Hi group.

Anybody know how sensitive the multicoating is on WO optics when it comes to
cleaning with optical cleaning fluids such as lens cleaner?
I have a FLT 110 DDG and a ZS 70. The FLT is recently bought therefor my
question.
Also, is there any difference regarding the MC between WO refractors and the TMB
flattener which I also have? I.e. is the TMB more sensitive?

BR
/Dan

http://www.heimdahl.eu

 

Hi group

I have the FLT110 f7 (2 years old), and a Nikon D300 DSLR.

I'm inquiring about the recommended TMB flattener, for general
photography and possible future astro use (on EQ5).

I'm hoping to get sharp results across the whole FOV for landscape
and technical photography.

After following so many discussions on problems with flatteners
and flattener/reducers I'm concerned, given my lack of expertise.

Can anyone tell me how good this combination is?
Will I need to make adjustments to get the best results?

Is there a way to reduce the FL as well as flatten the field with this unit?

Thanks.

David Kinston
Melbourne.au



On 1/06/2010 8:00 AM, amadeoaznar wrote:

 

Hi astronomers,

I have got a flat68 to get a flat field in my pictures. I have install this accesory following the "distance to chip" diagram, but the cuve fiel still apears.

I have used the adapter that comes with my STL11000. It´s very similar than the DSLR adapter, but maybe bigger than this. But now seen the result in my pictures, i think the distance to chip is not all right.

Anyone use this configuration to tell me how is the correct distante?

Thanks for help me.

Regards,

Amadeo

 

Hi group

I have the FLT110 f7 (2 years old), and a Nikon D300 DSLR.

I'm inquiring about the recommended TMB flattener, for general
photography and possible future astro use (on EQ5).

I'm hoping to get sharp results across the whole FOV for landscape
and technical photography.

After following so many discussions on problems with flatteners
and flattener/reducers I'm concerned, given my lack of expertise.

Can anyone tell me how good this combination is?
Will I need to make adjustments to get the best results?

Is there a way to reduce the FL as well as flatten the field with this unit?

Thanks.

David Kinston
Melbourne.au



On 1/06/2010 8:00 AM, amadeoaznar wrote:

 

Hi astronomers,

I have got a flat68 to get a flat field in my pictures. I have install this accesory following the "distance to chip" diagram, but the cuve fiel still apears.

I have used the adapter that comes with my STL11000. It´s very similar than the DSLR adapter, but maybe bigger than this. But now seen the result in my pictures, i think the distance to chip is not all right.

Anyone use this configuration to tell me how is the correct distante?

Thanks for help me.

Regards,

Amadeo

Amadeo, does your flt-132 have a WO crayford focuser? That's the one on mine and
there's no way it can handle the weight of your imaging setup. A flexing focuser
would probably cause elongated stars. Just something to consider.

--- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "amadeoaznar" <amadeoaznar@...> wrote:
>
> Hi astronomers,
>
> I have got a flat68 to get a flat field in my pictures. I have install this
accesory following the "distance to chip" diagram, but the cuve fiel still
apears.
>
> I have used the adapter that comes with my STL11000. Itīs very similar than
the DSLR adapter, but maybe bigger than this. But now seen the result in my
pictures, i think the distance to chip is not all right.
>
> Anyone use this configuration to tell me how is the correct distante?
>
> Thanks for help me.
>
> Regards,
>
> Amadeo
>

 

Hey Perry what mods did you do??...

My FLT110 has a pretty nice focuser- what are the issues you are referring to??.

 

 

David B. Yates
Telescope Performance Improvements (TPI)
www.tpiastro.com

From: Perry Holcomb

Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 10:20 AM

To: William-Optics@yahoogroups.com

Subject: Re: [William Optics] Re: problem with WO FLT 132 + flat68 + STL11000

 

It's been said many times before, and it's time to say it again - the WO refractors would be GREAT scopes IF they had an even decent focuser.  Why WO won't bite the bullet and do this has to be a cost matter. Well, I offer that WO could sell a hellvua lot more scopes at a higher price if they carried robust focusers! That's dumb thinking on their part.  Even the little ZS66SD, which I still have, suffers from a less-than-acceptable focuser.  Only after modding that sucker have I been pleased with the scope as a whole, especially for imaging. WO, please take note. Better skies, Perry --- On Thu, 6/3/10, faron123us <faron@rogers.com> wrote: From: faron123us <faron@rogers.com> Subject: [William Optics] Re: problem with WO FLT 132 + flat68 + STL11000 To: William-Optics@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, June 3, 2010, 12:03 AM   Amadeo, does your flt-132 have a WO crayford focuser? That's the one on mine and there's no way it can handle the weight of your imaging setup. A flexing focuser would probably cause elongated stars. Just something to consider.

Hi all - here's what I know - hope this helps clarify some questions that seem
to be overlapping and perhaps confusing several different aspects at the same
time.

All refractors will show field curvature unless it has additional glass to
correct it.  It shows up in images as uniformly elongated stars that get more
and more elongated as you move out of the center of the image (kinda looks like
they are racing away from the center). This is due to being a refractor, and
doesn't have anything to do with the focuser.  There are a couple of ways to
remove it for imaging, including a design that incorporates extra elements, like
a Petzval design (Televue has a 4 element IS refractor for example) or by adding
a field flattener (more glass elements again) that correct for this.  The field
flattener's ability to correct for these elongated stars (and not introduce
other aberrations) depends on the design of the glass, the position and spacing
of the glass and the CCD, and how well the flattener's specifications match the
scope.

IF the elongated stars are not uniform, then what might be happening is focuser
sag - this makes the center point where there is no elongation, appear shifted
in the image.   This is not to be confused with the focuser slipping (which is
really an adjustment) where all the stars would be out of focus.

Also - I understand what Perry and others are saying about adjusting the focuser
and they are absolutely right.  To get the best performance from any focuser, it
needs to be properly adjusted, and since WO does not offer an option for
something like a much more expensive FeatherTouch (nor would most of their
market likely pay for that increase on most scope models) the best option is to
get used to having to adjust your WO focuser yourself.   The 2-speed upgrade,
while very nice, does have a limitation in that it was two pieces that are held
together which makes it much more prone to needed adjustment than something like
the SCT Linear Power focuser, which is actually a rack and pinion, in a more
single and unified housing, and not a Crayford design.

You can tell by looking at the bottom of the draw tube - if the bottom is smooth
and flat, it is a crayford design that uses a steel shaft to put pressure on the
aluminum drawtube that gives it smooth friction to focus in and out.  If you see
teeth, then it is a rack and pinion design.

On my 80mm 2" focusuer, I have never found a need to modify the locking screw as
Perry suggests for the 66mm scope. I have used mine for imaging only a few
times, but I was able to easily hold a Canon 20D Digital SLR without any issues
or slippage when locked in place all night a couple of years ago. The white tip
made of slippery plastic, works extremely well to lock the drawtube in place but
only if the tension is properly adjusted (needs to be reasonably tight).   The
reason the adjustment is so critical, is that the flat surface on the bottom, is
both the place for the friction of the steel shaft, and the friction for the
locking screw.  This is hard to explain without looking at it, but basically,
when you tighten the locking screw, you are also pushing the tube further
against the roller bearings on the top of the tube, and also pushing it away
from the steel shaft that provides the original friction needed to move the draw
tube.  So if the friction on the focuser is not initially tight enough, the
locking screw alone (with it's tiny slippery plastic tip) will now actually be
less friction than what was applied by only the steel shaft against the draw
tube shaft.  Clear as mud?

Perhaps this design simply works better on the 2" focuser I have than the
smaller 1.6" focuser, or maybe I just have mine adjusted tighter than others, so
it works well for me, I don't know.  Really, the big difference when you move to
a better focuser like the FeatherTouch (besides costing 2x to 3x) is that it
doesn't require as much adjusting over time and temperature changes.   Not sure
why, but maybe that is why it costs so much more.  For the discriminating AP
user, this is likely to appeal to them (it's too rich for my blood) so I do wish
that WO would offer that segment of users something more expensive directly from
the factory.

It does seem like WO is listening to us however, which is evident by the
introduction of their Linear Power designs, and now their DDG designs.  It seems
to me that WO is very aware this need, so hopefully the DDG lives up to it's
"Product of the Year" fame.  I know from using my SCT Linear Power design, it
has not needed adjusting at all since I initially installed it and adjusted it
to my liking for tension, and I have used it a lot with some very heavy
eyepieces without ever seeing any slippage.  Again, this is not a crayford
design, it uses a very well designed rack and pinion gear assembly.

Timm

--- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Y" <daveyates80@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Perry yes this is what I thought- More making sure the adjustments are
correct is the most critical...
> Cheers,
>
> David B. Yates
> Telescope Performance Improvements (TPI)
> www.tpiastro.com
>
>
>
> From: Perry Holcomb
> Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 2:31 PM
> To: William-Optics@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [William Optics] Re: problem with WO FLT 132 + flat68 + STL11000
>
>
>
>       Hey Dave,
>
>       Two primary mods:
>
>       The one that helped the most was replacing the nylon or teflon tip in
the focuser lock screw with a piece cut from a hard rubber stopper, lab-type,
obtainable at Lowe's or HD.
>
>       The other was ensuring all the hardware on the focuser was tight and
then properly tightening down the friction-control screw in the middle of the
knurled, black knob.  Unless adjusting the friction-control screw, that knob
should always be tight!
>
>       Well, the latter aren't truly mods, but they will certainly help hold
the draw tube when a cam is on it.
>
>       The piece of rubber stopper works amazingly well in holding the draw
tube.  Why WO would put a piece of slippery plastic on the tip of the locking
screw is beyond me.
>
>       These "mods" and the slipping draw tube problem have been thoroughly
discussed in earlier posts to this group by me and others.
>
>       Good luck, and
>
>       Better skies,
>
>       Perry
>
>       --- On Thu, 6/3/10, Dave Y <daveyates80@...> wrote:
>
>
>         From: Dave Y <daveyates80@...>
>         Subject: Re: [William Optics] Re: problem with WO FLT 132 + flat68 +
STL11000
>         To: William-Optics@yahoogroups.com
>         Date: Thursday, June 3, 2010, 11:00 AM
>
>
>
>
>         Hey Perry what mods did you do??...
>         My FLT110 has a pretty nice focuser- what are the issues you are
referring to??.
>
>
>         David B. Yates
>         Telescope Performance Improvements (TPI)
>         www.tpiastro. com
>
>
>
>         From: Perry Holcomb
>         Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 10:20 AM
>         To: William-Optics@ yahoogroups. com
>         Subject: Re: [William Optics] Re: problem with WO FLT 132 + flat68 +
STL11000
>
>
>
>               It's been said many times before, and it's time to say it again
- the WO refractors would be GREAT scopes IF they had an even decent focuser. 
Why WO won't bite the bullet and do this has to be a cost matter.
>
>               Well, I offer that WO could sell a hellvua lot more scopes at a
higher price if they carried robust focusers!
>
>               That's dumb thinking on their part.  Even the little ZS66SD,
which I still have, suffers from a less-than-acceptabl e focuser.  Only after
modding that sucker have I been pleased with the scope as a whole, especially
for imaging.
>
>               WO, please take note.
>
>               Better skies,
>
>               Perry
>
>               --- On Thu, 6/3/10, faron123us <faron@rogers. com> wrote:
>
>
>                 From: faron123us <faron@rogers. com>
>                 Subject: [William Optics] Re: problem with WO FLT 132 + flat68
+ STL11000
>                 To: William-Optics@ yahoogroups. com
>                 Date: Thursday, June 3, 2010, 12:03 AM
>
>
>
>                 Amadeo, does your flt-132 have a WO crayford focuser? That's
the one on mine and there's no way it can handle the weight of your imaging
setup. A flexing focuser would probably cause elongated stars. Just something to
consider.
>

Thanks Eddy

been out and bought one, just waiting for a flange now, youre right the focuser
is great, so simple and smooth, no comparison to the stock focuser.

Glen

--- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "Eddy & Muriel" <EddyMuriel@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Glen,
>
> I fitted a MoonLite focuser to my ZS80FD without any problem. The only thing I
wished was that I should have done it much earlier. These MoonLites are just
wonderful...
>
> Cheers,
> Eddy
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 5159 (20100531) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>

I agree that the focusers on the smaller William scopes just need some minor
adjustments to work as they should. I've owned three WO 80mm scopes, a Megrez
90, a Megrez 110, and now the flt-132. None of them sag like my new flt-132. I
was told by Tim from WO that this non-rotating crayford is the latest design. I
can speak for the focuser on my scope and this one cannot handle the weight of
the op's imaging train without flexure. Sure I can tighten it but the focuser
doesn't feel right and actually starts to slip. I just wanted to ask Amadeo if
he was using the same focuser because it is possible that the sag might be
contributing to the problem. Mine sags with a Canon T2i on it. I mentioned in an
earlier thread that I knew about the focusers on the flt132 and if I couldn't
tweak it to my liking I would upgrade it. I'll be ordering a Moonlite very soon.

Faron

--- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "amadeoaznar" <amadeoaznar@...> wrote:
>
> Hi astronomers,
>
> I have got a flat68 to get a flat field in my pictures. I have install this
accesory following the "distance to chip" diagram, but the cuve fiel still
apears.
>
> I have used the adapter that comes with my STL11000. Itīs very similar than
the DSLR adapter, but maybe bigger than this. But now seen the result in my
pictures, i think the distance to chip is not all right.
>
> Anyone use this configuration to tell me how is the correct distante?
>
> Thanks for help me.
>
> Regards,
>
> Amadeo
>

I was trying to observe M3 tonight but the weight my focuser could not draw in
the tube far enough due to the weight.  I am wondering if anyone has any idea on
how I can correct this (short of purchasing a new focuser or a 1 1/4" diagonal)?

I am using a WO 2" Dielectric diagonal, Televue 8x24 zoom (also tried 24mm
Pantoptic and got the same results).  I tightened the plastic tensioning
adjustment as far as it could go.  The only eyepiece that worked was a 20mm
Plossl.

Thanks

Shane

There are three versions as far as I am aware.
To the best of my knowledge, the first was faulty and was recalled.
Second was also faulty(?) and was also a reducer(0.75x??)
Third is the current one, is a 1:1 and is fine.... except it does not work with
the Megrez90 even though it is advertised that it will.
I found out the hard way.

Actually, the Flat4 Mk3 will work with the current M90.

The only thing that I realy don't like about WO is that they keep using the same
name for products that are quite different.

If they advertised and physicaly marked their Flat4's as Mk1, Mk2 and Mk3....
and even their Megrez90FD's as Mk1, Mk2 and Mk3, it sure would help us pleebs
that fork out hard earned cash to pair up combinations of their equipment that
will actually work together.

--- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "michael" <michaelwalsh@...> wrote:
>
> Hi
> Can anybody tell me the difference between the original field flattener 4 and
the new model other than a thumbscrew that keeps the back focus adjustment in
one place?
>
> There is some rumour that the original model was faulty. I recently bought the
original model from my  dealer as a run out item, it seems fine but i would like
to know if i possibly bought a lemon!
> m
>

Hmmm, now I think about it, I think the first Flat4 was a reducer(0.75x?), the
second was an extender(1.2x?) and now Mk3 is 1:1

Meh, too confusing.

--- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "vlad_bungle" <pyr0@...> wrote:
>
> There are three versions as far as I am aware.
> To the best of my knowledge, the first was faulty and was recalled.
> Second was also faulty(?) and was also a reducer(0.75x??)
> Third is the current one, is a 1:1 and is fine.... except it does not work
with the Megrez90 even though it is advertised that it will.
> I found out the hard way.
>
> Actually, the Flat4 Mk3 will work with the current M90.
>
> The only thing that I realy don't like about WO is that they keep using the
same name for products that are quite different.
>
> If they advertised and physicaly marked their Flat4's as Mk1, Mk2 and Mk3....
and even their Megrez90FD's as Mk1, Mk2 and Mk3, it sure would help us pleebs
that fork out hard earned cash to pair up combinations of their equipment that
will actually work together.
>
> --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "michael" <michaelwalsh@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> > Can anybody tell me the difference between the original field flattener 4
and the new model other than a thumbscrew that keeps the back focus adjustment
in one place?
> >
> > There is some rumour that the original model was faulty. I recently bought
the original model from my  dealer as a run out item, it seems fine but i would
like to know if i possibly bought a lemon!
> > m
> >
>

Megrez 90... version?

The first M90 was with L-bracket, f/6.9; for the second one they throw away the
L-bracket and changed the focuser but optics was the same; today the M90 is an
f/6.2.

Gianluca


--- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "vlad_bungle" <pyr0@...> wrote:
>
> There are three versions as far as I am aware.
> To the best of my knowledge, the first was faulty and was recalled.
> Second was also faulty(?) and was also a reducer(0.75x??)
> Third is the current one, is a 1:1 and is fine.... except it does not work
with the Megrez90 even though it is advertised that it will.
> I found out the hard way.
>
> Actually, the Flat4 Mk3 will work with the current M90.
>
>

The first was an extender (1.2x), the second was 1:1 or vice versa, and the
third which I own and have measured is a reducer (~ 0.83).

If your images come out OK, then you only need to measure the image scale so
that you'll know your FOV.

Tasos



--- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "vlad_bungle" <pyr0@...> wrote:
>
> Hmmm, now I think about it, I think the first Flat4 was a reducer(0.75x?), the
second was an extender(1.2x?) and now Mk3 is 1:1
>
> Meh, too confusing.
>
> --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "vlad_bungle" <pyr0@> wrote:
> >
> > There are three versions as far as I am aware.
> > To the best of my knowledge, the first was faulty and was recalled.
> > Second was also faulty(?) and was also a reducer(0.75x??)
> > Third is the current one, is a 1:1 and is fine.... except it does not work
with the Megrez90 even though it is advertised that it will.
> > I found out the hard way.
> >
> > Actually, the Flat4 Mk3 will work with the current M90.
> >
> > The only thing that I realy don't like about WO is that they keep using the
same name for products that are quite different.
> >
> > If they advertised and physicaly marked their Flat4's as Mk1, Mk2 and
Mk3.... and even their Megrez90FD's as Mk1, Mk2 and Mk3, it sure would help us
pleebs that fork out hard earned cash to pair up combinations of their equipment
that will actually work together.
> >
> > --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "michael" <michaelwalsh@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi
> > > Can anybody tell me the difference between the original field flattener 4
and the new model other than a thumbscrew that keeps the back focus adjustment
in one place?
> > >
> > > There is some rumour that the original model was faulty. I recently bought
the original model from my  dealer as a run out item, it seems fine but i would
like to know if i possibly bought a lemon!
> > > m
> > >
> >
>

Ever time I send a message to this group an automatic system by Thierry LAVAT
<thierry.lavat@...> sends me a message to register to some sort of
anti-spam service. This is annoying.

Because he don't even reply to my emails to attempt to adjust his settings, I
ask to moderators to BAN THIS GUY from the WO mailing list.

Gianluca

Hi,

I have no idea how a Yahoo Group could be doing this, but I sent an email to
Thierry asking him to reply to me or his account will be deleted.

Has anyone else experienced this?

Timm


--- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "inZet" <gsordiglioni@...> wrote:
>
> Ever time I send a message to this group an automatic system by Thierry LAVAT
<thierry.lavat@...> sends me a message to register to some sort of anti-spam
service. This is annoying.
>
> Because he don't even reply to my emails to attempt to adjust his settings, I
ask to moderators to BAN THIS GUY from the WO mailing list.
>
> Gianluca
>

 

Hi,

I have no idea how a Yahoo Group could be doing this, but I sent an email to Thierry asking him to reply to me or his account will be deleted.

Has anyone else experienced this?

Timm

--- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "inZet" <gsordiglioni@...> wrote:
>
> Ever time I send a message to this group an automatic system by Thierry LAVAT <thierry.lavat@...> sends me a message to register to some sort of anti-spam service. This is annoying.
>
> Because he don't even reply to my emails to attempt to adjust his settings, I ask to moderators to BAN THIS GUY from the WO mailing list.
>
> Gianluca
>

 

Hi,

I have no idea how a Yahoo Group could be doing this, but I sent an email to Thierry asking him to reply to me or his account will be deleted.

Has anyone else experienced this?

Timm

--- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "inZet" <gsordiglioni@...> wrote:
>
> Ever time I send a message to this group an automatic system by Thierry LAVAT <thierry.lavat@...> sends me a message to register to some sort of anti-spam service. This is annoying.
>
> Because he don't even reply to my emails to attempt to adjust his settings, I ask to moderators to BAN THIS GUY from the WO mailing list.
>
> Gianluca
>

 

Hi,

I have no idea how a Yahoo Group could be doing this, but I sent an email to Thierry asking him to reply to me or his account will be deleted.

Has anyone else experienced this?

Timm

--- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "inZet" <gsordiglioni@...> wrote:
>
> Ever time I send a message to this group an automatic system by Thierry LAVAT <thierry.lavat@...> sends me a message to register to some sort of anti-spam service. This is annoying.
>
> Because he don't even reply to my emails to attempt to adjust his settings, I ask to moderators to BAN THIS GUY from the WO mailing list.
>
> Gianluca
>

That's enough for me - I thought maybe it was just one person, but when others
chimed in, it was time to act.

I banned the account - and I didn't get a reply to my email either, so who knows
what the account was even for.

Come to think of it, I did check my spam filter once and remember seeing an
email from him as well.  Very weird - hopefully banning the account takes care
of it.

Thanks everyone!

Timm

--- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, Peter Hughes <caymanpete@...> wrote:
>
> Yep.
>
> Peter C Hughes
>
> On Jun 8, 2010, at 7:48 PM, "timm_bottoni" <t.bottoni@...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have no idea how a Yahoo Group could be doing this, but I sent an email to
Thierry asking him to reply to me or his account will be deleted.
>
> Has anyone else experienced this?
>
> Timm
>
> --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "inZet" <gsordiglioni@> wrote:
> >
> > Ever time I send a message to this group an automatic system by Thierry
LAVAT <thierry.lavat@> sends me a message to register to some sort of anti-spam
service. This is annoying.
> >
> > Because he don't even reply to my emails to attempt to adjust his settings,
I ask to moderators to BAN THIS GUY from the WO mailing list.
> >
> > Gianluca
> >
>

What flattener Is currently recommended for the M110?  Does anybody have any
experience with a flattener for this scope other than one made by WO?

----- Original Message -----

From: Timm B

To: William-Optics@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 9:44 PM

Subject: [William Optics] Re: Please delete user

 

That's enough for me - I thought maybe it was just one person, but when others chimed in, it was time to act.

I banned the account - and I didn't get a reply to my email either, so who knows what the account was even for.

Come to think of it, I did check my spam filter once and remember seeing an email from him as well. Very weird - hopefully banning the account takes care of it.

Thanks everyone!

Timm

--- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, Peter Hughes <caymanpete@...> wrote:
>
> Yep.
>
> Peter C Hughes
>
> On Jun 8, 2010, at 7:48 PM, "timm_bottoni" <t.bottoni@...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have no idea how a Yahoo Group could be doing this, but I sent an email to Thierry asking him to reply to me or his account will be deleted.
>
> Has anyone else experienced this?
>
> Timm
>
> --- In William-Optics@yahoogroups.com, "inZet" <gsordiglioni@> wrote:
> >
> > Ever time I send a message to this group an automatic system by Thierry LAVAT <thierry.lavat@> sends me a message to register to some sort of anti-spam service. This is annoying.
> >
> > Because he don't even reply to my emails to attempt to adjust his settings, I ask to moderators to BAN THIS GUY from the WO mailing list.
> >
> > Gianluca
> >
>