|
Mgauthier
member
Reged: 04/07/12
|
Help choosing between the 4se and 5se
#5161897 - 04/08/12 09:49 AM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
I recently found myself in possession of a nice shiny new NexStar 8se, but I quickly came to regret choosing that scope.
- The 8se + Celestron Eyepiece Kit + Powertank kit sucked up basically the entirety of my budget.
- I was given the fantastic book The Backyard Astronomer's Guide, and after reading about all the wonderful eyepieces available I quickly came to regret buying the Eyepiece Kit.
- The powertank was on backorder for the foreseeable future and a very, very long extension cord alleviated the need.
- That accursed book I mentioned showed me the variety of other accessories available, making the total lack of excess budget sting even more.
- I felt foolish as a newcomer to the hobby trying to use this enormous, expensive telescope. Yes, I know, there exist far larger and more expensive telescopes.
- I'm living at home at the moment, and lugging the thing downstairs in two trips plus a third for the eyepieces and other assorted odds and ends quickly became irritating.
So, the 8se is gone now, returned for a refund along with the other components of the kit, and I'm rethinking how I go about doing this. Portability is one of my primary concerns, with versatility tying for first. I've narrowed my choices down to the 5se and the 4se.
The 4se is two hundred dollars cheaper, and those are moneys I could put to great use elsewhere for only an inch less aperture (less when you consider the maksutov's smaller central obstruction). My main, single, overriding objection with it is that I have an f/6.3 focal reducer threaded for SCT's which I am hell-bent on using. For the life of me, I cannot find an SCT thread adapter for the 4se. Even if I did find such an accessory, my question would become one of vignetting. How restricted is the rear…opening on the 4se compared to the 5se? How bad would vignetting be with the use of a focal reducer connecting between the scope and a diagonal? Would vignetting be a problem with two inch diagonals? I'd love to get some of those wonderful wide field, low-magnification eyepieces for big huge views, particularly in conjunction with the focal reducer. This is me trying to get the best of both worlds- a long focal length and a short(er) focal length in one scope.
The 5se… well, I already know the 5se will take the focal reducer thanks to its standard SCT threads. The price jump would be a pain. In any case, I'd also like to know of any vignetting problems on the 5se. Would vignetting be troublesome with two inch diagonals? How competent would the mount be when loaded down with a DSLR and, perhaps someday, a guide scope? I hear some two inch eyepieces are not exactly featherweight either.
People seem to love the 6se, but the large mount puts me off, as does the creeping price. I suffered already from aperture fever. The 5se was my first choice, but a week later I just had to have the 8se, and I already explained how that worked out. I need to be able to carry the whole thing comfortably in one hand without banging it into walls on the way to and from the backyard.
...also, hello everyone! I'm Michael, and I'm new to these here forums. I briefly had a junk scope as a kid, but you all know how that usually goes. Now I'm back for more, looking for good views and looking to get into astrophotography sooner or later. And yes, the skies did turn slate-grey the moment I got my 8se.
|
Midnight Dan
Postmaster
   
Reged: 01/23/08
Loc: Hilton, NY, Yellow Zone (Bortl...
|
Re: Help choosing between the 4se and 5se
[Re: Mgauthier]
#5162173 - 04/08/12 01:07 PM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Hi Micheal and welcome to the forum!
Too bad the 8SE didn't suit you. The extra aperture would let you see a lot more than either the 4 or 5. But, I understand everyone has their own priorities, and if portability is big on your list, the smaller scopes certainly are a better choice.
When comparing scopes, keep in mind that the "extra inch" is more than it seems. Light gathering capability is determine by area, not diameter. When you take into account the central obstructions, the 5SE has almost 50% more light gathering capability than the 4SE, so it's a significant difference and well worth the extra money.
Just for reference, if you start with the 4SE as you 100% point, here's the light gathering capability of the rest of the lineup:
4SE = 100% 5SE = 148% 6SE = 212% 8SE = 405%
Aperture makes a big difference in what you will be able to see so I would go with the largest one you can afford and manage in terms of portability.
-Dan
|
barbarosa
professor emeritus
Reged: 04/11/10
Loc: "lamorinda", CA
|
Re: Help choosing between the 4se and 5se
[Re: Mgauthier]
#5162214 - 04/08/12 01:42 PM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
These specs are from the Celestron web site comparison feature. The values are for the 4SE and 5SE .
Angular Field of View (deg)- 1 ° / 1 ° Focal Length (mm)- 1325 mm/ 1250 mm Focal Ratio- 13 / 10 Highest Useful Magnification- 241 x / 295 x Limiting Stellar Magnitude- 12.5 / 13
Light Gathering Power- 212 x / 329x Resolution (Rayleigh)- 1.37 arc seconds / 1.11 arc seconds Resolution (Dawes)- 1.14 arc seconds / 0.93 arc seconds Secondary Mirror Obstruction- 1.38 in (35 mm) / 1.75 in (44 mm) Secondary Mirror Obstruction by Diameter- 34 % / 35% Secondary Mirror Obstruction by Area- 12 % / 12.3%
The 4SE is a nice package. The mount has accurate go-to and tracking and the image is crisp. It is excellent on doubles, the planets, moon, and brighter DSOs. I also have a C5 on a 6/8 SE mount and the C5. The extra inch does seem to make a difference; it sits next to the 4SE and I find I use it more for those quick sessions. I do think that the additional aperture is noticeable and it seems to work well with the f/6.3 corrector/reducer.
I observe from a suburb adjacent to a large urban white zone, so aperture really does matter. If you have better skies the difference might be less obvious.
|
Jmel
member
Reged: 01/24/12
Loc: Eastern North Carolina
|
Re: Help choosing between the 4se and 5se
[Re: barbarosa]
#5162330 - 04/08/12 03:07 PM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
I love my 5se, but it lacks one neat feature that the 4se has; a built in flip mirror. Other than that, I've been very happy with it. I only paid around 580 for mine when I got it in February on sale. At the time, the going price for the 4se was 499, so it was a no brainer for me. At 699, this is a much different subject.
There is a gentleman I met on another forum who has a bunch of photos taken with 4 inch sct scopes. It is one of the things that got me to decide to get the 5se and give away my 4.5 inch newt.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59237884@N08/6201530386/in/photostream/
|
Mgauthier
member
Reged: 04/07/12
|
Re: Help choosing between the 4se and 5se
[Re: Jmel]
#5162613 - 04/08/12 07:04 PM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
What I've read so far seems to be pointing towards 5 inches over 4 inches… well, I mean that's sort of obvious from certain perspectives, but I mean even when weighed against portability and price. Even so, $700 is a lot of money. I would still like to hear from people who've used 2 inch diagonals on the 5se and 4se, if anyone's out their who has. I'd also appreciate peoples' experiences mounting heavy accessories like DSLR's, large finder scopes, and the like to the 5se.
Also, I'd like to add the 102 SLT to the mix. How does the SLT goto accuracy and tracking accuracy stack up with the Nexstar SE mounts?
Are there any other goto scopes in this price range with these capabilities I should consider?
Thanks for the welcome, Dan! I'm not saying the 8se is a bad telescope, for sure. If my budget was nearer to $2000, and I could store it somewhere convenient, it would be great! It was just the wrong choice for me.
Thanks for letting me know how the f/6.3 corrector reducer worked for you, David, that solidly answers one of my main questions. I don't suppose you've used 2 inch diagonals with it as well? :P
Thanks for the link, Jmel, those are some fantastic pictures! A lot of them seem to have been taken with a 6 inch SCT though. They'd give me something to shoot for with my 5se, if I end up with a 5se. And you're right, at 580 this would be a no-brainer. About one hundred dollars more for one inch more; makes sense, right? Two hundred, not so much.
Speaking of prices, would it be possible for someone to tell me the cn discount rate for astronomics? Or would you have to shoot me if you told me?
Edited by Mgauthier (04/08/12 07:06 PM)
|
barbarosa
professor emeritus
Reged: 04/11/10
Loc: "lamorinda", CA
|
Re: Help choosing between the 4se and 5se
[Re: Mgauthier]
#5162760 - 04/08/12 09:18 PM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
I use only a 1.25 diagonal.
The 4SE as already mentioned has a built in flip mirror. The rear port is not SCT threaded. To use a diagonal you would need an MCT to SCT adapter and a visual back or an SCT threaded diagonal. This would also add to the focal length.
Give 'em a call at Astronomics and they will tell you.
Edited by barbarosa (04/08/12 09:22 PM)
|
WarmWeatherGuy
professor emeritus
   
Reged: 08/27/11
Loc: Orlando, FL 28° N, 81° W
|
Re: Help choosing between the 4se and 5se
[Re: Mgauthier]
#5163012 - 04/09/12 01:11 AM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
The mount for the 4se and 5se is different than the one used for the 6se and 8se. The 4se/5se mount has a built in wedge but no input for an autoguider. The 6se/8se mount has no wedge but does have input for an autoguider, or at least they used to. If you attach a guide scope you will be looking through it yourself.
I have attached a binoviewer with two fairly heavy eyepieces to my 5se. This caused it to slip until I tightened the clutch (an easy adjustment).
The light hole (on my 5se) looks like you wouldn't benefit by using a 2" visual back / diagonal / eyepiece.
I love my 5se.
|
Midnight Dan
Postmaster
   
Reged: 01/23/08
Loc: Hilton, NY, Yellow Zone (Bortl...
|
Re: Help choosing between the 4se and 5se
[Re: WarmWeatherGuy]
#5163170 - 04/09/12 07:32 AM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
When I got my 5SE, I tried using my 2" diagonal from my 8SE. I noticed there was VERY little space between the original diagonal and the base when pointed towards zenith. When I attached the 2" diagonal, it was too large and would not allow viewing at zenith without using one of the dovetail extension modifications.
Of course the reason to use a 2" diagonal is to access a wider field through 2" eyepieces. When I used my 36mm Hyperion Aspheric, I found there was quite noticeable field curvature at the edge. In other words the edge and the center of the view focused at different points. I also tried using a focal reducer with the same results.
In my case, I already had a larger heavier scope in the 8SE, and my intent for the 5SE was to have a lightweight travel scope. In the end I decided that adding the extra weight of a 2" diagonal, focal reducer, and 2" eyepieces didn't make a lot of sense for me. Especially in light of the field curvature in wide fields. I ended up deciding that I would just stick with a 1.25" light path for this scope.
-Dan
|
Mgauthier
member
Reged: 04/07/12
|
Re: Help choosing between the 4se and 5se
[Re: Midnight Dan]
#5163217 - 04/09/12 08:32 AM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Alright, thanks guys, that's just about all I needed to know. I'll have to rethink my ideas for a while, but at least now I can work with your real first-hand experience instead of countless dubious google searches.
One last question though; is it not possible to connect an auto guider to a laptop and the laptop to the 4se/5se serial port for guiding with ascom and phdguiding software?
|
Midnight Dan
Postmaster
   
Reged: 01/23/08
Loc: Hilton, NY, Yellow Zone (Bortl...
|
Re: Help choosing between the 4se and 5se
[Re: Mgauthier]
#5163305 - 04/09/12 10:00 AM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Not sure if that's possible or not, but for my 2 cents it's not worth worrying about. The SE mounts make a wonderful visual platform, but are not well designed for long exposure AP (astrophotography). Even if you use a wedge to get beyond the 30 second or so limit imposed by an alt/az design, the considerable backlash in the spur gears make long exposure photography extraordinarily challenging.
Folks on these forums have generated some surprisingly good images from the SE mounts, but for the most part are limited to short exposures of bright objects, or stacking of multiple exposures that are less than 30 seconds each. I would suggest that you start by trying to image within the limitations of the mount. There's a lot of fun to be had there, and a lot to learn about imaging techniques and post processing.
If at some point you decide you're ready to move on to serious long exposure photography, you should probably consider getting a GEM (german equatorial mount) designed for the task. One of the nice things about the SE series scopes is that they are connected to their mounts with a standard Vixen dovetail. This makes it very quick and easy to move the OTA from the SE mount to the GEM when you want to do AP.
-Dan
|
Widespread
sage
Reged: 05/11/11
Loc: Bowling Green, Kentucky
|
Re: Help choosing between the 4se and 5se
[Re: Midnight Dan]
#5165402 - 04/10/12 03:36 PM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
I own an 8SE, but have not used either the 4SE or 5SE. I'm also strictly visual.
But if you want the best of both worlds (long FL and wide views), the 5SE would seem to be more suitable, especially for astrophotography. With a focal reducer, you can reduce it to 787.5mm (59% of the 4SE's FL), which, on paper, gives a maximum TFOV of about 2 degrees. To me, this is an important threshold that can show the Double Cluster, Pleiades, etc. in a way that my 8SE simply can't.
The specs Barbarosa posted from Celestron's website show the field of view for both scopes to be 1*, but my understanding is that TFOV depends on focal length, and so it's hard to see how the 4SE (1325mm) and 5SE (1250mm) would have the same TFOV.
According to an online calculator, using a 24mm 68* EP for both scopes: 4SE: 1.23* at 55x 5SE: 1.31* at 52x
In any event, the 5SE's ability to use the 6.3FR makes the FL difference less material. Using the same calculator for an FL of 787.5mm and 24mm 68*EP, the 5SE should have a TFOV of 2.07* at 33x
As I said, I am not experience with these scopes, so this is all "on paper". If I'm getting something wrong, I hope that more experienced people will point out my error(s).
Green glass and high times, David
With the focal reducer, the 5SE should be able to get a TFOV of about 2 degrees. This is an important threshold that allows some of the nicest objects to fit in the FOV.
|
orion61
Vendor(Clear Edge Optical)
   
Reged: 10/20/07
Loc: NW Iowa BURRRR
|
Re: Help choosing between the 4se and 5se
[Re: Widespread]
#5170164 - 04/13/12 11:19 AM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Have you thought of going the used market? I got my nearly new 6se for $595.00 Shipped, with an eyepiece. I love it. Go for the 5 at least. but I wouldn't go back to the 5 (I had an origonal silver one) The 6 just steps up to the BigBoy section and is not that much heavier than the 5. But whatever you get enjoy!
|
barbarosa
professor emeritus
Reged: 04/11/10
Loc: "lamorinda", CA
|
Re: Help choosing between the 4se and 5se
[Re: Widespread]
#5170880 - 04/13/12 05:57 PM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
IThe specs Barbarosa posted from Celestron's website show the field of view for both scopes to be 1*, but my understanding is that TFOV depends on focal length, and so it's hard to see how the 4SE (1325mm) and 5SE (1250mm) would have the same TFOV.
With the focal reducer, the 5SE should be able to get a TFOV of about 2 degrees. This is an important threshold that allows some of the nicest objects to fit in the FOV.
Celestron's published specs are not always correct, but what it might be is that they rounded the result assuming about a 25mm /52 APOV Plossl.
In use the exact focal length and effective apperture is a moveable feast, because we add diagonals, filters, focal reducers etc.
Here is a comparison of the 4SE and a C5 (similar to a 5 SE). The target is three letters on a hillside about 838m distant. The letters are about 13.49m across. The full "SMC" subtends about 0.9 degrees.
The eyepiece is a Samsung SCB-2000 camera (roughly = a 9mm EP). A .5x reducer is mounted on the camera.
The first image is the C5 with an f/6.3 focal reducer.
The second image is the C5 without the f/6.3 reducer.
The last image is with the 4SE. The .5x reducer is still on the camera but the f/6.3 reducer cannot be fitted.
|
Mgauthier
member
Reged: 04/07/12
|
Re: Help choosing between the 4se and 5se
[Re: barbarosa]
#5171637 - 04/14/12 09:15 AM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Thanks for the continuing advice, everyone!
I've had my eye on eBay for a while now. 4se's and 6se's are a common sight. 5se's seem to be mythical beasts spoken of in hushed whispers at adventurers' taverns in the inky depths of night. I did see a used 6se sell for less than a new 5se, but I refrained from pulling the trigger. I could save a lot of money, but, on the other hand, I do like shiny new things...
Barbarosa, I only recently discovered the eyepiece threaded focal reducers. Out of pure curiosity, what happens when you use one of those 0.5x reducers on a 24mm 68*EP or something similar with both the 4se and 5se? Does vignetting become a problem?
In any case, I have settled on Baader Hyperion eyepieces. I can use them whether I end up with a 1.25" or 2" diagonal, they're modular, and I can get adapters to directly connect my DSLR to them for high magnifications, assuming I have a sufficiently sturdy mount.
In the end I may wait until midyear to see if the rebates I've heard people talk about come true.
Edited by Mgauthier (04/14/12 09:15 AM)
|
Midnight Dan
Postmaster
   
Reged: 01/23/08
Loc: Hilton, NY, Yellow Zone (Bortl...
|
Re: Help choosing between the 4se and 5se
[Re: Mgauthier]
#5171754 - 04/14/12 10:38 AM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Just a comment about field of view. While it might seem like a shorter focal length scope will produce a wider field of view, in the case of an SCT, this is not necessarily true. The problem is that the FOV is limited by the size of the baffle tube, which gets smaller in smaller SCTs.
Case in point - I did some measurements with my 8SE and 5SE a while back. I used a 0.63x focal reducer and my 36mm Hyperion Aspheric eyepiece. In both scopes, the view was clipped so I had reached the maximum possible field of view. In the 8SE there was just a sliver of black around the edge while in the 5SE it was more substantially clipped.
I measured the field of view by moving the scope in azimuth while observing a distant target at the horizon during the day. I took readings of the azimuth angle from the handset when the target was at one edge of the view vs. the opposite edge, and subtracted the values to get the true, measured field of view.
In the 8SE, the maximum possible field of view was 1.90° while the 5SE's maximum was 1.79°.
-Dan
|
Mgauthier
member
Reged: 04/07/12
|
Re: Help choosing between the 4se and 5se
[Re: Midnight Dan]
#5171838 - 04/14/12 11:18 AM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
So... if I used a focal reducer, and I wanted the full AFOV without vignetting, I would need an EP with a shorter focal length producing more magnification. In my mind this begs the question "why not skip the focal reducer and just use a longer focal length eyepiece?" It seems to me that the baffle tube will always put a hard limit on the true field of view, no matter what combination of lenses and fancy optical trickery you do behind the baffle tube.
I found a Celestron help article with the baffle tube sizes for many of their SCT's and a few Maks, but not the 4se. Could someone tell me the size of the 4se baffle tube?
Edited by Mgauthier (04/14/12 11:26 AM)
|
barbarosa
professor emeritus
Reged: 04/11/10
Loc: "lamorinda", CA
|
Re: Help choosing between the 4se and 5se
[Re: Mgauthier]
#5172073 - 04/14/12 01:34 PM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
So... if I used a focal reducer, and I wanted the full AFOV without vignetting, I would need an EP with a shorter focal length producing more magnification. In my mind this begs the question "why not skip the focal reducer and just use a longer focal length eyepiece?" It seems to me that the baffle tube will always put a hard limit on the true field of view, no matter what combination of lenses and fancy optical trickery you do behind the baffle tube.
I just tried a 40mm Plossl in the C5 and even in daylight there is an easily seen band around the edge of the image. It might or might not be tolerable.
A 25mm Plossl and f/6.3 RC has about the same FOV but to my eye is a better quality and better illuminated image toward the edge.
The .5x focal reducer that I use with the camera has standard threads fits a 1.25” EP. Not all .5x reducers have the same effective aperture; avoid those smaller than about 22-23mm.
I do feel that the f/6.3 CR produces a better image edge to edge than the image a .5x reducer on the EP.
EP design, your pupil size, and any optical issues, can have a large affect on which EP or setup is comfortable for you. I don't need glasses to look through an EP, but I also don't seem able to accommodate the big eye of long focal length EPs or extra wide field of view. The EP I use most is a 20mm 68 degree APOV (with and without the f/6.3 CR). The 24 mm version gets little use and the 40mm Plossl gathers dust.
I bought the f/6.3 for use with a video camera and then discovered it to be a nice visual accessory.
Buying a used telescope can be a learning experience, but mostly it works out. The major gain from buying new is the warranty and with most dealers a return period.
The optical quality of China made Nexstars seems generally to be good, so the real concern is the hand controller and the mount mechanicals and electronics. Fortunately, failure tends to be obvious. Replacement hand controllers are available new and used. Electronic components are more difficult to find, because Celestron sells only a limited number of parts. Sending an out of warranty scope to Celestron for repair can be problematic and expensive. Used parts in the after market are hit or miss. That makes the two-year warranty period very attractive.
I have three scopes, four mounts, and five tripods and only one of them was new when I bought it. (Reading that I see it is time to sell something.)
A cautionary tale---
Once upon a time a man bought a “almost never” used, but very dirty 4SE. He paid only a few chickens, not even a pig or cow, almost nothing. He smiled as he drove away. The seller smiled as he drove away. It was a very happy day.
Back at the castle, the new owner cleaned up the OTA, lubed and adjusted the mount and tightened the bolts in the tripod. Later he confirmed that the setup was very nice in all respects. He thought about his good fortune and smiled again.
Then the mount groaned, screamed, and ceased to work.
The Lord of Celestron had no parts to sell him. The king of used parts had none. Finally, a wizard in the Telescope Scrap Yard accepted a small bag of coins in exchange for a new part. Everything was good again.
Then one day the hand controller ceased speaking to the motor board. It would not speak to any mount. It needed a part no longer made in the Western Marches or the land beyond the rising sun.
The owner bought a used hand controller and plans to cast the scope and mount into the outer darkness. Nevertheless, as he was wise and paid very little, he will not loose any, chickens, pigs, or coins in the transaction.
|
Arctic_Eddie
Post Laureate
   
Reged: 12/30/07
Loc: St. Petersburg, FL
|
Re: Help choosing between the 4se and 5se
[Re: barbarosa]
#5172098 - 04/14/12 01:49 PM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
I've found the 0.5x reducer to be useful only on small sensor webcams like the Philips SPC900 and the Orion SSC2.
The FOV measured on my 6SE using the same method as Dan produces only 1.32° with a 2", 32mm, 68°, SWA eyepiece.
|
Midnight Dan
Postmaster
   
Reged: 01/23/08
Loc: Hilton, NY, Yellow Zone (Bortl...
|
Re: Help choosing between the 4se and 5se
[Re: Mgauthier]
#5172404 - 04/14/12 05:29 PM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
So... if I used a focal reducer, and I wanted the full AFOV without vignetting, I would need an EP with a shorter focal length producing more magnification. In my mind this begs the question "why not skip the focal reducer and just use a longer focal length eyepiece?" It seems to me that the baffle tube will always put a hard limit on the true field of view, no matter what combination of lenses and fancy optical trickery you do behind the baffle tube.
Yes and no. The baffle tube definitely puts an absolute maximum limit on the TFOV for the scope. However, the eyepiece barrel also puts a limit on the TFOV. It depends on which limit you reach first. Since the focal reducer comes before the eyepiece, it can change that equation.
The telescope projects a circle of in-focus light at its focal plane. If that circle is larger than the eyepiece barrel, the eyepiece will limit the field of view. If the circle is smaller than the eyepiece barrel, then the baffle tube is limiting the field of view ... *IF* the eyepiece is using all of that circle. That *IF* depends on the focal length and AFOV of the eyepiece.
A barlow doubles the size of that circle of light and a 0.63x focal reducer shrinks the circle by a factor of 0.63. Since this happens before the eyepiece, it affects how much can be seen with given eyepiece limitations
As an example, a 1.25" eyepiece in an 8SE maxes out with a 24mm 68° AFOV. But it maxes out there because of the eyepiece barrel size, not the baffle tube. In other words, the circle of light is larger than eyepiece barrel. If you use a 0.63x focal reducer, you have shrunk the circle of light so more of it (more TFOV) fits into the eyepiece barrel. So the maximum calculated field of view in an8SE with a 1.25" eyepiece is:
0.8° without a focal reducer
1.27° with a focal reducer
In a 2" eyepiece, the barrel is obviously larger so more of the circle of light can fit into it. This means that *IF* the eyepiece uses more than 1.25" of its barrel diameter, it will see more TFOV than a 1.25" eyepiece can. My 36mm 72° AFOV Hyperion Aspheric uses pretty much all of the 2" barrel. It's calculated field of view is:
1.27° without a focal reducer
2.0° with a focal reducer
However, with a focal reducer, the circle of light is a little bit smaller than the 2" barrel, so I see a thin dark ring around the outside of the field of view.
Point is, the eyepiece puts a limit on the amount of the circle of light that can fit into the barrel. But a barlow or focal reducer changes the size of that circle before it gets to the eyepiece. So you should always be able to see a wider view with a focal reducer than without ... as long as the circle of light is larger than the barrel when not using the focal reducer.
One more point - that business about *IF* an eyepiece uses the full barrel size. If you look at the bottom of most eyepieces, you will see that the bottom lens is smaller than the barrel and there is a black ring of metal around the edge. That ring is called the "field stop" and it is what you see as the edge of your view in the eyepiece. Shorter focal lengths have smaller field stops and therefore don't use all of the circle of light falling into the barrel of the eyepiece. Eyepieces with wider AFOVs use more of the barrel size and need a larger field stop. At some point, the combination of focal length and AFOV will use the entire barrel and then you have reached the limit for that size eyepiece. One such example is a 24mm eyepiece with a 68° AFOV. When you look in the bottom of it, you will not see a black ring. The barrel itself is the field stop.
Lot of words here ... I hope this helps more than it confuses!
-Dan
|
dgerow
super member
Reged: 03/18/12
Loc: Las Vegas, Nv.
|
Re: Help choosing between the 4se and 5se
[Re: Midnight Dan]
#5172584 - 04/14/12 07:21 PM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Amazing how Midnight Dan manages to always clear thing up so nicely. Such a pleasure to learn so much about this hobby from him. Wish you would write a book Brother. Cloudy nights is lucky to have you.
David
|
|
5 registered and 11 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: KWB, WaterMaster
Print Thread
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Thread views: 2732
|
|
|
|
|
|
|