Jump to content


Photo

mallincam with c11 f3.3

  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 highfnum

highfnum

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2421
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2006
  • Loc: NE USA

Posted 01 May 2013 - 05:30 PM

it was nice last night so
i took out the little beasty(C11)
and took a few shots - its been awhile
M51 M97 M 81

Attached Files



#2 highfnum

highfnum

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2421
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2006
  • Loc: NE USA

Posted 01 May 2013 - 05:31 PM

m97

Attached Files



#3 highfnum

highfnum

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2421
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2006
  • Loc: NE USA

Posted 01 May 2013 - 05:32 PM

m81

Attached Files



#4 Dwight J

Dwight J

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Joined: 14 May 2009
  • Loc: Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada

Posted 01 May 2013 - 05:34 PM

The C11, F 3.3 focal reducer, and Mallincam make a great combo. I use the same setup to great effect. Nice grabs!

#5 dragonslayer1

dragonslayer1

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1027
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2012
  • Loc: SLC, UT

Posted 01 May 2013 - 09:49 PM

very nice pictures, you have a ballpark integration time on the M51 shot please?
Kasey

#6 highfnum

highfnum

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2421
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2006
  • Loc: NE USA

Posted 02 May 2013 - 03:03 AM

51 was 56 sec

#7 Larry F

Larry F

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2211
  • Joined: 24 May 2004
  • Loc: Westchester, NY

Posted 02 May 2013 - 08:30 AM

Nice, John!

#8 Atl

Atl

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 501
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2012

Posted 02 May 2013 - 08:31 AM

Question about the colored stars. Are they the actual color or is this an artifact? My camera was doing this last night but I wasn't sure what to make of it.

#9 highfnum

highfnum

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2421
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2006
  • Loc: NE USA

Posted 02 May 2013 - 08:35 AM

some of that square looking green blue red looking stars are
'hot pixels' not real stars
1) did not have TEC on
2) proper way is to create a dark frame and subtract to get rid of them
3) these pictures are 'graps' as you see them on HDTV

#10 highfnum

highfnum

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2421
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2006
  • Loc: NE USA

Posted 02 May 2013 - 08:37 AM

thx larry

#11 Atl

Atl

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 501
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2012

Posted 02 May 2013 - 09:55 AM

Ok thanks...I am still figuring out what's going on with the images I am seeing.

#12 dragonslayer1

dragonslayer1

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1027
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2012
  • Loc: SLC, UT

Posted 02 May 2013 - 10:27 AM

thank you, you are using hyperstar it would seem with such a fast focal length? Which camera are you using? thank you, Kasey

#13 highfnum

highfnum

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2421
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2006
  • Loc: NE USA

Posted 02 May 2013 - 10:58 AM

no hyperstar- simple f3.3 SCT focal reducer/corrector
hyperstar is faster than that(2.0)
MCHP - mallincam today its considered older model

#14 nytecam

nytecam

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11513
  • Joined: 20 Aug 2005
  • Loc: London UK

Posted 02 May 2013 - 12:51 PM

no hyperstar- simple f3.3 SCT focal reducer/corrector hyperstar is faster than that(2.0)
MCHP - mallincam today its considered older model

Hi - excellent pics :bow: is hotpixel removal post processing? Regarding the quoted f/3.3 FR - is that a nominal value or the actual f/ratio on the scope? The two may not be the same. I run my nominal 3.3 FR @ f/3.6 but who am I to get technical :lol:My Owl PN from last night via Lodestar in 60s exp :rainbow:

Attached Files



#15 GlennLeDrew

GlennLeDrew

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10863
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2008
  • Loc: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Posted 02 May 2013 - 01:10 PM

With my Meade f/3.3 reducer and Mallincam (with CCD 12.5mm below the lens mount's front surface), the 60mm long 2" visual back w/ 2"-1.25" adapter results in exactly f/3.3. This tells me that the focus must lie 72.5mm from the shoulder on the reducer's cell. This shoulder I refer to is the edge which a threaded on adapter stops against.

It could be the case that more recently made reducers are somewhat different in dimensioning...

#16 highfnum

highfnum

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2421
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2006
  • Loc: NE USA

Posted 02 May 2013 - 01:13 PM

I don't know

#17 highfnum

highfnum

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2421
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2006
  • Loc: NE USA

Posted 04 May 2013 - 07:36 AM

a little late adding m101 same set up

Attached Files



#18 FishInPercolator

FishInPercolator

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 660
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2013
  • Loc: NYC

Posted 18 May 2013 - 02:17 PM

How did you achieve a f/3.3? I asked around how to do this with a C6 f/10 and was told with the Universe version there are inevitable problems due to chip size.

#19 A. Viegas

A. Viegas

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1085
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2012
  • Loc: New York City/ CT

Posted 18 May 2013 - 02:56 PM

Jason -

For focal reduction in a typical SCT at prime focus you can either use the Celestron or Meade F6.3 of F3.3 correctors, these you can usually find around used for $75-90. For Mallicam specifically, there is a MFR5 focal reducer you can buy that comes in two pieces, and can be put together in such a way as to get from 0.39 - 0.8x in reduction. This adapter costs $250. The FL on a C6 is what ~1500mm ? so I think you could probably achieve good results using a stock F6.3 corrector. I am not sure if the F3.3 corrector would produce too much vignetting on the C6...

Al

#20 Stew57

Stew57

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2552
  • Joined: 03 May 2009
  • Loc: Silsbee Texas

Posted 18 May 2013 - 03:55 PM

The chip size in the Universe is much larger than the mallincam extreme, X2, or VSS. Focal reducers work well with the smaller chips. You will get vignetting with the Universe with the above mentioned reducers. Celestron makes a specific reducer for large chip cameras and the HD line of scopes. These should work fine. There may be others but the reduction factor is limited.

#21 johnpd

johnpd

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 455
  • Joined: 12 Apr 2008

Posted 19 May 2013 - 04:44 AM

How did you achieve a f/3.3? I asked around how to do this with a C6 f/10 and was told with the Universe version there are inevitable problems due to chip size.


The camera he was using was the older MHCP (Mallincam Hyper Color Plus) not the Universe. With the smaller chip Mallincams, f/3.3 works fine. Also, as I recall Rock saying, the Universe is more suitable for larger telescopes.

JohnD

#22 GlennLeDrew

GlennLeDrew

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10863
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2008
  • Loc: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Posted 19 May 2013 - 09:36 PM

The Universe would work well with ordinary camera lenses too. It's not the aperture itself which is so important, but rather the field size you wish to cover. With Universe you could attach an 8mm f.l. (~4mm aperture!) fisheye lens to obtain an all-sky image.






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics