161 replies to this topic

[Jeff B]

One feature I really like about these designs is the ability to dial out atmospheric dispersion.  To me this ability is not mentioned all that much but is very important.  I had a dramatic direct demonstration of this ability by a fellow Boston ATM'r about 30+ years ago who built a similar configuration scope 6" in aperture, F12.   Looking at Mars low in the sky, I could dial out the atmospheric dispersion and sharpen the image.  The difference was not subtle.

 

Jeff

[Psion]

Thank you very much for all the data and pictures Psion!, really a pleasure to have so many first hand information of the Zerochromat  (here and in your country forum), although you are going to be "guilty" that there is a Super Zerochromat 10" preparing to come to my house in some months! , thank you very much again and do not hesitate comment more things that is always a joy to read you 

 

Best regards!

 

I am glad to hear from you about the new 10" Zerochromat!! I would like to help to our friends who thinking about the Zerochromat and I make sometimes a few photos.

 

Jeff B: It is a nice function to reduce atmospheric diffraction on the planets, this is very useful especially in this time!

 

Picture from BW camera DMK 21AU618 day ago.

 

[jrbarnett]

Nice Moon pictures.  

 

But a serious question.  Why would one opt for one of these (given that they are still fairly large, fussy of collimation, heavy and not cheap, when for less cost one could instead pick up a C14 SCT?

 

http://oddstuffmagaz...001-580x435.jpg

 

http://oddstuffmagaz...002-580x440.jpg

 

http://www.damianpea..._2006_04_19.jpg

 

And there are going to be plenty of things a 14" SCT can do that this scope cannot on account of the aperture delta.

 

Regards,

 

Jim

[Bomber Bob]

"Why would one opt for one of these (given that they are still fairly large, fussy of collimation, heavy and not cheap, when for less cost one could instead pick up a C14 SCT?"

 

Good question, Jim - thanks for asking.

 

Some CNers have shared their lunar & planetary photos made with C14s that astounded me, and made me rethink the SCT for the type of observing that I do.  But, there is something special about the views through a long refractor.

 

I am glad that the ZC has moved from vapor-ware to rumour-ware to now a finished product with proof of its performance.  I'm no longer a doubter.  It gives us visual observers another option - and variety is a good thing.  If the ZC stabilizes and then adjusts to temperature changes better than a CAT, that's an important factor to us AA's with limited night time.  I can think of other practical reasons, but for me it would boil down to the views.  If it has those refractor aesthetics in a larger size, I'd be happy with it.

[mikey cee]

Yeah you're right on that too Bomber! Also I for one like the looks of a big refractor versus a stubby looking SCT and I really don't give a rip why that is.   Mike

[jrbarnett]

"Why would one opt for one of these (given that they are still fairly large, fussy of collimation, heavy and not cheap, when for less cost one could instead pick up a C14 SCT?"

 

Good question, Jim - thanks for asking.

 

Some CNers have shared their lunar & planetary photos made with C14s that astounded me, and made me rethink the SCT for the type of observing that I do.  But, there is something special about the views through a long refractor.

 

I am glad that the ZC has moved from vapor-ware to rumour-ware to now a finished product with proof of its performance.  I'm no longer a doubter.  It gives us visual observers another option - and variety is a good thing.  If the ZC stabilizes and then adjusts to temperature changes better than a CAT, that's an important factor to us AA's with limited night time.  I can think of other practical reasons, but for me it would boil down to the views.  If it has those refractor aesthetics in a larger size, I'd be happy with it.

Totally agree that there can never be too many options, Bob.

 

And I get the better/quicker acclimation for a ZC than a larger aperture scope.

 

But it looks to me like ZC struggles in bad seeing much like any other 8-incher would, and that in good seeing its images (of the Moon; I think it has great advantage over a catadioptric for solar work) aren't as detailed as those of a C14.  The C14 is half the price in non-Edge and several hundred dollars less costly in Edge format, has less moment arm (but more mass, so might take a bit bigger mount (or not - I wouldn't put a ZC sized payload on an EQ6 personally)).

 

And yes, I agree that there is a certain refractor "aesthetic" that SCTs rarely capture, though Newts sometimes do.  But then when I compare the ZC to other $7k to $8k (or cheaper and smaller) refractors, sticking with Luna, am I really getting the same level of contrast per inch of aperture?

 

http://www.astro-que...b1a36&mode=view

 

http://download.psio...t_mozaika-1.jpg

 

The first scope is giving up 2.5" of aperture to the ZC and costs about $2500 less, as just an example.  And I realize that image processing, differences in seeing, transparency and illumination, etc., all make image comparisons less determinative that we'd like.  But I think I am seeing better contrast in the first image than the second.

 

As I said, I am all for choices, but likewise newer isn't always better.  I think these are fair questions to ask.  This is not a small investment for most buyers.  If you could get equivalent contrast with say a $3k 6" APM ED doublet, that would make the value proposition for the ZC a little less appealing than if the ZC walked all over the $3k scope.

 

This one is taken with a C8:

 

http://cdn5.ianaiken...Clavius-Web.jpg

 

More food for thought.

 

Regards,

 

Jim

Edited by jrbarnett, 15 April 2016 - 07:48 PM.

[AlphaGJohn]

Jim,

 

I'm a bit surprised by your comparisons. The C14 weighs twice as much as the ZC and surely SCTs are more fussy with regard to collimation than a ZC (which, based on my conversation with a long-time owner, was never an issue). Speaking purely for myself, I have enough trouble getting my ~20 pound RC on and off its mount that I wouldn't want to bother with something twice as heavy. On the other hand, I've seen a ZC put onto a mount and I don't imagine it'd be nearly the problem a C14 would be.

 

You can always get a bigger aperture (and often a more compact tube) in a reflector than a refractor for the same (or substantially less) money; that's old news, isn't it? Those of us who hang out in the Refractor forum have already given up on such purely economic--uh, shall we just agree to call it sense? And proven that stubborn economically naive attitude over and over. I'm sure I'm past curing and no doubt there's others who are as well. If not, I don't suppose there would be a Refractor forum (except for folks who have smaller aperture scopes than are practical for reflectors).

 

The best scope is the one you enjoy, right? Let's look and let look, eh, regardless of how you like to collect the photons, n'est-ce pas?

 

John

[jrbarnett]

Jim,

 

I'm a bit surprised by your comparisons. The C14 weighs twice as much as the ZC and surely SCTs are more fussy with regard to collimation than a ZC (which, based on my conversation with a long-time owner, was never an issue). Speaking purely for myself, I have enough trouble getting my ~20 pound RC on and off its mount that I wouldn't want to bother with something twice as heavy. On the other hand, I've seen a ZC put onto a mount and I don't imagine it'd be nearly the problem a C14 would be.

 

You can always get a bigger aperture (and often a more compact tube) in a reflector than a refractor for the same (or substantially less) money; that's old news, isn't it? Those of us who hang out in the Refractor forum have already given up on such purely economic--uh, shall we just agree to call it sense? And proven that stubborn economically naive attitude over and over. I'm sure I'm past curing and no doubt there's others who are as well. If not, I don't suppose there would be a Refractor forum (except for folks who have smaller aperture scopes than are practical for reflectors).

 

The best scope is the one you enjoy, right? Let's look and let look, eh, regardless of how you like to collect the photons, n'est-ce pas?

 

John

Hi John.

 

Fussier in collimation in the sense that SCT collimation, while critical, is easy with just one mirror to adjust.  Collimating a ZC involves more, different adjustments.  Much like collimating a Rumak-Maksutov can be a nightmare compared to collimating an SCT.

 

And how about the comparison of a $5500 140mm refractor vs. a 200mm ZC?  The complaints about bigger and heavier go out the window.  Does it seem that a ZC delivers inch-for-inch performance with other refractors, or is it giving up some contrast which effectively compromises to some extent the aperture advantage?

 

I'm past curing as well, for certain, but if you can get equal or better results with something smaller and cheaper in an unconstructed design, then again there's the value proposition question.     Given that this is a forum in which we discuss the relative merits of different telescopes from the consumer perspective, I think these are valid and relevant questions that pretty much anyone considering any scope would logically ask.

 

I'm certainly interested in reading more user reports especially from multiple different users about this design.  But as a guy surrounded by engineers in both family and co-workers, I know for a fact that not every new development is progress.  Otherwise there'd be no jobs for product managers.  

 

Regards,

 

Jim

Edited by jrbarnett, 15 April 2016 - 11:07 PM.

[jrbarnett]

 

Thank you very much for all the data and pictures Psion!, really a pleasure to have so many first hand information of the Zerochromat  (here and in your country forum), although you are going to be "guilty" that there is a Super Zerochromat 10" preparing to come to my house in some months! , thank you very much again and do not hesitate comment more things that is always a joy to read you 

 

Best regards!

 

I am glad to hear from you about the new 10" Zerochromat!! I would like to help to our friends who thinking about the Zerochromat and I make sometimes a few photos.

 

Jeff B: It is a nice function to reduce atmospheric diffraction on the planets, this is very useful especially in this time!

 

Picture from BW camera DMK 21AU618 day ago.

 

 

The scope seems ideal for solar.

 

- Jim

[Jeff B]

 

 

Thank you very much for all the data and pictures Psion!, really a pleasure to have so many first hand information of the Zerochromat  (here and in your country forum), although you are going to be "guilty" that there is a Super Zerochromat 10" preparing to come to my house in some months! , thank you very much again and do not hesitate comment more things that is always a joy to read you 

 

Best regards!

 

I am glad to hear from you about the new 10" Zerochromat!! I would like to help to our friends who thinking about the Zerochromat and I make sometimes a few photos.

 

Jeff B: It is a nice function to reduce atmospheric diffraction on the planets, this is very useful especially in this time!

 

Picture from BW camera DMK 21AU618 day ago.

 

 

The scope seems ideal for solar.

 

- Jim

 

 

Maybe.  I would imagine a full aperture filter is needed to protect the coatings of the mirrors from intense heating, particularly the second one, unless it was dedicated to solar with uncoated mirrors.  But a good old 8" F9-12 achromat with a wedge and filters can be a stunning solar scope too.

 

Jeff

[Psion]

You cannot compare the picture from a different telescope and different places  from different authors. I am not Lunar or planets photographer, this is only about seeing and experience with processing.

 

The Zerochromat is superb for solar astronomy, indeed. I always visited Czech astronomy meeting in our country and anybody hasn't the picture of the Sun, like in the Zerochromat. I have also TEC 140, but Zerochromat has a better picture (I use binoviewer Zeiss Mark V and Panoptic 24mm). I can compare it with large SCT, long Newton, long achromats but any telescope produced a picture like the Zerochromat. I can see very sharp and detailed picture also on the Moon. This is not photography equipment, but great telescope for observing. Good old achromat 8" F12 cannot weight 14kg and hasn't length 150 cm and cannot reach a quality of the Zerochromat with a ratio only F9-F12 I think.

[Psion]

This is a picture from this week (without cutting). The camera is Fuji X-Pro1 (APS-C) directly in a focuser of the Zerochromat telescope, and a chimney (distance 198 m). You can see a little bit violet-blue fringe (you can clean fringe by Adobe software), but in an eyepiece is the picture sharper and without fringe in magnification 135x.

 

Edited by Psion, 16 April 2016 - 01:33 AM.

[Fhuyu]

But a serious question.  Why would one opt for one of these (given that they are still fairly large, fussy of collimation, heavy and not cheap, when for less cost one could instead pick up a C14 SCT?

 

Hi Jim!,

 

As always a pleasure to read you !, in my case, the reasons to buy a Super Zerochromat 10"are (I apologize in advance, it is very difficult for me to write in English, excuse me if I make mistakes):

 

1) I love refractors:  are with those who most enjoy watching, I do not mean that I do not like the dobson, SC, reflectors ... on the contrary I love all the models, but simply for money, space and needs can not afford all, so in my roadmap telescopes, at the moment I only have in mind the refractors as priority are the most make me enjoy (I like the kind of image they give us, contrast, design, use, comfort, acclimatization time ...). In the future there will be other possibilities   

 

2) Visual: I am a 100% visual user, for this moment is my priority I do not take pictures with the zerochromat. Visual observation of the solar sistem targets, and DSO ... perfectly meets my goals and gives good performance. Can be overcome at any point the Zerochromat, like any other telescope, but as a whole it fits me perfectly. And if I want lees aperture and better resolution I have the Zeiss APQ 130, and in the future I hope have a 6” telescope of high quality level, I can complement very well my telescopes with diferent apertures/characteristics for every need I will have, with the Super Zerochromat I get big aperture that is what makes me happy   

 

3) Inches Aperture/price: for my new purchase, I remove the option of other types of telescopes, and stay in the range of refractors, I want the largest possible number of inches as a priority (at this time), and it will be portable since I have not fixed observatory at the moment.
10" at that price/quality are awesome, and it's also f12!

 

4) Weight / Measurements: Since I have no fixed observatory at the moment, and I like using Alt-Azimuth Mounts (without battery, without weights, without much fuss of things to move it, just remove the mount, put the telescope and enjoy 10" grab and go    , from my house to the garden -a couple of meters-, if it were not for this folded 10" f/12 telescope, I could not use a 10" refractor). The materials (carbon fiber) seem suitable for this case. The measures are contained, the telescope have 2200mm (86.6 "), when they should be more than 3 meters (118")    

 

In addition, due to a illness I have, and also for back problems, I do not exceed 20kg (44lb) weight in the telescope, and 20kg in the mount, so 10" Zerochromat is top for me in that range, 18,5kg (40,8lb)! (amazing!!!), for my tastes/needs any achromates or apochromates on the market can not compete with that weight at that level of aperture and at that price. I do not say that there is no other telescope better , or better to other users, for me it is perfect, and make me happy user of it   

 

To be continued...

Edited by Fhuyu, 16 April 2016 - 05:49 AM.

[Fhuyu]

...

 

5) Design: interior and exterior, I am very curious and I really want to try such an interesting optical design, it seems a very clever solution and I am very pleased at this time to be able to have a refractor folded. I like a lot the exterior design, it seems very classic and reminds me to some of the old observatory telescopes   

  

6) The, heviest weight in the telescope is in the section of the eyepiece: I like that, the greatest weight in the Zerochromat is near the eyepiece, as well said Psion so it is easier to put in the saddle in a more comfortable position, and it is appreciated when observe.

 

7) Cooling time: I think for that size, is great compared with other refractors in the same  aperture size, I think it's another plus.

 

9) "Atmospheric dispersion correction": I want to try it just now!    , I do not know another refractor in the market, that have it. And it look very easy to use. Very curious about it, and eager to prove it, seems to me useful when the under appropriate circumstances.

 

10) Very easy collimation, as it says "wiseone" in another post -> "Collimation is very easy indeed, as the small mirror is fixed, and the large fold flat is adjustable while observing through the instrument. I have travelled about all over, and the collimation does not move."

 

11) Deal with the creator/vendor: no intermediaries, it is easy to contact with Peter Wise by his web, ask questions to him, it is very pleasant and attentive, very willing to help and solve problems. He even offered to make the delivery of Zerochromat 10" to my home taking advantage of a trip that he had, and that we live in different countries!, so the telescope arrives in perfect condition (and I don’t knew him before I contacted him a few days ago).

 

12) Delivery time: 3-4 months, for a 10" telescope I think it's great.

 

 

In summary:

 

For me, at this time, with the roadmap telescopes I want to have and use, is the most successful 10" f12 telescope in that price-quality-weight-aperture-mobility for me is perfect  (about my needs and tastes this option rocks, I do not defend it was the best option for anyone, or the higher quality telescope, logically if I could have for example a Takahashi FCT-250 it would be great, but compared to the Super Zerochromat 10" "only" gives me and incredibleeeeeeeee image quality (  ), and the other points only loses for my needs (I would love taka!!!!, but for the price/ weight/ observatory price /mount price / delivery times/ ease of contact with Taka from my country / cooling time ...) they make it impossible for me. So the Super Zerochromat allows me to enjoy 10" f12, grab and go   , with a weight and price totally acceptable to me, and quality and ease of use really good for me (and further it have a great optical design how I'm willing to try, and a very nice outside design too).

 

Super short summary: ZeroChroma is the best option for me, until someone sells Apochromatic telescopes doublet triplets, with fluorite, weighing the same, with same compact dimensions, fast cooling, and at the same Price   . It seems difficult to have everything, but this telescope gives me enough of that wish list   

 

Best regards!

Edited by Fhuyu, 16 April 2016 - 06:35 AM.

[mikey cee]

Hi Fhuyu! My observing partner has a Celestron 14" that we observe thru off and on with also my own 10" f/11 R30 Istar. I have yet to see Jupiter better portrayed than in my refractor. The light grasp difference is not detectable to our eyes but the resolution and contrast are always better. So I know for sure that your 10" ZC will delight you so very very much. It's something that you just can sense every time you snap focus an image into view in a big piece of glass. You indeed have made the correct choice.     Mike

[Jeff B]

A local friend of mine ordered the 8".  Can't wait to try it out.      I'm always questioning my investment in my large APOs (TEC 200ED, TMB 175 ) so this will be another chance to revisit the topic.

 

Regarding my comments relative to the use of the Zerochromat as a solar scope,  I'm sure given a good full aperture filter it will give great views.  I'm just assuming it needs a really good full aperture filter for it work to its full potential and not cook the internal mirrors.  The trouble is, I've never found a really good full aperture solar filter.  I've always gotten better results with my refractors using solar wedges.   But obviously you are tickled with it's performance.  Yeah, I saw that Earth sized spot the other day.  Wow!

 

I've had personal experience with similar scopes and have always felt them to be under-appreciated..to say the least.  I'm glad to see them getting the attention they deserve.  

 

Jeff

[jgraham]

The few examples of celestial objects are very informative, the images of chimneys and roofs (for me) are useless. I recently bought a very nice spotting scope for bird watching. I was very happy with the daylight views of birds, trees, beavers, roofs, and chimneys. However, when I used it on celestial targets the views were less than satisfactory, dare I say yuck. I mean really yuck. I'm glad that the ZC is working well and has found a market and I hope that their owners enjoy them. In the mean time I'll enjoy my little spotting scope for daylight use and forget using it at night.

[Psion]

A daylight is very good for testing a telescope, but you have to use bigger magnification or a camera. I make some photos from the Swarovski ATX 30-70 and the Kowa TSN-883 (CaF2) and you can see the quality and a better resolution of the Kowa spotting telescope.

 

http://posec.astro.c...a_TSN_883-3.jpg

 

http://posec.astro.c...ovski_ATX-3.jpg

[AlphaGJohn]

Hey Jim!

 

Classy of you to put a Like on my post from yesterday. I think the question RE collimation was answered by the eager buyer of the 10" ZC above.

 

To me the ZC is a slick design that makes a surprisingly large-aperture refractor moderately affordable; with color correction that would not be affordable at the aperture in question with a more conventional APO or even ED APO design--you could maybe get a new, high-quality achromat objective for the cost of an equivalently-sized ZC scope. And it's impressively compact for a refractor of the f-ratio in question. You're also getting a small lot/hand-crafted scope rather than something made in quantity in a factory setting. A ZC comes with a few extra goodies too: the motorized Moonlight focuser, for instance.

 

Is all that worth the price premium? Well, is an AP refractor worth the premium price? Not to me, but I can at least consider a ZC--in practical terms I may never be able to justify one given how little opportunity I get to use my RC at good dark sites. But at this point, I don't think there's really any question that the design is as good as the maker claims it to be. I think we've had enough reports from experienced observers that the design and execution of the ZC has to be considered demonstrated.

 

On the other hand, if I manage to accumulate enough vacation time to get to the Rocky Mountain Star Stare this summer (new job not much time off available), I sure won't pass up any offered views through a C14--or even a C8 :-)

 

Wishing you all fewer clouds and more time under the sky!

 

John

Edited by AlphaGJohn, 17 April 2016 - 12:20 AM.

[Psion]

I observed the Sun during this week (star party, there were 91 people), I saw incredible details on the surface, this is true Solar telescope! Lot of people told me, I never seen this details in any telescope before including big APO.

[39.1N84.5W]

Waiting on my Z from Wales. Totally understand and looking forward!

[Psion]

The picture from a last star party.

 

Edited by Psion, 07 May 2016 - 01:22 AM.

[Psion]

The Moon from today, camera ASI120MC, barlow 2x and the Zerochromat.

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[Sasa]

I observed the Sun during this week (star party, there were 91 people), I saw incredible details on the surface, this is true Solar telescope! Lot of people told me, I never seen this details in any telescope before including big APO.

 

I can confirm that (I'm one of those guys on the picture from the party). In particular I liked the look of the solar granulation. This was for the first time, I could discern shapes of individual granules. 

[Psion]

The Moon from today, the camera ASI120MC

Attached Thumbnails

•