look to have the same AFOV across the entire line, PLUS the same generous eye relief AND a nice big eye lens. There is no way in the world that a single lens design can provide ALL of these parameters. AND expect the entire line of individual EPs to perform the same across ALL scope types. Very few EP line ups actually perform really well across all scope types. They can't and they don't. To say they do means you are kidding yourself and just a sheep blindly accepting a cult myth. Convex focal plane is the easiest focal plane shape to design for. The concave focal plane is the hardest, and it is why EPs that work best in Newts are expensive compared to convex, and there are fewer EP lines for Newts. Big $$$ are not a garrantee of perfect performance in all scope types either. Some very modest EPs that tear shreds off some BIG BRAND EPs in the right scope type, but because their brand lettering is not "Green" or their brand name doesn't begin with a "P", these EPs are pooh-poohed by EP snobs. My eyepiece selection is not Brand based. My EPs are cherry picked by me that I've seen work best in the scopes that I have. I have EPs that I only use in my frac and SCT, but not my Newts. I have just a few that actually are sensational in all scope types. AND I have a few of these very modest TMB Planetary Type II eyepieces because they are flaming, freaking, bloody unreal eyepieces It might seem out of place all the above in a Video Astronomy forum, but it is important not to lose sight that our scopes, lenses, focal reducers and cameras are all part of an ACTIVE optical system, and to get the best out of our gear we NEED to understand optical systems properly. AP has nothing to do with it. It's all about optics. Alex.
|
|
|
Post by howie1 on Sept 25, 2017 7:30:40 GMT
Indeed, don't want to divert the thread topic ... but very interesting Alex re the EP's. I cannot resist asking one question even though it's not the threads topic. I modded the struts on my son's f/5 12" dob to bring the Canon to focus. Liveview on the Moon was ridiculously better/sharper/clearer on it than my 8" EQ mounted Newt. Been hankering ever since to (a) do some single 30 sec more or less shots for EAA on it; and (b) because the views were so good been wondering what using an EP on the 12" beastie would look like. I don't own any EP's using cameras for everything - including alignments. So Alex, you'd recommend the TMB's if any come up on the classifieds for the f/5 12" dob? Or from your experience something else?
Howie
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2017 23:07:10 GMT
Howie, Your question is not diverting at all. This thread is developing, and as it's in the General Posts forum, I see no problem Thomas Back was a renowned optician who designed exquisite refractors and eyepieces to suit. You will find the TMB planetaries and Paragon eyepieces work really well in fracs, SCT's and Mak's. The planetary type II line actually all perform quite well in Newts, though with differences depending on the individual focal length piece. I bought the entire 10 focal length range to test, along with four extras as duplicate QC control pieces. I tested them all in an ED80 (didn't want chromatic aberration to influence lateral colour control) and an 8" f/4 Newt (such a focal ratio is really punishing and will quickly reveal any optical mismatching issues). In the pic below, those pieces with the wider white band are the duplicate focal lengths. In Newtonians, the best performers (edge to edge sharpness, lateral colour control and ease of eye placement) were the 7mm, 5mm and 2.5mm. All the others still perform really well, and if you are limited with funds or just don't want to shell out a lot for eyepieces, they all are great, especially considering their price. And they all leave plossls for dead, with the same big eye lens, same generous eye relief, and a wider 58° AFOV. The weakest of the lot is the 6mm, even so, it is still pretty good in Newts. I often use my TMB's for my lunar and planetary sketches *** Be aware, however, that there can be QC problems with these. Of the 14 total individual pieces I tried out, there were four that were shot. As these eyepieces are readily available from Ebay, if there is a problem with your purchase you can get refund. The QC issue is the only real downer with these. It would be dishonest of my if I didn't mention the QC issue I encountered. Alex.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2017 3:05:31 GMT
Ken, I never said my Newts were "standard"! . They have been modified by your's truly, I honestly have never tried a focal reducer with my refractors, so it's something I need to try. Focal reducers actually work exactly the same with cameras as with eyepieces. Like eyepieces, they are designed for either a convex focal plane (produced by refractors, SCT's and Maks) or a concave focal plane (Newts), and better ones are designed for specific focal length and focal ratio. Match the eyepiece/focal reducer to the right focal plane, and the image thrown up is nice and flat. Have an optical mismatch between the eyepiece/focal reducer and the focal plane, and you end up with amplified aberrations such as field curvature, pin cushion and astigmatism. Especially as the focal ratio of the scope is made faster and faster, the aberrations become more and more amplified. You may have noticed that there are a variety of focal reducers/field flattners specific to a particular scope. This is because these are designed for a very specific scopes with a very specific focal ratio, and they are not interchangeable. Even coma correctors are designed for specific focal ratio range. These inexpensive eyepiece fitting focal reducers do a REASONABLE job in refractors, SCTs and Maks as a general all purpose reducer, but are not quite good enough for large format AP. They don't do a good job in Newts. My f/4 newt does not respond well to these. I got significant field curvature when I used one, even on the little 1/3" chip. That's why I'm wanting to know of people's experiences with the FR for Newt's from Mallincam. I use a home-made ~0.75x focal reducer on my 20cm f5 Newt. 15s exposure, GStar Ex3 Without With
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Man on Sept 27, 2017 7:20:31 GMT
Me too Robert. I like using my home made Focal Reducers. But I also use the commercial ones. I usually have 3 cameras connected at the same time so I have an assortment of gear happening
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2017 8:37:57 GMT
Robert & Ken, Do you have a link showing a how-to for your DIY reducers? Robert, impressive comparison pics, mate. I've post some pics taken with my LN300 & an 8" f/4 Newt from my home - M42, Eta Carina & 47 Tuc. These are photos taken of a portable DVD player, not a screenshot, so no computer processing, and as good as I could manage. I'm very much looking forward to improving upon these:
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Man on Sept 27, 2017 9:27:06 GMT
Robert & Ken, Do you have a link showing a how-to for your DIY reducers? Yep
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2017 11:12:50 GMT
AWESOME! Thanks mate! Blooming brilliant and easy to do. AND I've got a donor set of binos too
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Man on Sept 27, 2017 14:44:21 GMT
For anyone else reading this and wanting to do the same project, just make sure you use Astro Binoculars. They have the correct coatings. Not those horrible Red or bright yellow coatings people use at the horse races LOL! Astro Binoculars have a very faint (sometimes invisible) bluish tinge to the lens coatings. Avoid these:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2017 1:42:06 GMT
Robert & Ken, Do you have a link showing a how-to for your DIY reducers? Yep I followed Ken's construction method. However, I knew I had limited in-focus on the Newt so I had to design mine to take account of that. I used these formulae to calculate the focal length of lens required within the in-focus limit. www.wilmslowastro.com/software/formulae.htm#FRThen I bought a coated achromat as close as possible to the calculated f.l. from The Surplus Shed (cost about $4 USD). Theoretically it was going to be 0.8x, in practice it's probably closer to 0.75x but I can still squeeze it in.
|
|