Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

CFF 250mm 10" RC Arrived

  • Please log in to reply
130 replies to this topic

#76 buckeyestargazer

buckeyestargazer

    Vendor - Buckeyestargazer.net

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4685
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2008
  • Loc: IN, USA

Posted 18 June 2017 - 05:11 PM

I kind of disagree on the camera.  There aren't a lot of high resolution images (under 1" or less) that have been taken with the 16200 yet and that is a lot bigger chip.  In addition to the mirrors artifacts you are seeing could be related to the flattener, tilt (internal or more likely from the focuser), the camera cover glass, filters, or even microlens.  I can tell you with the RH200 what looks perfect with on a Canon T3 looks way off on a ICX694 and in turn off on a ASI178.  I had to go through two sets of astronmik filters on the RH200 (granted much faster scope) to find a set that didn't cause tilt in the field.

 

 

 

You are certainly right that many different things can cause issues.  But there are still star aberrations that remain despite every possible combination of equipment that I have tried.  The camera isn't the issue here as these aberrations remain despite different cameras, with or without flattener, with or without filters, etc.  I have checked everything many times.

 

I 100% agree with you that the good mechanics are worth the price (if you can afford it).  Again, that is most of the reason I went with CFF.



#77 akulapanam

akulapanam

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2537
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2012

Posted 18 June 2017 - 08:15 PM

 

I kind of disagree on the camera.  There aren't a lot of high resolution images (under 1" or less) that have been taken with the 16200 yet and that is a lot bigger chip.  In addition to the mirrors artifacts you are seeing could be related to the flattener, tilt (internal or more likely from the focuser), the camera cover glass, filters, or even microlens.  I can tell you with the RH200 what looks perfect with on a Canon T3 looks way off on a ICX694 and in turn off on a ASI178.  I had to go through two sets of astronmik filters on the RH200 (granted much faster scope) to find a set that didn't cause tilt in the field.

 

 

 

You are certainly right that many different things can cause issues.  But there are still star aberrations that remain despite every possible combination of equipment that I have tried.  The camera isn't the issue here as these aberrations remain despite different cameras, with or without flattener, with or without filters, etc.  I have checked everything many times.

 

I 100% agree with you that the good mechanics are worth the price (if you can afford it).  Again, that is most of the reason I went with CFF.

 

Out of curiosity did you try and remove the flattener? Next to the mirrors that seems like the next most likely possibility.



#78 buckeyestargazer

buckeyestargazer

    Vendor - Buckeyestargazer.net

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4685
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2008
  • Loc: IN, USA

Posted 18 June 2017 - 08:26 PM

Well, yes, as I stated in my comments that you quoted.  smile.gif

 

I tried all kinds of different equipment combinations.  With and without flattener made no difference to what I was seeing.



#79 dpastern

dpastern

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1275
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2009
  • Loc: Brisbane, Australia

Posted 18 June 2017 - 11:29 PM

Well, yes, as I stated in my comments that you quoted.  smile.gif

 

I tried all kinds of different equipment combinations.  With and without flattener made no difference to what I was seeing.

With all respect to Catalin, I still think the best thing is to get the scope's primary and secondary mirrors optically tested at an independent and reputable optical centre (i.e. impartial).  No manufacturer likes to admit that they have a problem, especially publicly.  I'm not trying to pin blame here, don't get me wrong.  I'm trying to subjectively make suggests to get to the bottom of the issue by the process of elimination.  Hence, my prior suggestion of mirror substitution.  



#80 Rohr

Rohr

    Sputnik

  • *****
  • Posts: 29
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2007

Posted 19 June 2017 - 06:00 AM

@ #079 "the best thing is to get the scope's primary and secondary mirrors optically tested at an independent and reputable optical centre"

 

I fully agree, just the complete RC-system in front of a flat, called autocollimation.


Edited by Rohr, 19 June 2017 - 06:03 AM.


#81 coinboy1

coinboy1

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1241
  • Joined: 03 May 2011
  • Loc: Tulsa, OK

Posted 17 July 2017 - 05:15 PM

I would like to see more star test images, outside of focus and inside of focus. As well as using a Ronchi screen (can print on transparency). I follow Rohr's work closely and he has tested hundreds of scopes. I use his website regularly when making scope decisions and I can say my GSO RC10" had very good images compared to your CFF 10" RC test images. The reflections off your stars are very wierd and I suspect the surface is not polished smoothly.



#82 buckeyestargazer

buckeyestargazer

    Vendor - Buckeyestargazer.net

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4685
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2008
  • Loc: IN, USA

Posted 17 July 2017 - 05:46 PM

I was going to wait to update this thread until things were all sorted out, but since you asked...

 

I would like to see more star test images, outside of focus and inside of focus. As well as using a Ronchi screen (can print on transparency). I follow Rohr's work closely and he has tested hundreds of scopes. I use his website regularly when making scope decisions and I can say my GSO RC10" had very good images compared to your CFF 10" RC test images. The reflections off your stars are very wierd and I suspect the surface is not polished smoothly.

The mirror set I had in my 10" CFF RC was one of 3 mirrors sets that CFF ordered from Marcon Optics in order to meet increasing demand.  In short, these mirror sets have all been recalled because the quality was simply no where near the usual CFF quality that CFF/Tavi produces.  Side by side test reports from the Marcon mirrors and a CFF mirror clearly showed the difference.  

 

So now I am waiting on a new CFF mirror set to arrive, which will take some time.  Once everything is put back together I will be sure to update this thread accordingly.  


  • dpastern, coinboy1, KJL and 1 other like this

#83 KJL

KJL

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 452
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2012
  • Loc: Boston, MA

Posted 17 July 2017 - 09:31 PM

Thanks for the update, and good luck! You've got a killer-looking chassis there, that's for sure ....
  • Tyson M likes this

#84 Richard Whalen

Richard Whalen

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2842
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Florida

Posted 17 July 2017 - 09:50 PM

Glad to hear you have new optics on the way. I was going to ask" did you ever try an eyepiece" instead of a camera like a 31mm Nagler? Don't matter now as CFF has taken care of you.



#85 coinboy1

coinboy1

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1241
  • Joined: 03 May 2011
  • Loc: Tulsa, OK

Posted 17 July 2017 - 10:14 PM

It sounds to me that CFF did have QC issues but I am glad that they recalled the bad optics. I hope you do a thorough star test evaluation with the new optics and report back. I have my doubts with CFF after reading more of Rohrs reports on CFF scopes. They all seem to have not so great optics. 

 

I am sure mechanically CFF scopes are great, but I feel the premium paid for the scopes should include the optics and not just the structure. Thats why people pay big bucks for Takahashi, Zeiss, TMB, AP, and TEC. Their optical quality matches their mechanical performance.


  • dpastern and StarDust1 like this

#86 dpastern

dpastern

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1275
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2009
  • Loc: Brisbane, Australia

Posted 18 July 2017 - 12:14 AM

I was going to wait to update this thread until things were all sorted out, but since you asked...

 

I would like to see more star test images, outside of focus and inside of focus. As well as using a Ronchi screen (can print on transparency). I follow Rohr's work closely and he has tested hundreds of scopes. I use his website regularly when making scope decisions and I can say my GSO RC10" had very good images compared to your CFF 10" RC test images. The reflections off your stars are very wierd and I suspect the surface is not polished smoothly.

The mirror set I had in my 10" CFF RC was one of 3 mirrors sets that CFF ordered from Marcon Optics in order to meet increasing demand.  In short, these mirror sets have all been recalled because the quality was simply no where near the usual CFF quality that CFF/Tavi produces.  Side by side test reports from the Marcon mirrors and a CFF mirror clearly showed the difference.  

 

So now I am waiting on a new CFF mirror set to arrive, which will take some time.  Once everything is put back together I will be sure to update this thread accordingly.  

well that's excellent news.  All that matters is your scope gets fixed and you get the optics that you paid for.  

 

The big question is, and everyone else seems afraid of asking it, how did this slip through CFF's QA testing?  This either makes me think that they're QA testing is non existent, or very good, or they let crap ship with a "it'll be good enough" attitude and hope that the buyer/consumer doesn't notice.  I would hope that the last option is not the case.  But any of the 3 are not desirable in a business selling quality gear, and a premium price.  



#87 Catalin Fus

Catalin Fus

    Vendor CFF Telescopes

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 288
  • Joined: 20 Aug 2007
  • Loc: Krakow, Poland

Posted 18 July 2017 - 01:32 AM

@coinboy1 and dpastern

 

may I ask if you read my post #57 and #73?

In this case, there were compromises involved, compromises that were communciated to the buyers of all telescopes in discussion (FYI, there are 3 sets recalled and 3 sets will be remade at our quality level) and the buyer's decision was to move forward.

We're splitting hair with QC and with all your suppositions. 

 

Joel knew that I wasn't satisfied with the optical set and I had my doubts. We've agreed together that I ship the telescope and in worst case, optics will return. This is what happened. It was risk assumed. Period.

 

If any person from CN, will ever want to clarify any aspects of this business, how we're manufacturing what we're manufacturing, what are the options, risks, limits and so on, he/she can write me directly.

 

coinboy1 - all refractor tests from WR website are fakes or incorrectly made. All those refractors are used as we speak and all of them are up to specs after being tested by other optical labs.

It is obvious to me (even by linking them to the RC tests) that WR has another agenda and I'm 100% sure he's not 'independent'. You can believe whomever you want, we live in a free world but as an advice, trust everything using logics/statistics and a common sense approach.

We've sold over 150 telescopes in the past 5 years. What are the chances that only WR finds the bad ones while all the other opinions are positive? What are the chances that other optical facilities that have tested our telescopes (university labs, research institute labs, other testers) have found them to be as claimed while WR found the 'thiefs'?

If you really think, even for once, that WR is the only person on this planet who has tested our optics/telescopes, you can't be more wrong.

Unfortunately, many of the people who are following this person do not understand how to read an optical test. That's a fact and it is proven because many of these tests do show flaws (in some cases, big flaws or intentional omission of facts)....and people do take them for granted.

 

dpastern - there is no QC issue involved in this case. It's a decision and a risk assumed, as described above. Period. We don't let go of any CFF manufactured optics that are below specs or that 'we'll be good enough'. I won't accept such compromises for the profit given by one or two telescopes. Let this be very clear.

The Marcon Optics sets compromises were accepted in an effort to satisfy demand. I have informed everybody that all I can do is autocollimator tests and this will not be enough to prove the real quality.

It was a mistake to trust them (Marcon Optics) and take their interferometric reports for granted, lesson was learned, we'll fix the optics on our own and move forward. There is no bigger loser in this game but us (we'll spend extra time, on our own expense).

 

Thank You for reading and Joel, I'll keep you posted as promised :-)!


  • R Botero, Kunama, Tyson M and 1 other like this

#88 Kunama

Kunama

    Aussie at large

  • *****
  • Posts: 4674
  • Joined: 22 Oct 2012
  • Loc: Australia

Posted 18 July 2017 - 01:59 AM

It sounds to me that CFF did have QC issues but I am glad that they recalled the bad optics. I hope you do a thorough star test evaluation with the new optics and report back. I have my doubts with CFF after reading more of Rohrs reports on CFF scopes. They all seem to have not so great optics. 

 

I am sure mechanically CFF scopes are great, but I feel the premium paid for the scopes should include the optics and not just the structure. Thats why people pay big bucks for Takahashi, Zeiss, TMB, AP, and TEC. Their optical quality matches their mechanical performance.

Sounds to me that you have never had the pleasure of looking at or through a CFF scope.  I have recently compared my TOA130NFB 130 F7.7 directly with a CFF140 F7.5 using Ethos eyepieces in both scopes.

I would have no hesitation shelling out the dollars for a CFF. Not only is their build quality superb but the optic I viewed through was also.   I don't comment on brands I haven't tried myself.

 

I don't trust Rohr's reports any more than any other hearsay, I prefer to see the scope for myself under actual field conditions.  YMMV .


Edited by Kunama, 18 July 2017 - 02:09 AM.

  • Richard Whalen, akulapanam and donadani like this

#89 isoplut

isoplut

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 7
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2006

Posted 18 July 2017 - 02:54 AM

Hi all,

 

I have the pleasure of having a 12" RC CFF scope, it is a wonderful instrument with the highest build quality and superb optic, obviously more expensive than mass produced RC telescopes (they are good, I had one, but are we really comparing apples with apples?) . You are not only paying for the build quality and optics, but also for the amazing support level that Catalin gives; everybody make mistakes but most important thing is learn from them.

 

Put my two cents in.

 

A (really) happy CFF owner :)

 

Kind regards.



#90 dpastern

dpastern

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1275
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2009
  • Loc: Brisbane, Australia

Posted 18 July 2017 - 03:35 AM

@coinboy1 and dpastern

 

may I ask if you read my post #57 and #73?

In this case, there were compromises involved, compromises that were communciated to the buyers of all telescopes in discussion (FYI, there are 3 sets recalled and 3 sets will be remade at our quality level) and the buyer's decision was to move forward.

We're splitting hair with QC and with all your suppositions. 

 

Joel knew that I wasn't satisfied with the optical set and I had my doubts. We've agreed together that I ship the telescope and in worst case, optics will return. This is what happened. It was risk assumed. Period.

 

If any person from CN, will ever want to clarify any aspects of this business, how we're manufacturing what we're manufacturing, what are the options, risks, limits and so on, he/she can write me directly.

 

coinboy1 - all refractor tests from WR website are fakes or incorrectly made. All those refractors are used as we speak and all of them are up to specs after being tested by other optical labs.

It is obvious to me (even by linking them to the RC tests) that WR has another agenda and I'm 100% sure he's not 'independent'. You can believe whomever you want, we live in a free world but as an advice, trust everything using logics/statistics and a common sense approach.

We've sold over 150 telescopes in the past 5 years. What are the chances that only WR finds the bad ones while all the other opinions are positive? What are the chances that other optical facilities that have tested our telescopes (university labs, research institute labs, other testers) have found them to be as claimed while WR found the 'thiefs'?

If you really think, even for once, that WR is the only person on this planet who has tested our optics/telescopes, you can't be more wrong.

Unfortunately, many of the people who are following this person do not understand how to read an optical test. That's a fact and it is proven because many of these tests do show flaws (in some cases, big flaws or intentional omission of facts)....and people do take them for granted.

 

dpastern - there is no QC issue involved in this case. It's a decision and a risk assumed, as described above. Period. We don't let go of any CFF manufactured optics that are below specs or that 'we'll be good enough'. I won't accept such compromises for the profit given by one or two telescopes. Let this be very clear.

The Marcon Optics sets compromises were accepted in an effort to satisfy demand. I have informed everybody that all I can do is autocollimator tests and this will not be enough to prove the real quality.

It was a mistake to trust them (Marcon Optics) and take their interferometric reports for granted, lesson was learned, we'll fix the optics on our own and move forward. There is no bigger loser in this game but us (we'll spend extra time, on our own expense).

 

Thank You for reading and Joel, I'll keep you posted as promised :-)!

I presume English is not your native tongue (no slight intended btw).  

 

Firstly, you've said and I'll directly quote:

 

"In this case, there were compromises involved, compromises that were communciated to the buyers of all telescopes in discussion (FYI, there are 3 sets recalled and 3 sets will be remade at our quality level) and the buyer's decision was to move forward."

 

I'll interpret this as you knew the optics were sub standard (pre-sale), but communicated that to potential buyers.  This is not quality QA.  You do not knowingly sell sub standard items ever!

 

Post #57 says the mirror was tested @ .95 strehl, but you say that there's an optical defect that you're working on fixing (with the OP).  So, which is it?  .95 strehl optics don't usually have optical issues.  So, either the testing method was inferior (something that you allude to later on in post #87 "The Marcon Optics sets compromises were accepted in an effort to satisfy demand. I have informed everybody that all I can do is autocollimator tests and this will not be enough to prove the real quality.").  

 

QC means making sure that you [personally] can ensure quality.  It is never wise to rely on a 3rd party supplier to guarantee quality (imho).  Because, as you've found out, they'll usually lie to make the sale and you get stuck with the bad component and your name gets sullied.  

 

I find your eagerness to defame Rohr and his site a bit concerning.  Conflict of interest perhaps?

 

Product quality is important, and surely these forums allow users to pose questions in regards to potential QA issues?  

 

I say potential, because I lack the technical prowess to test the optics in question, and I do not have access to test said optics either.  I'm not saying I believe Rohr's reports (and I have no affiliation with him or any other user in this thread I might add), but the OP is experienced and has been unable to fix the issue and all things logically pointed in the direction of optical issues.  As I said in an earlier post, the OP should have sent the optical set to an experienced independent optician to eliminate the optics as being part of the problem.  

 

I'm not trying to attack you, or your business Catalin, CFF has a very good reputation of quality products (would love to own one but sadly, I am impoverished).  I'm glad you're helping the OP out and that a resolution is nearing.  

 

Clear skies.

 

Dave



#91 Catalin Fus

Catalin Fus

    Vendor CFF Telescopes

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 288
  • Joined: 20 Aug 2007
  • Loc: Krakow, Poland

Posted 18 July 2017 - 07:02 AM

Dave, 

 

I guess you misread or misinterpret what am I saying. Order of events is the following:

- orders were placed in 2016, far exceeding our capabilities. Delivery times were ~1 year.

- in order to mitigate the above, I've contacted Marcon Optics, knowing they deliver RC sets in another chassis, made in Germany.

- I've informed everybody about the options: 1 year or more wait or having a batch made at Marcon Optics, for which I will not be able to double - check their stated quality.

- the above information was transmitted to customers and I've mentioned clearly that all I can do is mount the optics in their chassis and not sending them for another interferometric report in Romania (where the reflector optics are done and where the interferometer is) due to time and costs involved.

- the decision to go forward was taken by all involved customers knowing the above.

- Marcon Optics was paid to deliver optics according to our minimum standard of quality -> minimum 0.94 Strehl.
- Marcon Optics delivered interferometric reports stating for all three optics, ~0.95 Strehl.

- autocollimation tests have revealed in one case, a problem, Joel was informed and he decided to take the risk.

- in two other cases, the problem was not revealed, I was easily able to obtain a clear artificial star image in autocollimation and for me that was a 'go'. 

 

Because an autocollimator will not reveal if a set is 0.95 (as stated in the interferometric report), or less, the situation is what it is.

 

Orders were taken before manufacturing started at Marcon so, definitely no, I did not know optics were sub-par and delivered them.

 

WR has something personal with us. This is how it started and I can't just stay aside and take punches. 

Even in the test mentioned here, there is no user who has realized that his measurement of 0.7 Strehl doesn't correlate with the star image provided. This says to me a lot. To many, it doesn't matter, which is not so good, for the sake of the approach to a problem.

I've been called a thief for free, I've been left with unanswered emails to real issues, for 3 years, there are simply fake tests on his website, that he doesn't want to take down although he was proven wrong, there are errors in measurement, there are simple details like aspheric figuring ripple waves of lambda/20 or less, which are taken as 'manufacturing defects' although they are not and the list can continue Dave.

All of the above and much more are pointing to something else, which is by far not well - intended.

Even his post, here on CN, it's highly unusual and I was contacted by US Customers asking what happened that WR posted because this is far from the norm....etc etc....

Draw your own conclusions.

 

Statistics concerning real user number vs quality control returns are heavily on our side. I'm extremely disturbed when truth is bypassed or a lie is nicely packed for sale....I simply can't stand it and will not stay aside to look how somebody throws mud in our direction, without any motifs whatsoever.

 

Why haven't we been contacted by WR?

Why haven't we been asked who's the manufacturer of the optics and any other details? (although both the customer and the dealer knew and I have no idea why the info was not passed on until later on)

Why are the links to fake tests in the first phrases? Are they relevant to a Marcon Optics mirror set? For sure, not...

..personally I don't know...and for me, this leaves to be desired in terms of approach.

We've been approached by other testers like institutions, businesses or individuals and none had the attitude nor the condescendence of WR. None.

 

 

'QC means making sure that you [personally] can ensure quality.  It is never wise to rely on a 3rd party supplier to guarantee quality (imho).  Because, as you've found out, they'll usually lie to make the sale and you get stuck with the bad component and your name gets sullied'

 

Yes, I knew that and assumed it. As written above, it was a risk taken when order was placed at MO, with customer's agreement and based on the fact that MO sets were already present in other chassis, made in Germany.

I doubt that Marcon Optics doesn't know how to make optics as they'll not be in business by now. Maybe I'm wrong, who knows...

For me, personally, as for the customers, the story is over. We will repolish the mirrors and they will receive what should have been normal, from beginning.

 

There is no question, whatsoever, concerning our (my) responsibilities toward our customers and we will never leave anybody with their problems unresolved or pending, nor we will run away from what we have to fix, if that's the case.

 

Hope this clears some of the misunderstandings of my first post.

My English is ...understandable, I hope.


  • elwaine, dpastern and Tyson M like this

#92 coinboy1

coinboy1

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1241
  • Joined: 03 May 2011
  • Loc: Tulsa, OK

Posted 18 July 2017 - 07:04 AM

@coinboy1 and dpastern

 

may I ask if you read my post #57 and #73?

In this case, there were compromises involved, compromises that were communciated to the buyers of all telescopes in discussion (FYI, there are 3 sets recalled and 3 sets will be remade at our quality level) and the buyer's decision was to move forward.

We're splitting hair with QC and with all your suppositions. 

 

Joel knew that I wasn't satisfied with the optical set and I had my doubts. We've agreed together that I ship the telescope and in worst case, optics will return. This is what happened. It was risk assumed. Period.

 

If any person from CN, will ever want to clarify any aspects of this business, how we're manufacturing what we're manufacturing, what are the options, risks, limits and so on, he/she can write me directly.

 

coinboy1 - all refractor tests from WR website are fakes or incorrectly made. All those refractors are used as we speak and all of them are up to specs after being tested by other optical labs.

It is obvious to me (even by linking them to the RC tests) that WR has another agenda and I'm 100% sure he's not 'independent'. You can believe whomever you want, we live in a free world but as an advice, trust everything using logics/statistics and a common sense approach.

We've sold over 150 telescopes in the past 5 years. What are the chances that only WR finds the bad ones while all the other opinions are positive? What are the chances that other optical facilities that have tested our telescopes (university labs, research institute labs, other testers) have found them to be as claimed while WR found the 'thiefs'?

If you really think, even for once, that WR is the only person on this planet who has tested our optics/telescopes, you can't be more wrong.

Unfortunately, many of the people who are following this person do not understand how to read an optical test. That's a fact and it is proven because many of these tests do show flaws (in some cases, big flaws or intentional omission of facts)....and people do take them for granted.

 

dpastern - there is no QC issue involved in this case. It's a decision and a risk assumed, as described above. Period. We don't let go of any CFF manufactured optics that are below specs or that 'we'll be good enough'. I won't accept such compromises for the profit given by one or two telescopes. Let this be very clear.

The Marcon Optics sets compromises were accepted in an effort to satisfy demand. I have informed everybody that all I can do is autocollimator tests and this will not be enough to prove the real quality.

It was a mistake to trust them (Marcon Optics) and take their interferometric reports for granted, lesson was learned, we'll fix the optics on our own and move forward. There is no bigger loser in this game but us (we'll spend extra time, on our own expense).

 

Thank You for reading and Joel, I'll keep you posted as promised :-)!

Hello Catalin,

 

I think it unwise to assume the average CN user is unaware of how to read optical test reports. I have made several mirrors myself and I am very familiar with reading, interpreting, and analysing foucault, ronchi, star test images. I also am familiar with reading the interfometry reports and see that Marcon optics deliberately removed the astigmatism and coma values to further increase the reported strehl of the system. I think that if you were provided this report from the optics manufacturer, you would be quite concerned.

 

Rohr definitely knows how to test telescopes and even has dozens of links on his test procedures. Please enlighten myself and other users your QC process using an autocollimator. I am very familiar with the technique and even a simple Ronchi grating in autocollimation will show obvious defects and smoothness issues. I have no reason to belief that Rohr is biased. His test reports agree to what people report in the field. He tests many different manufacturers and I encourage any interested people to use Google Translate and browse through the reports and come to your own conclusion.

 

-Tony



#93 buckeyestargazer

buckeyestargazer

    Vendor - Buckeyestargazer.net

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4685
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2008
  • Loc: IN, USA

Posted 18 July 2017 - 07:17 AM

Wow, lots of activity overnight while I slept.  I have a few thoughts on the above recent discussion and then kindly ask that we all wait to comment further until I receive the mirror set back and test it out.

 

First, everything that Catalin has said is true and accurate.  I knew that I was getting a mirror set figured by Marcon (not CFF), I knew that Catalin wasn't 100% satisfied and he communicated that to me, I knew returning the mirrors was a possibility, and I also am the one who gave Catalin permission to send the scope anyway.  In my defense, as the customer I do not have the capacity nor knowledge to truly be informed about the quality of the mirrors prior to shipping and testing, but in my eagerness to get the scope I gave permission for delivery.  This is not to say that Catalin knowingly sent out sub-par optics.  See my next point...

 

Second, the mistake that Catalin made was to believe the test reports supplied by Marcon.  Catalin has acknowledged this mistake above and will not make that mistake again.  Lesson learned.

 

Third, CFF does not have a QC issue as far as I am concerned.  Every single person I talked to before purchase (and there were man) was extremely satisfied with their CFF scope (APO, RC and CC users).  Having worked with Catalin for several months now, and having the opportunity to talk to him in person, I doubt you will find anyone else that is more fussy about the quality of his products.  

 

Finally, although I certainly don't like the delay this has caused, I am not upset about this whole thing.  This is a tough business to be in, lessons have been learned, the problem is being fixed...what more could I ask?  I just wish my health insurance company behaved the same way as Catalin has, but that's a different story...grin.gif


  • elwaine, Richard Whalen, dpastern and 1 other like this

#94 dpastern

dpastern

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1275
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2009
  • Loc: Brisbane, Australia

Posted 18 July 2017 - 07:36 AM

Dave, 

 

I guess you misread or misinterpret what am I saying. Order of events is the following:

- orders were placed in 2016, far exceeding our capabilities. Delivery times were ~1 year.

- in order to mitigate the above, I've contacted Marcon Optics, knowing they deliver RC sets in another chassis, made in Germany.

- I've informed everybody about the options: 1 year or more wait or having a batch made at Marcon Optics, for which I will not be able to double - check their stated quality.

- the above information was transmitted to customers and I've mentioned clearly that all I can do is mount the optics in their chassis and not sending them for another interferometric report in Romania (where the reflector optics are done and where the interferometer is) due to time and costs involved.

- the decision to go forward was taken by all involved customers knowing the above.

- Marcon Optics was paid to deliver optics according to our minimum standard of quality -> minimum 0.94 Strehl.
- Marcon Optics delivered interferometric reports stating for all three optics, ~0.95 Strehl.

- autocollimation tests have revealed in one case, a problem, Joel was informed and he decided to take the risk.

- in two other cases, the problem was not revealed, I was easily able to obtain a clear artificial star image in autocollimation and for me that was a 'go'. 

 

Because an autocollimator will not reveal if a set is 0.95 (as stated in the interferometric report), or less, the situation is what it is.

 

Orders were taken before manufacturing started at Marcon so, definitely no, I did not know optics were sub-par and delivered them.

 

WR has something personal with us. This is how it started and I can't just stay aside and take punches. 

Even in the test mentioned here, there is no user who has realized that his measurement of 0.7 Strehl doesn't correlate with the star image provided. This says to me a lot. To many, it doesn't matter, which is not so good, for the sake of the approach to a problem.

I've been called a thief for free, I've been left with unanswered emails to real issues, for 3 years, there are simply fake tests on his website, that he doesn't want to take down although he was proven wrong, there are errors in measurement, there are simple details like aspheric figuring ripple waves of lambda/20 or less, which are taken as 'manufacturing defects' although they are not and the list can continue Dave.

All of the above and much more are pointing to something else, which is by far not well - intended.

Even his post, here on CN, it's highly unusual and I was contacted by US Customers asking what happened that WR posted because this is far from the norm....etc etc....

Draw your own conclusions.

 

Statistics concerning real user number vs quality control returns are heavily on our side. I'm extremely disturbed when truth is bypassed or a lie is nicely packed for sale....I simply can't stand it and will not stay aside to look how somebody throws mud in our direction, without any motifs whatsoever.

 

Why haven't we been contacted by WR?

Why haven't we been asked who's the manufacturer of the optics and any other details? (although both the customer and the dealer knew and I have no idea why the info was not passed on until later on)

Why are the links to fake tests in the first phrases? Are they relevant to a Marcon Optics mirror set? For sure, not...

..personally I don't know...and for me, this leaves to be desired in terms of approach.

We've been approached by other testers like institutions, businesses or individuals and none had the attitude nor the condescendence of WR. None.

 

 

'QC means making sure that you [personally] can ensure quality.  It is never wise to rely on a 3rd party supplier to guarantee quality (imho).  Because, as you've found out, they'll usually lie to make the sale and you get stuck with the bad component and your name gets sullied'

 

Yes, I knew that and assumed it. As written above, it was a risk taken when order was placed at MO, with customer's agreement and based on the fact that MO sets were already present in other chassis, made in Germany.

I doubt that Marcon Optics doesn't know how to make optics as they'll not be in business by now. Maybe I'm wrong, who knows...

For me, personally, as for the customers, the story is over. We will repolish the mirrors and they will receive what should have been normal, from beginning.

 

There is no question, whatsoever, concerning our (my) responsibilities toward our customers and we will never leave anybody with their problems unresolved or pending, nor we will run away from what we have to fix, if that's the case.

 

Hope this clears some of the misunderstandings of my first post.

My English is ...understandable, I hope.

Hey Catalin,

 

It seems I have misunderstood you (based on your earlier post).  I apologise.  

 

I have no qualm with Rohr, nor interest in an argument with him.  I'm interested in the issues with the scope and fixes for the OP.  Nothing more and nothing less.  

 

I've heard good things about CFF gear (as I said, if I was rich, I'd want one!) and I've also heard good things about your customer service.  

 

Your earlier post's wording made me believe that you'd knowingly shipped out sub par goods, and your most recent post has clarified that and helped me realise that I misunderstood/misconstrued your earlier post.  Again, my apologies.  I'm not out to pick an argument with you, I'm just very curious about the OP's problems.  I'm glad you're assisting him in getting a fully functional scope.  Kudos to you.  Marconi optics need a good kick up the rear end for causing these issues.  They either knowingly shipped out sub par optics, or didn't test, or their testing was not up to scratch.  

 

Your English is perfectly acceptable.  Most non Europeans struggle with a single language, whereas most Europeans speak 2 or 3 or even more.  You speak English better than I do German (my late dad's tongue).  

 

I can't wait to see Joel's scope all fixed and him taking images.  

 

Again, please accept my apologies.

 

Dave


  • buckeyestargazer likes this

#95 dpastern

dpastern

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1275
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2009
  • Loc: Brisbane, Australia

Posted 18 July 2017 - 07:39 AM

Wow, lots of activity overnight while I slept.  I have a few thoughts on the above recent discussion and then kindly ask that we all wait to comment further until I receive the mirror set back and test it out.

 

First, everything that Catalin has said is true and accurate.  I knew that I was getting a mirror set figured by Marcon (not CFF), I knew that Catalin wasn't 100% satisfied and he communicated that to me, I knew returning the mirrors was a possibility, and I also am the one who gave Catalin permission to send the scope anyway.  In my defense, as the customer I do not have the capacity nor knowledge to truly be informed about the quality of the mirrors prior to shipping and testing, but in my eagerness to get the scope I gave permission for delivery.  This is not to say that Catalin knowingly sent out sub-par optics.  See my next point...

 

Second, the mistake that Catalin made was to believe the test reports supplied by Marcon.  Catalin has acknowledged this mistake above and will not make that mistake again.  Lesson learned.

 

Third, CFF does not have a QC issue as far as I am concerned.  Every single person I talked to before purchase (and there were man) was extremely satisfied with their CFF scope (APO, RC and CC users).  Having worked with Catalin for several months now, and having the opportunity to talk to him in person, I doubt you will find anyone else that is more fussy about the quality of his products.  

 

Finally, although I certainly don't like the delay this has caused, I am not upset about this whole thing.  This is a tough business to be in, lessons have been learned, the problem is being fixed...what more could I ask?  I just wish my health insurance company behaved the same way as Catalin has, but that's a different story...grin.gif

Hey Joel,

 

I understand.  I'm watching this thread, so I can't wait to see the fixed optics and test images that you take!  

 

I just feel sorry for CFF and Catalin that they're copping this on the chin because of others.  

 

If I win lotto I'd be a happy lad  ;-)

 

Dave



#96 Catalin Fus

Catalin Fus

    Vendor CFF Telescopes

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 288
  • Joined: 20 Aug 2007
  • Loc: Krakow, Poland

Posted 18 July 2017 - 07:52 AM

Tony, my replies stop here. I think this it's fair and logic.

I've never said I do QC on optics. There are other two opticians in this business, who are doing this. I don't.

 

Personally, I don't want to say anything else about WR, that's out of the area concerning CFF tests. If you trust him, good. I was trusting his measurements (I'm a hobby astronomer for 15 years) and followed his old website for years. When in 2007 - 2008 some facts were brought to my attention by Pal (refractor optics maker at CFF), concerning the methods used, I've started to take everything with a pinch of salt and since the fake tests on the CFF refractors, I simply don't trust anything at all.

The facts are pointing in a different direction.

 

'I think it unwise to assume the average CN user is unaware of how to read optical test reports'

I'm pretty sure it's wise to follow facts. If you are interested in finding the truth, start with this - ask WR why the star image doesn't correlate with measurements.

This was first reaction received from Tavi, our on-duty optician for reflector optics. Between him and WR, I trust Tavi, all the way.

 

Dave - I have absolutely no problem whatsoever. No need for apologies :-).

It's perfectly fine with me to answer any raised issue, if that helps in any way clarifying things.

 

Thank You all and Joel, sorry for the 'activity'....smile.gif


  • dpastern and Tyson M like this

#97 akulapanam

akulapanam

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2537
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2012

Posted 18 July 2017 - 11:32 PM

It sounds to me that CFF did have QC issues but I am glad that they recalled the bad optics. I hope you do a thorough star test evaluation with the new optics and report back. I have my doubts with CFF after reading more of Rohrs reports on CFF scopes. They all seem to have not so great optics. 

 

I am sure mechanically CFF scopes are great, but I feel the premium paid for the scopes should include the optics and not just the structure. Thats why people pay big bucks for Takahashi, Zeiss, TMB, AP, and TEC. Their optical quality matches their mechanical performance.

I don't think this is really a true statement.  There are a lot of bad Tak FSQ-85s out there, just read the Tak google group, and their focusers/support leave a lot to be desired.  TMB (referring to the designs by him) are also a mixed bag.  LZOS and high end manufacturers are really good... others well YMMV.  I haven't of a bad AP or TEC scope but I'm sure someone has had issues.  Its the support that really makes the difference.  I have issues with a $9k Officina Stellare scope but their support is fantastic which makes all the difference in the world and is why I wouldn't hesitate to buy from them again.   As long as the optics are diffraction limited the actual strehl ratio doesn't make a huge difference in most seeing conditions, mechanics on the other hand always make a big difference.

 

 

@coinboy1 and dpastern

 

may I ask if you read my post #57 and #73?

In this case, there were compromises involved, compromises that were communciated to the buyers of all telescopes in discussion (FYI, there are 3 sets recalled and 3 sets will be remade at our quality level) and the buyer's decision was to move forward.

We're splitting hair with QC and with all your suppositions. 

 

Joel knew that I wasn't satisfied with the optical set and I had my doubts. We've agreed together that I ship the telescope and in worst case, optics will return. This is what happened. It was risk assumed. Period.

 

If any person from CN, will ever want to clarify any aspects of this business, how we're manufacturing what we're manufacturing, what are the options, risks, limits and so on, he/she can write me directly.

 

coinboy1 - all refractor tests from WR website are fakes or incorrectly made. All those refractors are used as we speak and all of them are up to specs after being tested by other optical labs.

It is obvious to me (even by linking them to the RC tests) that WR has another agenda and I'm 100% sure he's not 'independent'. You can believe whomever you want, we live in a free world but as an advice, trust everything using logics/statistics and a common sense approach.

We've sold over 150 telescopes in the past 5 years. What are the chances that only WR finds the bad ones while all the other opinions are positive? What are the chances that other optical facilities that have tested our telescopes (university labs, research institute labs, other testers) have found them to be as claimed while WR found the 'thiefs'?

If you really think, even for once, that WR is the only person on this planet who has tested our optics/telescopes, you can't be more wrong.

Unfortunately, many of the people who are following this person do not understand how to read an optical test. That's a fact and it is proven because many of these tests do show flaws (in some cases, big flaws or intentional omission of facts)....and people do take them for granted.

 

dpastern - there is no QC issue involved in this case. It's a decision and a risk assumed, as described above. Period. We don't let go of any CFF manufactured optics that are below specs or that 'we'll be good enough'. I won't accept such compromises for the profit given by one or two telescopes. Let this be very clear.

The Marcon Optics sets compromises were accepted in an effort to satisfy demand. I have informed everybody that all I can do is autocollimator tests and this will not be enough to prove the real quality.

It was a mistake to trust them (Marcon Optics) and take their interferometric reports for granted, lesson was learned, we'll fix the optics on our own and move forward. There is no bigger loser in this game but us (we'll spend extra time, on our own expense).

 

Thank You for reading and Joel, I'll keep you posted as promised :-)!

I presume English is not your native tongue (no slight intended btw).  

 

Firstly, you've said and I'll directly quote:

 

"In this case, there were compromises involved, compromises that were communciated to the buyers of all telescopes in discussion (FYI, there are 3 sets recalled and 3 sets will be remade at our quality level) and the buyer's decision was to move forward."

 

I'll interpret this as you knew the optics were sub standard (pre-sale), but communicated that to potential buyers.  This is not quality QA.  You do not knowingly sell sub standard items ever!

 

Post #57 says the mirror was tested @ .95 strehl, but you say that there's an optical defect that you're working on fixing (with the OP).  So, which is it?  .95 strehl optics don't usually have optical issues.  So, either the testing method was inferior (something that you allude to later on in post #87 "The Marcon Optics sets compromises were accepted in an effort to satisfy demand. I have informed everybody that all I can do is autocollimator tests and this will not be enough to prove the real quality.").  

 

QC means making sure that you [personally] can ensure quality.  It is never wise to rely on a 3rd party supplier to guarantee quality (imho).  Because, as you've found out, they'll usually lie to make the sale and you get stuck with the bad component and your name gets sullied.  

 

I find your eagerness to defame Rohr and his site a bit concerning.  Conflict of interest perhaps?

 

Product quality is important, and surely these forums allow users to pose questions in regards to potential QA issues?  

 

I say potential, because I lack the technical prowess to test the optics in question, and I do not have access to test said optics either.  I'm not saying I believe Rohr's reports (and I have no affiliation with him or any other user in this thread I might add), but the OP is experienced and has been unable to fix the issue and all things logically pointed in the direction of optical issues.  As I said in an earlier post, the OP should have sent the optical set to an experienced independent optician to eliminate the optics as being part of the problem.  

 

I'm not trying to attack you, or your business Catalin, CFF has a very good reputation of quality products (would love to own one but sadly, I am impoverished).  I'm glad you're helping the OP out and that a resolution is nearing.  

 

Clear skies.

 

Dave

 

I love Rohr's site and look to it as a fantastic reference.  That said I do think he tends to play favorites a bit. 



#98 donadani

donadani

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 864
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2015
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 01 September 2017 - 10:42 AM

Very interesting read here... 

 

Regarding CFF refractors - just let me say that these are beyond any doubt (had the 160 and now the 185...and some other nice ones to compare e.g. TOA-150B).

 

Catalin and Pal always gave best service & communication one can wish.

 

Without any doubt I would buy a new CFF scope as quality (optical&mechanical), compactness and weight are hard to beat and absolute top level.

 

Regarding complex mirror systems - I´ve no experiance with CFF but I wouldn´t doubt a second that you will get what you pay for. Regarding other brands I´m just collecting...  

 

cs

Chris



#99 buckeyestargazer

buckeyestargazer

    Vendor - Buckeyestargazer.net

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4685
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2008
  • Loc: IN, USA

Posted 20 November 2017 - 02:01 PM

Hi friends,

This past week I received the corrected mirror set from CFF and last night I had a chance to do some testing.  WOW!!!  What a HUGE difference. 

 

As you know if you read through this thread I struggled for hours upon hours to figure out what was up with the scope and why I couldn't get it collimated and all the other reflection issues I was having.  The corrected mirrors are night and day different.  After collimating indoors with a laser and Takahashi collimating scope, I spent a total of 15min max under the stars collimating the scope using the DSI method, and it was 100000000000000000 % easier this time around.  I literally only had to adjust one primary knob and didn't even touch the secondary. My collimation efforts may not be absolutely perfect yet, but everything was SOOOOOO much easier.  

 

Although the stars appear really good across the field, I still wonder if there is some tilt somewhere.  I took some test images of a star field and loaded them up in CCDInspector, and it showed a significant tilt and I'm not sure I believe CCDI.

 

Here is a single 5min LUM image of M33 (download fit).  I'd be curious to hear what others think of this.  Do the stars look well corrected?  Would you say the system is collimated well?  I'm wondering why it is so much darker along the top than the bottom.  That could certainly just be gradient, but it seems worse that I might expect.  If there is a little bit of tilt in say the focuser, could it be that the primary baffle is causing a bit of shadow?

 

In any event I am ECSTATIC!  

 

 

 

Attached Thumbnails

  • M33_F8_Lum_300s.jpg

  • Alterf, dpastern, R Botero and 4 others like this

#100 Richard Whalen

Richard Whalen

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2842
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Florida

Posted 20 November 2017 - 08:47 PM

Joel, stars look good to me in the corners, how was the seeing and transparency the night the image was taken?

Without a dark frame looks good, probably a "soft" night. I think you now have a real winner! 




CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics