antares vs celestron focal reducerfacts about witches in shakespeare's time

In this case, an additional T-adapter (with an optical length of 50mm) is needed to get the spacing correct for a DSLR or other camera with a 55mm back focus. Fortunately, my neighbors are not out in their backyards at 11 pm, or they may have thought I was torturing a small mammal. Unique focal reducer and field corrector lens accessory, Reduces the focal length and f/ ratio of your Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope by 37%, Provides a dual focal ratio instrument, without sacrificing image quality, Compatible with all Schmidt-Cassegrain telescopes (see compatible list in description). A focal reducer does just the opposite of a Barlow lens or focal extender. We have tested our current batch and it works with Meade, Celestron, and Baader SCT accessories. Any comments gratefully received. The Celestron f/6.3 is ~150 compared to the Antares at ~70. This focal reducer from Celestron reduces the effective focal length by 0.63X Enjoy the wider field of view & faster exposure times at f/6.3 with f/10 telescopes f/11 telescopes, such as the C14 will perform at f/7 The Celestron f/6.3 Reducer has four fully-multicoated elements Reduce your exposure times by a factor of 3! Unscrew that wide angle lens and put it away, then attach the ASI120 to the nose-piece that came with the camera and fit that into the eyepiece holder. Bear in mind you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip, i.e. For me the Antares was a little brighter and had the least scatter by a bit so the better coatings won. For imagers using longer focal-length refractors and SCTs, especially when using smaller sensors that place less demand on the focal reducer, there are economical alternatives for focal reducers from manufacturers such as GSO, Agena, and Antares. Celestrons award-winning Nature DX binocular gets a major upgrade with the addition of ED objective lenses. I've seen some older threads saying that the Celestron, Meade and Antares FRs are all the same and manufactured in the same factory. Many Ritchey-Chretien telescopes available today are made by GSO. Manish Panjwani has been an active amateur astronomer since before Halley's Comet last flew by our neighborhood. I have had the Japan unit on the back of my C5 since 1994 or thereabouts. Even though they may have been slightly dimmer, galaxies were a bit easier to tease out of the urban light soup I deal with. All rights reserved. This is especially true when these reducers are used with cameras with smaller sensors with a dimension of about 1/4 to 1/3 the diameter of the reducer, and with telescopes with a focal ratio of f/7 or larger. The Antares focal reducer comes in small box. Using an eyepiece with a 27mm field stop with the reducer will illuminate the edge the same as using an eyepieces with a 42.9mm field stop without it. When placed in the focal plane in front of a camera or eyepiece, a focal reducer leads to a wider field of view and a brighter image of extended objects, which is important for reducing the exposure times when imaging faint extended objects like nebulae or galaxies. * Not a Retail Store * 16313 Arthur StreetCerritos, CA 90703, USA, Availability: Item has been discontinued by Agena and we no longer carry this item. I must admit, as well, that I no longer place a lot of stock in the notion that Chinese optics are inferior to Japanese or Taiwanese any longer, as manufacturing technology has really leveled the playing field today, with most Chinese optics being excellent. which looks like the same one. I'm going with the Celestron. Focal reducers are essential optical accessories for astrophotography, electronically-assisted astronomy (EAA), and in some cases, for visual observation with long focal ratio telescopes. Things change but when I rebought I got an Antares and it seems about the same to me. Depending on the design of the telescope, they may require separate focal reducers if they require focal reducers at all. Antares or Celestron? First, I wanted to compare the actual reduction provided by these competitors, as many threads here cite different ideal spacing from the reducer to eyepiece focal plane to achieve the correct f/6.3 result. Not noticed any optical problems. I have both the Antares and the Celestron reducers. It has only one cover, which surprised me. He also holds a Ph.D. in engineering physics from McMaster University. For the best experience on our site, be sure to turn on Javascript in your browser. Your mileage may vary. Housings, threads, reduction, correction, blah, blah, blah. It's highly unlikely that they could be so precisely identical unless they were. The distance d2, which measures the position of the new focal plane of the objective from the back of the focal reducer is given by Equation 5: In these equations, d1, d2, and MR are all variables that depend on each other through Equations 2 and 4. riklaunim Members 559 3,445 Location: Poland Posted October 11, 2010 They are reported as identical. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. I happily cycle through LRGB filters to build the image rather than do a whole run of one filter at a time. Fumbling around in the dark, fine threads might be a problem. In the 1960s, Celestrons founder, Tom Johnson, created groundbreaking new telescopes never before seen on the consumer market. The stars at the edge could be worse or better. There are also third-party vendors such as Hotech. A few large telescopes and mounts are excluded from this free shipping offer. Observing the microscopic world has never been easier! It's important to match the back focus to within a millimeter or two to get an optimal image, especially with cameras with larger sensors. I use it on my C8 SCT with a 1000d, and it seems to do everything written on the tin. Thanks for the extremely valuable article. Increasing the operating distance, that is, moving a focal reducer away from the eyepiece or camera reduces its reduction factor, or conversely increases the amount of reduction. Focus misses by about 1 turnof the focus knob.Here is my solution:Buy a shorter 1.25 visual back for my scope. It covers the basic optics and design specifications of a focal reducer, and goes through some practical factors to consider when selecting and using a focal reducer. The focal length of a focal reducer is usually measured from the rear lens surface of the reducer (and not the reducer's housing). The key points are as follows: So just remember that a smaller distance (from the camera or eyepiece) means a lower amount of reduction (and vice versa). Generally, views through the Antares seemed a little more transparent and brighter. If I had to go out on a very thick limb, I would have to say that these two reducers/correctors are, indeed, identical the exact same glass in slightly different housings with different lettering. For example, a 0.8x reducer placed at the working distance provides a reduction of (1 0.8) x 100 = 20%. The telescope side of the barrel is often threaded with an M48 x 0.75 thread for standard 2" astronomy filters. Yet, the Antares still easily and fully threaded without any hitches. I wont bother with differences in packaging, caps, etc. - thanks. Looking forward to the day when I can do a shoot-out between a Japan and China Celestron, just for kicks. The working distance or required back focus, explained above, is usually specified and is far more important in practice. The price for an item/offer must be listed and valid at the time of match. Style: All Rights Reserved. High power views will provide flatter fields all the way to the edge, both visually and photographically. If I had to chose one, I would base my decision on your level of light pollution perhaps the Antares for its slightly higher transmission if you live under less light polluted skies, but the Celestron for its greater contrast if you are dealing with a suburban or urban light dome. So, if you have a filter that is 3mm thick, you need to add 1mm of spacing to your imaging train to retain the correct back focus. As a Barlow's magnification increases with increasing distance from the Barlow, a focal reducer's reduction increases with increasing distance from the reducer. . Never noticed any anomalies with this unit. If I had to guess, the difference is maybe 10-15 grams. They provide 0.75x focal reducers for these telescopes that takes an f/8 instrument down to f/6. Better images are also obtained when using these focal reducers at a reduction factor of 0.5x 0.8x, approximately. Try & buy if you like - usual mates rates. SKU: CEL-94245. On the camera side, the focal reducer has male M42x0.75 or M48x0.75 threads that attach directly to the T-ring (with an M42-M48 adapter if necessary). October 11, 2010 in Discussions - Scopes / Whole setups. I have the Antares and am not unhappy with it, but for AP I would want more back focal distance if those numbers are accurate. However I've also read that the back focal distance on the Celestron is 105mm while the Antares is 81mm so they couldn't be identical. There may have been an almost imperceptible difference, but the Antares and Celestron were producing precisely the same reduction. Just one question. Most manufacturers provide this specification. I use the Celestron version and it seems OK for both visual and imaging. No idea what the issue is. It also leads to larger (although fainter) images of extended objects like the Moon or planets for astrophotographers or visual observers. EclipSmart solar products feature Solar Safe filter technology providing the ultimate protection from harmful solar radiation, including both IR and UV light, and filters 99.999% of visible light. Right off the bat, I was struck by how similar the two R/Cs were. You don't need to follow these equations to use a focal reducer, but they do show how the reduction factor changes with the placement of the reducer. Wonder how they would stack up with a Japanese 6.3. That means the base of the mounting threads of the focal reducer needs to be 55mm from the camera sensor to achieve the design reduction factor, which is usually 0.8x or 0.85x. GSO, for example, has a 0.75x reducer for RC scopes with a back focus of 80mm, which is usually enough room for a wide range of astronomy cameras and accessories and spacers as needed. The Antares f/6.3 Focal Reducer for Schmidt-Cassegrain Telescopes is a low-price option for reducing the focal length of your Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope from f/10 to f/6.3. Celestron or Antares f/6.3 focal reducer for SCT? The new Lithium Phosphate (LiFePO4) battery chemistry has significant advantages over other battery chemistries, great for for those Astronomers on the go. You can probably eke out 1.2 without noticing serious vignetting, which is a field stop of 31.5mm. This focal reducer and field flattener consists of a four-element multicoated 40mm lens in a metal cell. This was most noticeable on the eyepiece end of the RC, where the metal rim surrounding the lens was about 1mm thicker than on the Celestron. In this case, d2 = FR/2, which means the back of the focal reducer is located at a distance FR/2 from the camera or eyepiece. This is one of our best-selling items, and customers have reported that this product is at least as good as, and probably better than, other leading f/6.3 focal reducers sold on the market for a lot more. By Reducer Lens .7x - EdgeHD 1100 Learn More. Thanks. A wider field of view and a lower magnification is also useful, with some focal reducers and with some eyepieces, for visual observers with telescopes with long focal ratios. Again, swapping back and forth for a couple of hours on M44, M35, and several brighter stars, I examined the shape of specific stars near the edge of the field with both correctors. Photographically you also get a wider field and much shorter exposures. Does anyone have any experience with the Celestron and Antares focal reducers? Quite interestingly it bears the very same engravings of the Meade 4000 r/c (including "series 4000") except for "MEADE". Brian Ventrudo is a writer, scientist, and astronomy educator. However, because the field curvatures in refractors and SCTs vary a lot, I would predict unpredictable effects inre: field curvature. Meade does not make an equivalent line of focal reducers for the ACF scopes, although some models of Meade ACF are already at f/8, faster than the f/10 ratio of Celestron Edge HD scopes. It was used strictly for imaging, not visual observing. Because most modern Newtonians already have relatively fast focal ratios, these telescopes do not usually use focal reducers. Imagine having two telescopes in one a long focal length instrument for lunar and planetary work and a short focal length scope for deep sky observing and astrophotography. Celestron makes a series of focal reducers for the Edge HD line that are matched to the 8", 9.25", 11", and 14" apertures of these scopes. As a result, the smaller tube may cut into the light cone and effectively reduce the working aperture of the telescope. He received his first telescope at the age of 5 and completed his first university course in astronomy at the age of 12, eventually receiving a master's degree in the subject. Celestrons FREE planetarium app is an astronomy suite that redefines how you experience the night sky. But when not in the box or on the telescope, there is no cover for the other end. Because I have not heard any complaints about the made in China R/C. Turn it on and push Align. In about three minutes, youre ready to observe! They are reported as identical. I doubt there is any difference between the Antares and the Celestron except price. This fully multi-coated lens provides maximum light transmission with near full-field illumination. This factor is designated by a power that is less than 1, and it usually lies between 0.5x or 0.8x. I'd favor the Japanese Celestron version over the others that are commercially available. In terms of reduction and correction - which are what reducer/correctors are supposed to do - both are superb. Some faster refractors with a focal ratio of f/6, for example, only require field flatteners and not focal reducers. As one increases, the other decreases. The Reducer/Corrector can also be used for terrestrial digiscoping. Clearly cost is a big factor for satisfied users. For Stephen Wilkerson: The ZWO ASI120MC-S does come with a wide angle lens, HOWEVER, it is NOT intended to used when you are using the ASI120 camera attached to your telescope. CPWI has an extensive object database, employs PointXP mount modeling, and more. However I've also read that the back focal distance on the Celestron is 105mm while the Antares is 81mm so they couldn't be identical. I have the Antares and have no complaints. The same illumination you have at the edge of a 27mm field, the C8 has at the edge of a 38mm field. Explore Scientific - Keys to the Universe Sale. The easiest way to use a focal reducer is to make sure you place it at the specified working distance in front of your camera or eyepiece. Oceanside Photo & Telescope wants our customers to shop with confidence knowing that you will always get the best deal available. Orders placed over the weekend will be shipped on the following Monday. Reducer Lens .7x - EdgeHD 1400 Learn More. Or, when the distance of the focal reducer to the focal plane of the objective d1 equals the focal length of the focal reducer FR, the reduction factor MR = 0.5x. This is a. A couple of tiny dust particles between lens elements, uneven lens edge blackening, very minor coating blemishes, or even a very small fine lens scratch or two are very common in this Antares product and must be accepted as normal for this item. Each focal reducer has a fixed specification called the working distance or required back focus. In such cases, we will be happy to take the item back as per our standard return terms. Theres a long-running debate in these forums and even statements from some reputable dealers that the Antares is just a reducer (even though it is labeled Reducer/Corrector), whereas the Celestron is a true R/C, which flattens the SCTs naturally curved field and provides some edge correction. I read another thread in a different forum about F6.3 reducer correctors and one amateur posted an image about glue coming out of an astromania f6.3 reducer which he planned to return. But I am rusty, can you condense a bit for me please? The lens has a knurled surface, providing a tremendous gripping surface for threading/unthreading. However, manufacturers virtually never provide this specification. As a real-world example plot showing the above relationships, let's look at the 1.25" GSO focal reducer that provides a design reduction factor of 0.5x. Also read the reviews here, including those at 4 stars. It's usually specified in millimeters. The C8 has no noticeable vignetting with a 32mm Plssl in the f/6.3 reducer. CPWI has an extensive object database, employs PointXP mount modeling, and more. InternetSales@optcorp.com. Stars had a tiny bit more sparkle and pop. It's an either/or proposition: reducer and 1.25", or 2", but not 2" and reducer. Thanks Peter! Another factor to consider: focal reducers also increase the angle at which light approaches the focal plane. In many cases, the answer is yes, especially for electronically-assisted astronomy (EAA). I focus using a moonlight electronic focuser and focusmax. No rainchecks will be issued for items out of stock at OPTcorp.com to match a competitor's price. Antares' f/6.3 focal reducer provides a faster f/6.3 system for imaging or visual use when used with an f/10 SCT or other compatible telescopes. Focal Reducer, 2", 0.7X. Stock focusers in an SCT move the mirror of the scope to change the position of the focal plane, and they have sufficient travel to accommodate a focal reducer. Celestron or Antares? Some manufacturers will specify the working distance from the middle of the rear lens surface, and this number must then be converted into a practical working distance number by subtracting the amount by which the rear lens surface is recessed in its housing. The lens that the ZWO comes with give a perfect wide angle image of what is in front of it. JavaScript seems to be disabled in your browser. Brightness, color, and contrast were subtly different, but could be as much the day they were coated as any real difference in the two brands. Maybe I got a lemon. 1.2" in that scope is a field stop of 43mm at f/10 and 27mm at f/6.3. An f/6.3 reducer is designed to reduce the focal ratio of an f/10 SCT to f/6.3. Besides observing from his heavily light polluted backyard in Los Angeles, Manish enjoys conducting astronomy outreach programs in local schools. However, doesn't fit in the telescope and even if it did wouldn't work. Our proprietary StarBright XLT optical coatings dramatically increase transmission, up to 97.4% on our Schmidt corrector lenses. Focal reducers for refractors are easy to use. Celestrons aplanatic EdgeHD optics revolutionized astroimaging. Please note, orders placed after 10am on 2/28/2023 will be delayed. With spring galaxy season here, I decided to pick up a couple more to compare in a head-to-head shoot out. Designed distancing using the reducer with a 1.25 visual back and 1.25 Televue mirror diagonal; All additional accessories mount onto the exterior/male threads. If you place your camera at a different working distance, you will get a different reduction factor and perhaps unwanted distortion in the image. Thanks guys, appreciate the feedback. Free shipping $189.95 Due to the design, the Reducer/Corrector lens does diminish a small amount of field curvature common to all Schmidt Cassegrain telescopes but does not eliminate it. My Celestron was made in China and the Antares in Canada. Therefore, a 55mm back focus with a filter that is 3mm thick added to the imaging train would become 56mm. The working distance (backfocus) of the Celestron f/6.3 reducer is specified to be 105mm from the base of the male SCT thread on the camera side. The equations and argument in the Appendix of this article shows the relationship between the working distance and the reduction factor. Place the plastic covers on the lens when not in use to reduce the dust collection. However, I noticed immediately that the Antares had a bit more of an heft to it, giving it a solid feel the Celestron didnt possess. Sign up for our newsletter to get exclusive deals, observing tips, and new product announcements. Again, these focal reducers are often provided by the telescope manufacturer. (Note: Using the simple equations above, the focal length of this reducer can be estimated to be about 350mm). Opticstar F6.3 Focal Reducer / Corrector. More details are found in the Appendix of this article. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. This is very impressive performance given how hard this problem is to mitigate in general. I own both and concur heartily. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality. If you want to save a few buck watch the classifieds on CN. The brightness, shape, and distortion of specific stars in the exact same position at the edge of the field was precisely identical in both reducers. The camera side of the focal reducer is threaded for a T-adapter with wide M48 threads, or in some cases, with smaller M42 threads. Many focal reducers for refractors have a working distance (or back focus distance) of 55mm. As per the OP I still can't see any reason to buy the Celestron for significantly more $$$. Most focal reducers are designed to operate optimally at the working distance in the optical path to achieve their specified reduction factor, which is usually between 0.5x and 0.8x. Many reducers, such as the Celestron HD focal reducer mentioned above, and many focal reducers for apochromatic refractors, are meant to be used within a few millimeters (or less) of the specified working distance to achieve the best possible image results. This focal reducer is made to attach to the rear cell of Schmidt-Cassegrain or Maksutov-Cassegrain telescopes. Newtonian reflectors will seldom be able to accommodate the in-focus travel demanded by focal reducers. Based on Test 1 and Test 2, I think there is perhaps more validity to opposing statements here in these forums that the Antares and current China-made Celestron do, indeed, have exactly the same optics just with different housings and branding. Go behind the scenes with Celestrons product development team and learn more about our award-winning and patented innovations. However, the China 6.3 R/C has noticeable internal reflections that I haven't figured out yet. The internal surfaces are blackened and glare-threaded to provide the highest contrast. However, these will not impact optical performance. So, this past week I challenged the Antares and Celestron models to a head-to-hear on my C8 on some decent nights of good seeing and transparency in my Bortle 5-6 urban skies. A little longer light path with a 2 Baader click-lock, low profile 1.25 adapter, and the 1.25 diagonal; No small animals were harmed in making these observations. Download the Celestron PWI Telescope Control Software. Now, Celestron is using that same technology to allow star gazers to connect to the night sky and enhance their experience of the cosmos in fun and unique ways. During a twenty-year scientific career, he developed laser systems to detect molecules found in interstellar space and planetary atmospheres, and leveraged his expertise to create laser technology for optical communications networks.

How Long Are Temporary Plates Good For In Nh, Wreck In Jessamine County Today, James Donald Mcconaughey, Articles A