32 replies to this topic

[parnassian]

Additionally, I chanced upon this discussion about 105mm and a C6 Se which is my current setup.

There's good information about sensor sizes and distance.

 

https://www.cloudyni...ducercorrector/

 

Regarding OAG use, I think for my use case, it will be trial and error and whatever is the outcome, I'll share it here..

 

- Michael

[bignerdguy]

@bignerdguy, nice setup, but. don't forget I have a Meade OAG in the image train and it's a SCT connection. I'm pointing this out as I'm trying to put proper distance between the twp pieces so that the autoguider is also at 105mm. The camera side should be straightforward as indeed it's T2.

I'll keep researching this until I figure it out and find this elusive adapter/barrel. Thanks guys who had helped.

I'm confident there's an SCT to SCT connector out there. I haven't found it yet.

- Michael

Yes i know.  As i said the distance from the FR to the main camera, OAG or no OAG, should be no more than 64mm (61mm ideally).  If your OAG added to the setup makes it way more than 64mm then it may not work correctly.   you have to factor the entire distance with all equipment attached.  My showing you what i had was simply as an example. I tried to take a picture of it with a ruler showing the true length but for some reason my iPhone could not get the angles correct to see the actual distances, it seems the camera lens was making a curved image for some reason.  Anyway, just make sure that the distance your main camera sits is between 61mm-64mm, since the T7 needs a 44mm clearance for the outer camera body to sensor alone.  Once you have that fixed then work on the guide camera distance.  If needed you can use a 1.25" adapter in the focus tube for the guide camera to make up the difference.  Do not incrase the distance from the FR to the OAG to make this up, adjust the top of the OAG's focus tube distance.

[parnassian]

@Astrojensen and @bignerdguy, thank you for your patience and guidance.

 

The simplest solution presented itself as a stepdown ring from M48 to M42.

 

 

[parnassian]

I'm excited to go out when there's less clouds to see if imaging and autoguiding works together.

 

 

 

 

[gpaunescu]

This is a planetary camera; why do you need reducer?

 

Anyway, with reducer you have to calculate backfocus till sensor; but I don't find information about the backfocus of the camera(you have to substract this from 105).

 

Try to focus during the day time on some distant object.

Edited by gpaunescu, 06 December 2024 - 02:31 AM.

[parnassian]

lol, it was the handiest thing to put in ..

 

I recently ordered a svbony 605cc cooled, and I have a canon T7 to use, too.

 

I'm going to stay with these imagers until I get over the learning curve.

I'll eventually migrate to touptek guider and imagers as I ordered a touptek aaf for focusing early black friday.

 

I'm eventually going to move away from the terran onstep and get a touptek astrostation, provided that along the way, I spend the necessary time to be better versed in what I'm doing.

 

- Michael

Edited by parnassian, 06 December 2024 - 02:49 AM.

[gnowellsct]

@Astrojensen and @bignerdguy, thank you for your patience and guidance.

The simplest solution presented itself as a stepdown ring from M48 to M42.

m48-m42-adapter2.jpg

This is unsurprising to me. Back in the day Meade was prone to turning out parts that had non-standard threads or at least made thread choices that were different from the competition.

Their 2-in filters, for example, worked on meade eye pieces but did not work on the eyepieces everybody else made. Or at least, their filters did not fit on the miscellaneous collection of eye pieces I had. But the non-Meade filters worked well with these eyepieces and there was a great deal of interchangeability.

Greg N

[parnassian]

This is unsurprising to me. Back in the day Meade was prone to turning out parts that had non-standard threads or at least made thread choices that were different from the competition.

Greg N

 

Decades ago when these companies were making burgeoning "consumer-friendly" astro equipment, it was probably a mess until there was a mutual agreement to follow standards. This situation is reminiscent of the yesteryears and how much time the end users had to find bits and pieces of what worked or didn't.

 

It's a reminder like this that we've come a ways into newer technologies today, however a less bit stressful for us that manufacturing are designing their products with standards in mind.

 

The research burn time used to find the solution allowed me to see there are other innovative products are out there and it didn't happen unless I had a specific need.

 

I'll admit it was a frustrating exercise at first, but with a different perspective I was able to relook at the situation of finding a positive that I'm discovering new aspects of this hobby that I wouldn't have known about.

 

The other posters and their input showed to me to appreciate the long-timers here who probably were pulling out their hair to figure this out long before I started.