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

Stellarvue SVX080T-3SV w/ .74X Reducer-Flattener

astrophotography dslr refractor
  • Please log in to reply
255 replies to this topic

#226 gundark

gundark

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2015
  • Loc: Southern California

Posted 15 January 2020 - 01:06 AM

Tim, I love your processing. This is a really nice image. Do you think your imaging train would benefit from another millimeter of spacing?

It’s nice to see some images from this scope. Mine should be arriving within a couple of weeks. I have already purchased the reducer.
  • Tim C likes this

#227 Tim C

Tim C

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,745
  • Joined: 11 Nov 2007
  • Loc: Marietta, GA

Posted 15 January 2020 - 08:39 AM

Thanks gundark. It’s quite possible that another mm or two would be of some benefit. I’ve already added 3mm over the spec and that definitely was an improvement over the recommended spacing. I ran out of spacers and patience since I was to the “good enough for me” spot. I’m sure I will play with it some more at some point. I’m hoping to use the stock flattener at f6 next to see how that does.

Tim
  • SeymoreStars, gundark and zakry3323 like this

#228 zakry3323

zakry3323

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,424
  • Joined: 11 Apr 2016
  • Loc: Pittsburgh

Posted 15 January 2020 - 09:52 AM

If any of you folks like using the Rigel focusing systems, I'm happy to confirm that the bracket assembly and motor can fit very nicely completely attached within the case- if you are using the provided risers. You can get very nearly 360 degrees of rotation, but a piece of the bracket will catch on the plate if you have the OTA positioned as far to the objective side as possible. If you move it back a ways and add some weight to the objective side I'm sure you could easily get full rotation if needed. 

 

IMG_20200115_094457.jpg


  • Tim C, bmhjr and ksouers like this

#229 idclimber

idclimber

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 116
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2016
  • Loc: McCall Idaho

Posted 22 January 2020 - 01:11 PM

I am getting ready to place an order for this scope. I would appreciate any feedback on which focuser to order. The FT is a $500 upgrade at this time. It sounds like it would be a good idea based on the reading in this thread to order the reducer at the same time that is matched to the scope. 

 

I am a novice in AP, although I have been somewhat successful getting images from my 12"LX200 with just the alt/az mount. I am in the process of de-forking that scope and placing in on a MX+ mount. I plan on using the same mount for the SVX080T-3SV.

 

For an imagers I already have  a ASI1224MC, a Lodestar X2C, and a Nikon 850. I am researching a higher resolution mono imager for shooting deep sky images. 

 

Any feedback and advice is appreciated. 


  • Av8ForFun likes this

#230 Tim C

Tim C

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,745
  • Joined: 11 Nov 2007
  • Loc: Marietta, GA

Posted 22 January 2020 - 04:33 PM

I highly recommend the stock SV 3” focuser. It is a very solid focuser for imaging and I’m getting great and repeatable autofocus results with an Optec ThirdLynx auto focuser. I detect zero sag and the rotator seems to maintain alignment very well while rotating. I would say it’s smooth but not as “buttery smooth” as some feather touch focusers I’ve owned. The FT rotator probably locks more firmly but I’m totally happy with how well my SV focuser locks down... plenty tight enough for my asi1600 and FW. I’ve never owned a 3” FT, I’m sure it’s great too but that $500 would buy you an auto focuser with change to spare.

Tim
  • Esso2112 likes this

#231 zakry3323

zakry3323

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,424
  • Joined: 11 Apr 2016
  • Loc: Pittsburgh

Posted 23 January 2020 - 01:01 PM

Same boat as Tim over here. There's nothing quite like a FT if you've got a lot of flexibility in the budget. For my purposes (Also carrying a 1600mm, FW and OAG) I haven't had any issues with the stock 3" SV focuser and see no need for an upgrade. 



#232 GrafikDihzahyn

GrafikDihzahyn

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 147
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2010
  • Loc: Fly-Over State

Posted 25 January 2020 - 09:57 AM

I was finally able to get a first light with mine (no reducer). Only had a couple hours of clear-ish skies before clouds rolled in. Seeing was below average.

Hopefully we'll get some better conditions here soon, so I can really give this object a go.

 

 

orionNEB_012420-03.jpeg


  • Tim C, eros312, ken30809 and 5 others like this

#233 Tim C

Tim C

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,745
  • Joined: 11 Nov 2007
  • Loc: Marietta, GA

Posted 04 February 2020 - 08:47 PM

Latest shot with the SVX080T and the regular flattener.  Been slow going collecting photons with the terrible weather.  My real target (Rosette Nebula) is still in progress but was able to collect 11 hours bi-color on the tadpoles while waiting for the Rosette to clear the trees in my yard.  Probably not the best target for this short FL but it was just a bonus shot.  The Rosette is framed nicely with the scope at F/6 and my ASI1600, just need one more clear night for some more SII data.

 

-Tim

 

https://astrob.in/full/h5ymja/0/

 

get.jpg?insecure


  • eros312, astrofun, SeymoreStars and 4 others like this

#234 gundark

gundark

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2015
  • Loc: Southern California

Posted 05 February 2020 - 12:40 AM

I got a shipping notification from Stellarvue today. My new SVX80T should arrive on Thursday. whee.gif

 

I'll post a picture or two when I have it. 


  • Tim C, eros312, ken30809 and 2 others like this

#235 gundark

gundark

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2015
  • Loc: Southern California

Posted 08 February 2020 - 11:27 PM

UPS delivered my new SVX80T to my home yesterday but I did not get a chance to unpack it and take some pictures until today. I cannot wait to try it out!

 

SVX80T-6.jpeg

 

SVX80T-7.jpeg

 

SVX80T-4.jpeg

 

SVX80T-3.jpeg


Edited by gundark, 08 February 2020 - 11:30 PM.

  • jimandlaura26, Tim C, eros312 and 3 others like this

#236 gundark

gundark

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2015
  • Loc: Southern California

Posted 08 February 2020 - 11:30 PM

And a couple more.

 

SVX80T-8.jpeg

 

SVX80T-5.jpeg

 

I'll post some sample astro images when I get an opportunity. There is a storm front coming in tomorrow. lol.gif

 


  • jimandlaura26, Tim C, eros312 and 3 others like this

#237 idclimber

idclimber

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 116
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2016
  • Loc: McCall Idaho

Posted 16 February 2020 - 11:05 PM

I am still considering this scope. I am also considering the SVX102. The latter has a focal reducer while the former does not. Well I know some of you have one but they currently don't list it as an option. 

 

This scope would be for learning and hopefully doing some DSO imaging. I have been strongly discouraged from my silly notion to start imaging with my 12" SCT. 


  • Gene3 likes this

#238 GrafikDihzahyn

GrafikDihzahyn

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 147
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2010
  • Loc: Fly-Over State

Posted 17 February 2020 - 04:08 PM

I am still considering this scope. I am also considering the SVX102. The latter has a focal reducer while the former does not. Well I know some of you have one but they currently don't list it as an option. 

 

This scope would be for learning and hopefully doing some DSO imaging. I have been strongly discouraged from my silly notion to start imaging with my 12" SCT. 

If your mount can handle it, get the 102 w/ reducer. It will be a comparable FOV with the 80mm w/ just the flattener, but with potentially better resolution.

 

I'd imagine you've played around with this site, but you can simulate what the FOV will look like for this (and any other) scope. Can input various parameters like reducer, select your camera, etc. to see what effect it will have on the FOV.

 

http://www.blackwate...maging-toolbox/



#239 idclimber

idclimber

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 116
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2016
  • Loc: McCall Idaho

Posted 17 February 2020 - 06:23 PM

If your mount can handle it, get the 102 w/ reducer. It will be a comparable FOV with the 80mm w/ just the flattener, but with potentially better resolution.

 

I'd imagine you've played around with this site, but you can simulate what the FOV will look like for this (and any other) scope. Can input various parameters like reducer, select your camera, etc. to see what effect it will have on the FOV.

 

http://www.blackwate...maging-toolbox/

The mount is a Paramount MX+, so yes it can handle it. I have done similar field of views in TheSkyX. Thanks for your thoughts. 


  • Gene3 likes this

#240 zakry3323

zakry3323

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,424
  • Joined: 11 Apr 2016
  • Loc: Pittsburgh

Posted 20 March 2020 - 10:54 AM

I know I'm more likely to have better results with a specifically matched flattener/reducer but....

 

Who knows when they'll be made again, or if they'll me made again. With NEAF being postponed and the economy being somewhat questionable right now, I felt like I needed to do what I could to get one- after all, the ability to convert my SVX80 to F/4.5 was one of the bigger reasons why I purchased the OTA to begin with. 

I called up company that had one in stock, confirmed that it was correct reducer/flattener, confirmed that it was in stock, and bought the last one. 


  • GrafikDihzahyn likes this

#241 Tim C

Tim C

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,745
  • Joined: 11 Nov 2007
  • Loc: Marietta, GA

Posted 20 March 2020 - 07:00 PM

I don't put much stock in the matching anyway, there are just too many variables once you include different cameras and any tilt you may have in your system.

 

 

I know I'm more likely to have better results with a specifically matched flattener/reducer but....

 

Who knows when they'll be made again, or if they'll me made again. With NEAF being postponed and the economy being somewhat questionable right now, I felt like I needed to do what I could to get one- after all, the ability to convert my SVX80 to F/4.5 was one of the bigger reasons why I purchased the OTA to begin with. 

I called up company that had one in stock, confirmed that it was correct reducer/flattener, confirmed that it was in stock, and bought the last one. 


  • Gene3 and zakry3323 like this

#242 Gene3

Gene3

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 664
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2016
  • Loc: Del Mar, CA

Posted 20 March 2020 - 07:54 PM

The mount is a Paramount MX+, so yes it can handle it. I have done similar field of views in TheSkyX. Thanks for your thoughts. 

I agree that given your MX+ mount, get the biggest aperture SV scope you can.

The only reason that I got the SVX080 is that I could not piggyback the SVX102 on my SVX152T



#243 zakry3323

zakry3323

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,424
  • Joined: 11 Apr 2016
  • Loc: Pittsburgh

Posted 23 March 2020 - 01:23 PM

Three days later, and it's arrived! It looks like it's going to be a while, maaaybe Thursday if I'm lucky, before I have skies clear enough to test it out, but here's what I can say about it thus far: 

 

1. It's pretty heavy! Even taring off the weight of the field flattener, it still weighs more than my scale is capable of measuring. 

 

IMG_20200323_130049.jpg

 

2. It's not very visible from my photos, but I also noticed that the reducer/flattener seems to anodized with a flatter black than the field flattener. This makes sense to me, since the reducer/flattener is inserted directly into the draw tube for proper attachment, it wouldn't help with the likelihood for reflections to have a shiny anodized finish. 

 

IMG_20200323_130422.jpg

 

3. Lastly, I really like the knurled ring to attached the reducer/flattener to the draw tube. A nice, tight fit can be achieved and should prevent any tilt from occurring. However, in my hands, when inserted from a horizontal position, I found that it was difficult to keep it from wanting to cross-thread. I tried three times before disassembling the ring from the housing and threading each component onto the drawtube one at a time. Perhaps it's just my lack of skill/patience, but for me, I don't believe I'll consider hot-swapping the field flattener with the flattener/reducer in the field. I don't see this as an issue, as I prefer to pre-plan my targets and their framing based on set FOV's anyways. 

 

IMG_20200323_133120.jpg


  • Tim C likes this

#244 GrafikDihzahyn

GrafikDihzahyn

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 147
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2010
  • Loc: Fly-Over State

Posted 25 March 2020 - 12:14 PM

Anyone using just the FF with the ASI1600? Trying to work out the backfocus, but the recommendation of ZWO of 56mm (w/ filterwheel) seems to be giving me some issues. I know Stellarvue mentions 55mm, but there is no way to get that with the included items. Wondering if I'll need to get a custom piece from SV at some point.

 

 

Attached Thumbnails

  • backfocus.jpg


#245 zakry3323

zakry3323

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,424
  • Joined: 11 Apr 2016
  • Loc: Pittsburgh

Posted 25 March 2020 - 12:25 PM

Anyone using just the FF with the ASI1600? Trying to work out the backfocus, but the recommendation of ZWO of 56mm (w/ filterwheel) seems to be giving me some issues. I know Stellarvue mentions 55mm, but there is no way to get that with the included items. Wondering if I'll need to get a custom piece from SV at some point.

Yes, my previously posted short integration of the Horsehead region in Ha was taken with an ASI1600mm, a ZWO EFW, a ZWO OAG and some additional spacers. I'm setting up again for tonight, so I'll get everything together and give you my exact backfocus measurements.


  • GrafikDihzahyn likes this

#246 zakry3323

zakry3323

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,424
  • Joined: 11 Apr 2016
  • Loc: Pittsburgh

Posted 25 March 2020 - 04:16 PM

Anyone using just the FF with the ASI1600? 

I can confirm that I'm at 56.5mm from sensor to the outside edge of the field flattener. I needed to use a few 1mm delrin spacers to get to where I needed to be. I hope that helps!


  • GrafikDihzahyn likes this

#247 Tim C

Tim C

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,745
  • Joined: 11 Nov 2007
  • Loc: Marietta, GA

Posted 25 March 2020 - 04:29 PM

I have used an ASI1600M with just the FF and the filterwheel at the recommended spacing with good results.  It probably could be optimized a bit.  I have 56 mm of physical backspacing which is the same as 55 mm of optical back spacing once I adjust for the impact of my 3 mm thick filters which adds 1 mm to the spacing requirement.  When using the reducer/flattener, I had to add 3 mm to the SV recommended spacing to get the best results, so there definitely is a margin of error and it can be larger than the often quoted +/- 1 mm.  Just have to play with it unfortunately.  In my testing, I didn't find changes of less than 1mm to make much of a difference.

 

 

 

Anyone using just the FF with the ASI1600? Trying to work out the backfocus, but the recommendation of ZWO of 56mm (w/ filterwheel) seems to be giving me some issues. I know Stellarvue mentions 55mm, but there is no way to get that with the included items. Wondering if I'll need to get a custom piece from SV at some point.


  • GrafikDihzahyn and zakry3323 like this

#248 zakry3323

zakry3323

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,424
  • Joined: 11 Apr 2016
  • Loc: Pittsburgh

Posted 25 March 2020 - 05:55 PM

I have used an ASI1600M with just the FF and the filterwheel at the recommended spacing with good results.  It probably could be optimized a bit.  I have 56 mm of physical backspacing which is the same as 55 mm of optical back spacing once I adjust for the impact of my 3 mm thick filters which adds 1 mm to the spacing requirement.  When using the reducer/flattener, I had to add 3 mm to the SV recommended spacing to get the best results, so there definitely is a margin of error and it can be larger than the often quoted +/- 1 mm.  Just have to play with it unfortunately.  In my testing, I didn't find changes of less than 1mm to make much of a difference.

Thanks Tim! I'll be trying out the reducer/flattener tonight!



#249 GrafikDihzahyn

GrafikDihzahyn

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 147
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2010
  • Loc: Fly-Over State

Posted 26 March 2020 - 03:00 PM

After adding the 1mm of included spacers w/ the 1600, it definitely seemed to help. I think Im still needing to add another 1mm. I happened to have some black 1mm plastic sheeting around that I was able to fashion my own. Hopefully I'll get some clear skies again soon to test it out. 

Attached Thumbnails

  • 20200326_145304-01.jpeg

  • gundark and zakry3323 like this

#250 jpkrautw

jpkrautw

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2008

Posted 26 March 2020 - 04:20 PM

For another data point, I’ve found 55mm to be too little and 57mm too much on mine.  I’m sitting at 56mm right now, and it looks pretty good, but I also think there’s a bit more room for improvement.  Not sure which direction yet.  


  • GrafikDihzahyn likes this


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





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: astrophotography, dslr, refractor



Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics