Setting up the E160-ED for Full Frame Imaging

20.43 Chris White- Overcast Observatory #... · view views
Bill McLaughlin: Daniel Carter: use the Indigo OAG and it works well with the ZWO EFW and rhe LEO. What are you using for tip/tilt adjustment? Surely there is not enough room to adjust that with anything but the LEO base, which is a bit crude compared to an Octopi or Photon Cage. You definitely don't want to tilt the focuser when working on inage train tilt. The tilt needs to get corrected between the corrector and sensor. I've been using Qhy600 sbfl Photon cage Zwo filter wheel 50mm Indigo oag Spacers Like

20.43

#...

Bill McLaughlin:
Daniel Carter:
use the Indigo OAG and it works well with the ZWO EFW and rhe LEO.

What are you using for tip/tilt adjustment? Surely there is not enough room to adjust that with anything but the LEO base, which is a bit crude compared to an Octopi or Photon Cage.

You definitely don't want to tilt the focuser when working on inage train tilt. The tilt needs to get corrected between the corrector and sensor.

I've been using
Qhy600 sbfl
Photon cage
Zwo filter wheel 50mm
Indigo oag
Spacers

3.58 Daniel Carter #... · view views
Chris White- Overcast Observatory: Bill McLaughlin: Daniel Carter: use the Indigo OAG and it works well with the ZWO EFW and rhe LEO. What are you using for tip/tilt adjustment? Surely there is not enough room to adjust that with anything but the LEO base, which is a bit crude compared to an Octopi or Photon Cage. You definitely don't want to tilt the focuser when working on inage train tilt. The tilt needs to get corrected between the corrector and sensor. I've been using Qhy600 sbfl Photon cage Zwo filter wheel 50mm Indigo oag Spacers I have almost the same setup as Chris. QHY600 SBFL ASG Photon cage ZWO EFW Indigo OAG Precise Parts Adapter The Photon Cage or Octopi handles your tilt. The ZWO tilt plate is not made for such tight tolerances and fine adjustment. Like

3.58

Daniel Carter

#...

Chris White- Overcast Observatory:
Bill McLaughlin:
Daniel Carter:
use the Indigo OAG and it works well with the ZWO EFW and rhe LEO.

What are you using for tip/tilt adjustment? Surely there is not enough room to adjust that with anything but the LEO base, which is a bit crude compared to an Octopi or Photon Cage.

You definitely don't want to tilt the focuser when working on inage train tilt. The tilt needs to get corrected between the corrector and sensor.

I've been using
Qhy600 sbfl
Photon cage
Zwo filter wheel 50mm
Indigo oag
Spacers

I have almost the same setup as Chris.

QHY600 SBFL
ASG Photon cage
ZWO EFW
Indigo OAG
Precise Parts Adapter

The Photon Cage or Octopi handles your tilt. The ZWO tilt plate is not made for such tight tolerances and fine adjustment.

1.20 Rafael Sampaio #... · view views
Chris White- Overcast Observatory: Rafael Sampaio: Considering I still have some room, my idea is to use a thin spacer to rotate the OAG, so it will be positioned in a way it matches the thinner sides of the Leo Optec. What do you mean by this? The corrector threads into a LEO drawtube adapter. This adapter can be rotated in the drawtube of the LEO, so you can use whatever camera position you want. Also, you are not accounting for the adapter to thread into the corrector. It's M54. I assume your tilt plate is as well? Both are female so you need a male to male adapter. These generally take up 2mm. I think I'm using a blue fireball. Since the OAG-L requires the tilt plate, you might not have enough spacing room. Also, the ZWO OAG focuser might hit the LEO. Someone who has tried to do this will hopefully chime in. You could use the Indigo OAG, which only takes up 14mm and that includes the m54 faceplate. It also has a thin profile camera holder. That would give you plenty of spacing left over to connect to the corrector. Actuality I will use a M54 gender changer adapter like this https://agenaastro.com/baader-m54x0-75-inverter-ring-m54-male-to-m54-male-thread-adapter-m54-inve-2458061.html , that has zero optical length. So I would still have 54mm, with ASG bottomed Let me explain the idea a little bit better. The idea is not to use a spacer to rotate the camera. Is to rotate the OAG , so I can choose a position that ZWO OAG focuser would not hit the Leo. I would use the 9 pc fine tuning spacer-ring set (0.1mm to 1mm) https://agenaastro.com/blue-fireball-9-pc-fine-tuning-spacer-ring-set-for-m54-threads-0-1-to-1-0-mm-s-set9.html , try a thickness that provides the right position, and then compensate it if needed using ASG case . What do you think? Like

1.20

Rafael Sampaio

#...

Chris White- Overcast Observatory:
Rafael Sampaio:
Considering I still have some room, my idea is to use a thin spacer to rotate the OAG, so it will be positioned in a way it matches the thinner sides of the Leo Optec.

What do you mean by this?

The corrector threads into a LEO drawtube adapter. This adapter can be rotated in the drawtube of the LEO, so you can use whatever camera position you want.

Also, you are not accounting for the adapter to thread into the corrector. It's M54. I assume your tilt plate is as well? Both are female so you need a male to male adapter. These generally take up 2mm. I think I'm using a blue fireball. Since the OAG-L requires the tilt plate, you might not have enough spacing room. Also, the ZWO OAG focuser might hit the LEO. Someone who has tried to do this will hopefully chime in.

You could use the Indigo OAG, which only takes up 14mm and that includes the m54 faceplate. It also has a thin profile camera holder. That would give you plenty of spacing left over to connect to the corrector.

Actuality I will use a M54 gender changer adapter like this https://agenaastro.com/baader-m54x0-75-inverter-ring-m54-male-to-m54-male-thread-adapter-m54-inve-2458061.html , that has zero optical length. So I would still have 54mm, with ASG bottomed

Let me explain the idea a little bit better. The idea is not to use a spacer to rotate the camera. Is to rotate the OAG , so I can choose a position that ZWO OAG focuser would not hit the Leo. I would use the 9 pc fine tuning spacer-ring set (0.1mm to 1mm) https://agenaastro.com/blue-fireball-9-pc-fine-tuning-spacer-ring-set-for-m54-threads-0-1-to-1-0-mm-s-set9.html , try a thickness that provides the right position, and then compensate it if needed using ASG case .

What do you think?

20.43 Chris White- Overcast Observatory #... · view views
Rafael Sampaio: Chris White- Overcast Observatory: Rafael Sampaio: Considering I still have some room, my idea is to use a thin spacer to rotate the OAG, so it will be positioned in a way it matches the thinner sides of the Leo Optec. What do you mean by this? The corrector threads into a LEO drawtube adapter. This adapter can be rotated in the drawtube of the LEO, so you can use whatever camera position you want. Also, you are not accounting for the adapter to thread into the corrector. It's M54. I assume your tilt plate is as well? Both are female so you need a male to male adapter. These generally take up 2mm. I think I'm using a blue fireball. Since the OAG-L requires the tilt plate, you might not have enough spacing room. Also, the ZWO OAG focuser might hit the LEO. Someone who has tried to do this will hopefully chime in. You could use the Indigo OAG, which only takes up 14mm and that includes the m54 faceplate. It also has a thin profile camera holder. That would give you plenty of spacing left over to connect to the corrector. Actuality I will use a M54 gender changer adapter like this https://agenaastro.com/baader-m54x0-75-inverter-ring-m54-male-to-m54-male-thread-adapter-m54-inve-2458061.html , that has zero optical length. So I would still have 54mm, with ASG bottomed Let me explain the idea a little bit better. The idea is not to use a spacer to rotate the camera. Is to rotate the OAG , so I can choose a position that ZWO OAG focuser would not hit the Leo. I would use the 9 pc fine tuning spacer-ring set (0.1mm to 1mm) https://agenaastro.com/blue-fireball-9-pc-fine-tuning-spacer-ring-set-for-m54-threads-0-1-to-1-0-mm-s-set9.html , try a thickness that provides the right position, and then compensate it if needed using ASG case . What do you think? You don't need a spacer to do this. Just rotate the optec adapter to wherever you need it. Im also not certain the oag will clear on the narrow side of the Leo. You can try! Ps- those shims are very handy to have. I use them for dialing backspacing Edited ... Like

20.43

Chris White- Overcast Observatory

#...

Rafael Sampaio:
Chris White- Overcast Observatory:
Rafael Sampaio:
Considering I still have some room, my idea is to use a thin spacer to rotate the OAG, so it will be positioned in a way it matches the thinner sides of the Leo Optec.

What do you mean by this?

The corrector threads into a LEO drawtube adapter. This adapter can be rotated in the drawtube of the LEO, so you can use whatever camera position you want.

Also, you are not accounting for the adapter to thread into the corrector. It's M54. I assume your tilt plate is as well? Both are female so you need a male to male adapter. These generally take up 2mm. I think I'm using a blue fireball. Since the OAG-L requires the tilt plate, you might not have enough spacing room. Also, the ZWO OAG focuser might hit the LEO. Someone who has tried to do this will hopefully chime in.

You could use the Indigo OAG, which only takes up 14mm and that includes the m54 faceplate. It also has a thin profile camera holder. That would give you plenty of spacing left over to connect to the corrector.

Actuality I will use a M54 gender changer adapter like this https://agenaastro.com/baader-m54x0-75-inverter-ring-m54-male-to-m54-male-thread-adapter-m54-inve-2458061.html , that has zero optical length. So I would still have 54mm, with ASG bottomed

Let me explain the idea a little bit better. The idea is not to use a spacer to rotate the camera. Is to rotate the OAG , so I can choose a position that ZWO OAG focuser would not hit the Leo. I would use the 9 pc fine tuning spacer-ring set (0.1mm to 1mm) https://agenaastro.com/blue-fireball-9-pc-fine-tuning-spacer-ring-set-for-m54-threads-0-1-to-1-0-mm-s-set9.html , try a thickness that provides the right position, and then compensate it if needed using ASG case .

What do you think?

You don't need a spacer to do this. Just rotate the optec adapter to wherever you need it. Im also not certain the oag will clear on the narrow side of the Leo. You can try!

Ps- those shims are very handy to have. I use them for dialing backspacing

Edited ...

1.20 Rafael Sampaio #... · view views
Chris White- Overcast Observatory: Rafael Sampaio: Chris White- Overcast Observatory: Rafael Sampaio: Considering I still have some room, my idea is to use a thin spacer to rotate the OAG, so it will be positioned in a way it matches the thinner sides of the Leo Optec. What do you mean by this? The corrector threads into a LEO drawtube adapter. This adapter can be rotated in the drawtube of the LEO, so you can use whatever camera position you want. Also, you are not accounting for the adapter to thread into the corrector. It's M54. I assume your tilt plate is as well? Both are female so you need a male to male adapter. These generally take up 2mm. I think I'm using a blue fireball. Since the OAG-L requires the tilt plate, you might not have enough spacing room. Also, the ZWO OAG focuser might hit the LEO. Someone who has tried to do this will hopefully chime in. You could use the Indigo OAG, which only takes up 14mm and that includes the m54 faceplate. It also has a thin profile camera holder. That would give you plenty of spacing left over to connect to the corrector. Actuality I will use a M54 gender changer adapter like this https://agenaastro.com/baader-m54x0-75-inverter-ring-m54-male-to-m54-male-thread-adapter-m54-inve-2458061.html , that has zero optical length. So I would still have 54mm, with ASG bottomed Let me explain the idea a little bit better. The idea is not to use a spacer to rotate the camera. Is to rotate the OAG , so I can choose a position that ZWO OAG focuser would not hit the Leo. I would use the 9 pc fine tuning spacer-ring set (0.1mm to 1mm) https://agenaastro.com/blue-fireball-9-pc-fine-tuning-spacer-ring-set-for-m54-threads-0-1-to-1-0-mm-s-set9.html , try a thickness that provides the right position, and then compensate it if needed using ASG case . What do you think? You don't need a spacer to do this. Just rotate the optec adapter to wherever you need it. Im also not certain the oag will clear on the narrow side of the Leo. You can try! Ps- those shims are very handy to have. I use them for dialing backspacing Fine! Thank you. Like

1.20

Rafael Sampaio

#...

Chris White- Overcast Observatory:
Rafael Sampaio:
Chris White- Overcast Observatory:
Rafael Sampaio:
Considering I still have some room, my idea is to use a thin spacer to rotate the OAG, so it will be positioned in a way it matches the thinner sides of the Leo Optec.

What do you mean by this?

The corrector threads into a LEO drawtube adapter. This adapter can be rotated in the drawtube of the LEO, so you can use whatever camera position you want.

Also, you are not accounting for the adapter to thread into the corrector. It's M54. I assume your tilt plate is as well? Both are female so you need a male to male adapter. These generally take up 2mm. I think I'm using a blue fireball. Since the OAG-L requires the tilt plate, you might not have enough spacing room. Also, the ZWO OAG focuser might hit the LEO. Someone who has tried to do this will hopefully chime in.

You could use the Indigo OAG, which only takes up 14mm and that includes the m54 faceplate. It also has a thin profile camera holder. That would give you plenty of spacing left over to connect to the corrector.

Actuality I will use a M54 gender changer adapter like this https://agenaastro.com/baader-m54x0-75-inverter-ring-m54-male-to-m54-male-thread-adapter-m54-inve-2458061.html , that has zero optical length. So I would still have 54mm, with ASG bottomed

Let me explain the idea a little bit better. The idea is not to use a spacer to rotate the camera. Is to rotate the OAG , so I can choose a position that ZWO OAG focuser would not hit the Leo. I would use the 9 pc fine tuning spacer-ring set (0.1mm to 1mm) https://agenaastro.com/blue-fireball-9-pc-fine-tuning-spacer-ring-set-for-m54-threads-0-1-to-1-0-mm-s-set9.html , try a thickness that provides the right position, and then compensate it if needed using ASG case .

What do you think?

You don't need a spacer to do this. Just rotate the optec adapter to wherever you need it. Im also not certain the oag will clear on the narrow side of the Leo. You can try!

Ps- those shims are very handy to have. I use them for dialing backspacing

Fine! Thank you.

5.21 Bill McLaughlin #... · view views
Not sure if this is what you are talking about and I am using the Octopi, not the Photon Cage and this is with the 130, not the 160 ( but the BF is the same, I believe) but it sounds like you are referring to the distance shown by the purple arrow. In my case the calculations I did indicated that it would be very close to not working for back focus and still have the OAG clear the LEO but either I am skilled or lucky because it does work, I now have it dialed in. It needed the camera in the Octopi to be set as close as possible to the filter wheel while still allowing room for adjustment (closer to 3 mm instead of the ideal 5mm). I was then able to have PP make an adapter from the flattener installed in the LEO to the front M54 adapter on the Indigo that was 6 mm optical distance. That allowed the guider barrel of the indigo to just barely (about a mm) clear the LEO. Darn close but OK. Photo angle does not show clearance but it does clear. Do not use the apparent Octopi screw position as a judge, photo was taken before I did the adjustments. After adjustment, it was a bit less back focus than you see here. I did consider adding spacer rings either under the flattener or under the LEO adapter flange to boost clearance to the LEO body. Either should have been fine up to a mm or so w/o compromising strength. You can buy larger shim rings that would work for this from McMaster-Carr. Fortunately that turned out to not be required. Interestingly, here is one place where thicker 3mm filters would have helped a bit. I am using the Astronomiks, which are 1 mm. 3 mm filters would have given one about .7 mm more room. Edited ... Like

5.21

Bill McLaughlin

#...

Not sure if this is what you are talking about and I am using the Octopi, not the Photon Cage and this is with the 130, not the 160 ( but the BF is the same, I believe) but it sounds like you are referring to the distance shown by the purple arrow.

In my case the calculations I did indicated that it would be very close to not working for back focus and still have the OAG clear the LEO but either I am skilled or lucky

because it does work, I now have it dialed in. It needed the camera in the Octopi to be set as close as possible to the filter wheel while still allowing room for adjustment (closer to 3 mm instead of the ideal 5mm). I was then able to have PP make an adapter from the flattener installed in the LEO to the front M54 adapter on the Indigo that was 6 mm optical distance. That allowed the guider barrel of the indigo to just barely (about a mm) clear the LEO. Darn close but OK. Photo angle does not show clearance but it does clear.

Do not use the apparent Octopi screw position as a judge, photo was taken before I did the adjustments. After adjustment, it was a bit less back focus than you see here.

I did consider adding spacer rings either under the flattener or under the LEO adapter flange to boost clearance to the LEO body. Either should have been fine up to a mm or so w/o compromising strength. You can buy larger shim rings that would work for this from McMaster-Carr. Fortunately that turned out to not be required.

Interestingly, here is one place where thicker 3mm filters would have helped a bit. I am using the Astronomiks, which are 1 mm. 3 mm filters would have given one about .7 mm more room.

Edited ...

3.58 Daniel Carter #... · view views
@Rafael Sampaio, the Optec adapter that the corrector screws into is held knto the LEO with set screws. You can rotate the corrector into any position you wish by rotating the adapter and then tightening those set screws. I don't recall at the moment but I don't think I had any issue with clearance between the Indigo OAG and the LEO body. I used a Precise Parts adapter that bolted to the Indigo OAG instead of using the Indigo's M54 adapter plate. I am pretty sure I was able to position the OAG in any position without clearance problems. Like

3.58

Daniel Carter

#...

@Rafael Sampaio, the Optec adapter that the corrector screws into is held knto the LEO with set screws. You can rotate the corrector into any position you wish by rotating the adapter and then tightening those set screws.

I don't recall at the moment but I don't think I had any issue with clearance between the Indigo OAG and the LEO body. I used a Precise Parts adapter that bolted to the Indigo OAG instead of using the Indigo's M54 adapter plate. I am pretty sure I was able to position the OAG in any position without clearance problems.

5.21 Bill McLaughlin #... · view views
Daniel Carter: don't recall at the moment but I don't think I had any issue with clearance between the Indigo OAG and the LEO body. I used a Precise Parts adapter that bolted to the Indigo OAG instead of using the Indigo's M54 adapter plate. I am pretty sure I was able to position the OAG in any position without clearance problems. That was why I tried to use the M54 front adapter plate instead of the bolt-on, it has slots that allow precise positioning of the OAG barrel. I did also have PP make a bolt-on for use w/o an OAG but never used it. My only issue was that my Indigo came with two M48 instead of an M48 and M54. Fortunately, Agena was very good and sent me the right adapter quickly. Edited ... Like

5.21

Bill McLaughlin

#...

Daniel Carter:
don't recall at the moment but I don't think I had any issue with clearance between the Indigo OAG and the LEO body. I used a Precise Parts adapter that bolted to the Indigo OAG instead of using the Indigo's M54 adapter plate. I am pretty sure I was able to position the OAG in any position without clearance problems.

That was why I tried to use the M54 front adapter plate instead of the bolt-on, it has slots that allow precise positioning of the OAG barrel. I did also have PP make a bolt-on for use w/o an OAG but never used it.

My only issue was that my Indigo came with two M48 instead of an M48 and M54.

Fortunately, Agena was very good and sent me the right adapter quickly.

Edited ...

2.41 jego #... · view views
Chris White- Overcast Observatory: Bill McLaughlin: Daniel Carter: use the Indigo OAG and it works well with the ZWO EFW and rhe LEO. What are you using for tip/tilt adjustment? Surely there is not enough room to adjust that with anything but the LEO base, which is a bit crude compared to an Octopi or Photon Cage. You definitely don't want to tilt the focuser when working on inage train tilt. The tilt needs to get corrected between the corrector and sensor. I've been using Qhy600 sbfl Photon cage Zwo filter wheel 50mm Indigo oag Spacers Is it possible to get a nitecrawler WR35 in there instead of the optec? I'm guessing no, because I never see this and that's probably why litecrawler exists? But I'm considering this setup, and would love to not buy a new focuser. I'm running QHY600 sbfl (plate removed), photon cage, qhy FW, OAG, so pretty similar. Like

2.41

jego

#...

Chris White- Overcast Observatory:
Bill McLaughlin:
Daniel Carter:
use the Indigo OAG and it works well with the ZWO EFW and rhe LEO.

What are you using for tip/tilt adjustment? Surely there is not enough room to adjust that with anything but the LEO base, which is a bit crude compared to an Octopi or Photon Cage.

You definitely don't want to tilt the focuser when working on inage train tilt. The tilt needs to get corrected between the corrector and sensor.

I've been using
Qhy600 sbfl
Photon cage
Zwo filter wheel 50mm
Indigo oag
Spacers

Is it possible to get a nitecrawler WR35 in there instead of the optec? I'm guessing no, because I never see this and that's probably why litecrawler exists? But I'm considering this setup, and would love to not buy a new focuser. I'm running QHY600 sbfl (plate removed), photon cage, qhy FW, OAG, so pretty similar.

20.43 Chris White- Overcast Observatory #... · view views · 2 likes
I had a second night to tinker with the EAT device on epsi. My seeing is not that good here, with this sub measuring at 3.45". In better seeing the diffraction artifacts will be more pronounced, and any remnant tilt or spacing error will be more visible (and require an adjustment). This is just about the best field I have been able to achieve with Epsilon. When I first dialed this in with Octopi and Photon Cage a couple years ago it took many nights of adjustments to get anywhere near this. I was able to do this on night 2 with the EAT, and only spend about 3 hours tinkering and testing and running analysis. Pretty awesome for a full frame sensor on an f3.3 astrograph! High res for you pixel peepers... https://www.astrobin.com/1yyvfq/D/ Edited ... Like

20.43

Chris White- Overcast Observatory

#...

· 2 likes

I had a second night to tinker with the EAT device on epsi. My seeing is not that good here, with this sub measuring at 3.45". In better seeing the diffraction artifacts will be more pronounced, and any remnant tilt or spacing error will be more visible (and require an adjustment).

This is just about the best field I have been able to achieve with Epsilon. When I first dialed this in with Octopi and Photon Cage a couple years ago it took many nights of adjustments to get anywhere near this.

I was able to do this on night 2 with the EAT, and only spend about 3 hours tinkering and testing and running analysis. Pretty awesome for a full frame sensor on an f3.3 astrograph!

High res for you pixel peepers... https://www.astrobin.com/1yyvfq/D/

Edited ...

20.43 Chris White- Overcast Observatory #... · view views
Is it possible to get a nitecrawler WR35 in there instead of the optec? I'm guessing no, because I never see this and that's probably why litecrawler exists? But I'm considering this setup, and would love to not buy a new focuser. I'm running QHY600 sbfl (plate removed), photon cage, qhy FW, OAG, so pretty similar. I highly doubt it, but I can measure the height of the focal plane if someone doesn't get to it first... Like

20.43

Chris White- Overcast Observatory

#...

Is it possible to get a nitecrawler WR35 in there instead of the optec? I'm guessing no, because I never see this and that's probably why litecrawler exists? But I'm considering this setup, and would love to not buy a new focuser. I'm running QHY600 sbfl (plate removed), photon cage, qhy FW, OAG, so pretty similar.

I highly doubt it, but I can measure the height of the focal plane if someone doesn't get to it first...

3.58 Daniel Carter #... · view views
=16pxIs it possible to get a nitecrawler WR35 in there instead of the optec? I'm guessing no, because I never see this and that's probably why litecrawler exists? But I'm considering this setup, and would love to not buy a new focuser. I'm running QHY600 sbfl (plate removed), photon cage, qhy FW, OAG, so pretty similar. I talked to Ron at Moonlite early on before I got my LEO and he said there was not enough back focus available even for a Litecrawler because of the flange needed. He had looked into a focuser for the Epsilon at one time though but I don't think anything came of it. I may be mistaken about a Moonlite focuser for the Epsilon though - I've slept since having that conversation! I'm not 100% certain it was Moonlite that was looking into developing a new focuser for the Epsilon. Okay so I looked through my email and here is what I found regarding a Litecrawler with the Epsilon: "Everybody has been asking that. I had looked to see if I could machine a flange to fit the Litecrawler on the E130/E160/E180s. But the Litecrawler is just a bit taller than the stock focuser by about 1/4". I have not given up on making a model to do it. Next time I'm machining drawtubes for the Litecrawler, I was going to see if I could make them with the 160 thread on it and also recess it lower by 1/4". It just may be possible?" I never followed up to see if he was able to recess the adapter for the Epsilon correctors. Like

3.58

Daniel Carter

#...

=16pxIs it possible to get a nitecrawler WR35 in there instead of the optec? I'm guessing no, because I never see this and that's probably why litecrawler exists? But I'm considering this setup, and would love to not buy a new focuser. I'm running QHY600 sbfl (plate removed), photon cage, qhy FW, OAG, so pretty similar.

I talked to Ron at Moonlite early on before I got my LEO and he said there was not enough back focus available even for a Litecrawler because of the flange needed. He had looked into a focuser for the Epsilon at one time though but I don't think anything came of it. I may be mistaken about a Moonlite focuser for the Epsilon though - I've slept since having that conversation! I'm not 100% certain it was Moonlite that was looking into developing a new focuser for the Epsilon.

Okay so I looked through my email and here is what I found regarding a Litecrawler with the Epsilon:

"Everybody has been asking that. I had looked to see if I could machine a flange to fit the Litecrawler on the E130/E160/E180s.
But the Litecrawler is just a bit taller than the stock focuser by about 1/4".

I have not given up on making a model to do it. Next time I'm machining drawtubes for the Litecrawler, I was going to see if I could make them with the 160 thread on it and also recess it lower by 1/4". It just may be possible?"

I never followed up to see if he was able to recess the adapter for the Epsilon correctors.

20.43 Chris White- Overcast Observatory #... · view views · 1 like
Oh shoot, here is a slightly better one. Seeing had improved all the way to 3.1" lol... https://www.astrobin.com/1yyvfq/E/ Like

20.43 Chris White- Overcast Observatory #... · view views · 1 like
Daniel Carter: I have not given up on making a model to do it. Next time I'm machining drawtubes for the Litecrawler, I was going to see if I could make them with the 160 thread on it and also recess it lower by 1/4". It just may be possible?" Unfortunately, this would certainly not be compatible with an OAG in the mix. Like

3.58 Daniel Carter #... · view views · 1 like
Chris White- Overcast Observatory: Daniel Carter: I have not given up on making a model to do it. Next time I'm machining drawtubes for the Litecrawler, I was going to see if I could make them with the 160 thread on it and also recess it lower by 1/4". It just may be possible?" Unfortunately, this would certainly not be compatible with an OAG in the mix. I like the Moonlite products but now with the new (hopefully) Hercules coming out from Optec, I would be perfectly happy using Optec. When I was testing my remote system here at home before deployment, I was convinced that I wanted a way to change camera rotation and really wanted to use a Litecrawler or a Gemini. Since I've been imaging remotely the past six months, I haven't wanted to change my framing. I've been very happy with my framing and shooting at 530mm most targets will frame up nicely no matter the orientation. If I image anything that needs a different orientation or if I canot fit the target in the frame with my orientation, I will just shoot a mosaic to get the framing I want. The nice thing about shooting from a dark site at f/3.3 is that you get great data VERY quickly and mosaics are fairly easy and quick to shoot. For anyone shooting from their backyard, there are some great products (is it called the Lyra? I've already forgot the name of Bill's product for rotation of the image train!). Every review I've seen of Bill's rotation device has been positive and that collimation isn't affected by rotation. It looks like a great rock solid product for our fast focal ratio scopes. For my remote system, I am happy with keeping a static image orientation. I don't have to worry about new flats when I change orientation. I know the new Hercules is supposed to be great (testing would definitely be needed to prove it doesn't change collimation but i would think an Optec prodcut will be rock solid) but I am paranoid of something going wrong with an additional mechanical device in my image train when my system is across the country. As of right now, for my money, the best focuser out there for the Epsilons is the Optec LEO. Edited ... Like

3.58

Daniel Carter

#...

· 1 like

Chris White- Overcast Observatory:
Daniel Carter:
I have not given up on making a model to do it. Next time I'm machining drawtubes for the Litecrawler, I was going to see if I could make them with the 160 thread on it and also recess it lower by 1/4". It just may be possible?"

Unfortunately, this would certainly not be compatible with an OAG in the mix.

I like the Moonlite products but now with the new (hopefully) Hercules coming out from Optec, I would be perfectly happy using Optec. When I was testing my remote system here at home before deployment, I was convinced that I wanted a way to change camera rotation and really wanted to use a Litecrawler or a Gemini.

Since I've been imaging remotely the past six months, I haven't wanted to change my framing. I've been very happy with my framing and shooting at 530mm most targets will frame up nicely no matter the orientation. If I image anything that needs a different orientation or if I canot fit the target in the frame with my orientation, I will just shoot a mosaic to get the framing I want. The nice thing about shooting from a dark site at f/3.3 is that you get great data VERY quickly and mosaics are fairly easy and quick to shoot.

For anyone shooting from their backyard, there are some great products (is it called the Lyra? I've already forgot the name of Bill's product for rotation of the image train!). Every review I've seen of Bill's rotation device has been positive and that collimation isn't affected by rotation. It looks like a great rock solid product for our fast focal ratio scopes.

For my remote system, I am happy with keeping a static image orientation. I don't have to worry about new flats when I change orientation. I know the new Hercules is supposed to be great (testing would definitely be needed to prove it doesn't change collimation but i would think an Optec prodcut will be rock solid) but I am paranoid of something going wrong with an additional mechanical device in my image train when my system is across the country.

As of right now, for my money, the best focuser out there for the Epsilons is the Optec LEO.

Edited ...

20.43 Chris White- Overcast Observatory #... · view views · 2 likes
I mounted the Gemini on my epsi briefly and confirmed that had no axial misalignment when rotating. Hoping the Hercules is the same. I'd like rotation for composition, better alignment of mosaic panels when shooting north, and most importantly to use when i have a tech swap out the correcter for the extender during galaxy season when there is a smaller FOV to work with. Like

11.02 Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography #... · view views · 1 like
Yes, and the Lyra has a newer version available that has added mounting holes for ZWO. When I get time to breathe I plan on updating the site and working on finishing more Lyra adaptations for DSLRs, and other imaging systems like Moravian, etc. I have a partially finished Dark Matters Sentinel as well, which is our temp, pressure and humidity sensor product that will be extremely affordable and can replace the THUM devices. The tilt product I'm not sure we will continue with as I'm not completely convinced it has long term staying power. Bill Like

11.02

Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography

#...

· 1 like

Yes, and the Lyra has a newer version available that has added mounting holes for ZWO. When I get time to breathe I plan on updating the site and working on finishing more Lyra adaptations for DSLRs, and other imaging systems like Moravian, etc.

I have a partially finished Dark Matters Sentinel as well, which is our temp, pressure and humidity sensor product that will be extremely affordable and can replace the THUM devices.

The tilt product I'm not sure we will continue with as I'm not completely convinced it has long term staying power.

Bill

3.58 Daniel Carter #... · view views
Chris White- Overcast Observatory: I mounted the Gemini on my epsi briefly and confirmed that had no axial misalignment when rotating. Hoping the Hercules is the same. I'd like rotation for composition, better alignment of mosaic panels when shooting north, and most importantly to use when i have a tech swap out the correcter for the extender during galaxy season when there is a smaller FOV to work with. Oh don't get me wrong...if the Hercules had been available when I was testing my system I would be using it now. The convenience of rotation is really nice. However, I also worry about mechanical failure so far away. That's another positive for Optec is that they are normally rock solid and wouldn't likely have mechanical issues. So far, I haven't found an targets that it would absolutely be required with at the native focal length that couldn't be solved by shooting a small mosaic. Shooting with the extender would definitely be nicer having more control over rotation for better framing. Speaking of, have you tested the extender @Chris White- Overcast Observatory ? I saw that @Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography had done a bit of testing and I was curious how well it has been working out for anyone who has used it. Like

3.58

Daniel Carter

#...

Chris White- Overcast Observatory:
I mounted the Gemini on my epsi briefly and confirmed that had no axial misalignment when rotating. Hoping the Hercules is the same.

I'd like rotation for composition, better alignment of mosaic panels when shooting north, and most importantly to use when i have a tech swap out the correcter for the extender during galaxy season when there is a smaller FOV to work with.

Oh don't get me wrong...if the Hercules had been available when I was testing my system I would be using it now. The convenience of rotation is really nice. However, I also worry about mechanical failure so far away. That's another positive for Optec is that they are normally rock solid and wouldn't likely have mechanical issues.

So far, I haven't found an targets that it would absolutely be required with at the native focal length that couldn't be solved by shooting a small mosaic.

Shooting with the extender would definitely be nicer having more control over rotation for better framing.

Speaking of, have you tested the extender @Chris White- Overcast Observatory ? I saw that @Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography had done a bit of testing and I was curious how well it has been working out for anyone who has used it.

11.02 Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography #... · view views · 2 likes
Daniel Carter: Chris White- Overcast Observatory: I mounted the Gemini on my epsi briefly and confirmed that had no axial misalignment when rotating. Hoping the Hercules is the same. I'd like rotation for composition, better alignment of mosaic panels when shooting north, and most importantly to use when i have a tech swap out the correcter for the extender during galaxy season when there is a smaller FOV to work with. Oh don't get me wrong...if the Hercules had been available when I was testing my system I would be using it now. The convenience of rotation is really nice. However, I also worry about mechanical failure so far away. That's another positive for Optec is that they are normally rock solid and wouldn't likely have mechanical issues. So far, I haven't found an targets that it would absolutely be required with at the native focal length that couldn't be solved by shooting a small mosaic. Shooting with the extender would definitely be nicer having more control over rotation for better framing. Speaking of, have you tested the extender @Chris White- Overcast Observatory ? I saw that @Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography had done a bit of testing and I was curious how well it has been working out for anyone who has used it. The extender is excellent. Full frame coverage as well, perfect stars across. Like

11.02

Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography

#...

· 2 likes

Daniel Carter:
Chris White- Overcast Observatory:
I mounted the Gemini on my epsi briefly and confirmed that had no axial misalignment when rotating. Hoping the Hercules is the same.

I'd like rotation for composition, better alignment of mosaic panels when shooting north, and most importantly to use when i have a tech swap out the correcter for the extender during galaxy season when there is a smaller FOV to work with.

Oh don't get me wrong...if the Hercules had been available when I was testing my system I would be using it now. The convenience of rotation is really nice. However, I also worry about mechanical failure so far away. That's another positive for Optec is that they are normally rock solid and wouldn't likely have mechanical issues.

So far, I haven't found an targets that it would absolutely be required with at the native focal length that couldn't be solved by shooting a small mosaic.

Shooting with the extender would definitely be nicer having more control over rotation for better framing.

Speaking of, have you tested the extender @Chris White- Overcast Observatory ? I saw that @Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography had done a bit of testing and I was curious how well it has been working out for anyone who has used it.

The extender is excellent. Full frame coverage as well, perfect stars across.

20.43 Chris White- Overcast Observatory #... · view views · 2 likes
I have not tested it but did review data from bills test. Looked awesome. Like

2.41 Jeff Ridder #... · view views · 1 like
Hercules is available for preorder. I’ve ordered mine. Like

11.02 Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography #... · view views · 1 like
Jeff Ridder: Hercules is available for preorder. I’ve ordered mine. You'll have to let us know how it performs. Like

20.43 Chris White- Overcast Observatory #... · view views
Jeff Ridder: Hercules is available for preorder. I’ve ordered mine. Oh nice! Where'd you see that? Like

2.41 Jeff Ridder #... · view views · 1 like
Chris White- Overcast Observatory: Jeff Ridder: Hercules is available for preorder. I’ve ordered mine. Oh nice! Where'd you see that? They updated their price sheet but not the website. Emailed Jeff and asked if he’s ready for me. Answer is yes. Preorder is open. Like

2.41 mzaslove #... · view views · 1 like
Jeff Ridder: Chris White- Overcast Observatory: Jeff Ridder: Hercules is available for preorder. I’ve ordered mine. Oh nice! Where'd you see that? They updated their price sheet but not the website. Emailed Jeff and asked if he’s ready for me. Answer is yes. Preorder is open. Thanks for the heads-up; I've emailed Jeff because I can't have money sitting in my pocket when there's a chance to buy something really cool Like

2.41

mzaslove

#...

· 1 like

Jeff Ridder:
Chris White- Overcast Observatory:
Jeff Ridder:
Hercules is available for preorder. I’ve ordered mine.

Oh nice! Where'd you see that?

They updated their price sheet but not the website. Emailed Jeff and asked if he’s ready for me. Answer is yes. Preorder is open.

Thanks for the heads-up; I've emailed Jeff because I can't have money sitting in my pocket when there's a chance to buy something really cool

	Distinct awarded users	Total awarded images
Image of the day
Top picks
Top pick nominations

	Image of the day	Top pick	Top pick nominations	Total submitted
Deep sky
Solar system
Extremely wide field
Star trails
Northern lights
Noctilucent clouds
Landscape

	Image of the day	Top pick	Top pick nominations	Total submitted
Backyard
Traveller
Own remote observatory
Amateur hosting facility
Public amaeteur data
Professional, scientific grade data
Mix of multiple sources
Other
Unknown

Image Index:

Contribution Index (beta):

Setting up the E160-ED for Full Frame Imaging Takahashi Epsilon-160ED · Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography · ... · 1402 · 49456 · 334

Image Index:

Contribution Index (beta):

Setting up the E160-ED for Full Frame Imaging Takahashi Epsilon-160ED · Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography · ... · 1402 · 49456 · 334

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Sorry