I loved how you explained it step by step. It really helps me out to understand it. I am a newbie at this, and I get nervous messing my gear up. Thank You Thank you .
Thanks so much! We were all newbies once, and I, too, remember being super nervous about setting up my camera stuff correctly. Heck - I still am! But I have been trying to make videos and post web articles on stuff I wish I could have found when I first learned. So glad to hear that this was helpful to you!
Thank you so much! I have healed up nicely and am ready to capture new photons, but the Wild Fires in Alberta, Canada, are riding the jet stream to cover my region, and so I am still waiting for the first captures of this year!
Thank you, for this informative tutorial. First time that I have seen a 2600mm pro installed on a filter wheel. Looks like I will be getting a light leak gasket for my similar setup. Wearing gloves was a nice touch or not.
Thank you for this video. Will you be uploading your backspacing testing and analysis? I have a couple more components to get, but hopefully I'll be collecting data soon...
You are most welcome! I had not thought about doing a video for the backspacing test - but I will seriously consider it. It might be a little bit harder since it is done in the dark, but maybe I figure out a way that would not disrupt the testing itself! Thanks for the suggestion! Clear skies, Pat
Enjoyed ur video. I have multiple mono cameras. I use a zero width 54MM adapter to directly attach my 2600MM to my EFW. I then can change cameras very quickly just by unscrewing the camera from the EFW body rather than removing 4 screws. Of course u need to leave tilt plate on. What do u think?
Thanks for your comment! If you can afford to leave the tilt plate on, this can be a great solution. I was concerned about whether my unmounted 36mm filters would vignette the field, so I wanted to absolutely minimize the distance between the sensor and the filter. I sacrificed the tilt plate and bolted the camera right onto the EFW, as you saw. This has turned out well for me. The mounting is solid, and I have no significant vignetting. I also did not need to use the tilt plate. I also tend not to shift my gear configuration around or change cameras. I treat the camera and EFW as a unit, and bolting them together works well for me. With your approach, you have a much greater ability to change cameras around. And you can use the tilt plate should you need it. The only downside I can see is that the camera can loosen its connection with the EFW and rotate a bit. I have run into this before myself. In the past, I set my scopes up in the driveway each night for imaging, so the rig's movement may have caused this. Clear Skies, Pat
Thanks, Much! The dark gasket came with the EFW 7x36 II. It was not included in the first version of the EFW I bought last year, but I did get one with the most recent one I purchased for this project. All the best, Pat
@@cosgrovescosmos perfect!, thanks o much for your comment I just ordered an EFW and I can't wait to try this with the Antlia filters, keep up the good work!
Great walk through and editing. I'm still pretty early in my learning process but find myself reluctant to use electrical tape. You are probably a bit more certain of your assembly decisions but since I change configurations between two scopes and the challenges of the tape residue - I've opted for ProTapes 306P743160MSW Black Shurtape P743 Photo Tape, 2" x 60 yds off Amazon. A bit more like a paper/masking tape and no residue. Ever used or considered it or a gaffers tape? It has worked well for me since last fall - the heat of Alabama summer test will show its ultimate worth. Curious as to your thoughts.
Thank you! I used back electrical tape as it was what I had handy. I have used this in the past for similar purposes without trouble - but keep in mind that I am located in Western New York - we don't get the kind of heat and humidity that you do down in Alabama! So I can see your concern. Regardless of the weather, I would say that a form of residual-free tape would be a better way to go in general. Clear Skies, Pat
@@cosgrovescosmos “Using what I have” is what keeps me within my hobby budget in line (kind of) :). Hadn’t delved that deep into your webpage yet but I’m familiar with that neck of the woods being born and raised around Utica
We've been pretty much shut down over the last month or so due to it. The jet stream picks up the smoke and brings it down to NY state. We had two days that were somewhat clear as the smoke plume went down further south, and I was finally able to catch some fresh photons - but even then, I could see the effects of smoke in my subs. It seems better right now - of course, the moon is now in the way. Hopefully, we are past the worst of it!
Wondering if you tested the reflectivity of the Astrodnomik with the pen at all? Antlia has the same claim but it still has a reflective side with pen ghosting. I also found Antlia not to be parfocal….
This is the third set of Astronomiks NB filters I have gotten. I tried Astronomiks because the filters I was using were showing halos and reflections. A friend said that he had never had any such issues with Astronomiks, and when I shifted over them was a night and day difference. For the first set of unmounted filters, I was unsure about what orientation I should use, so I tried the pen tip reflection test, and I could not see any real difference on one side or another. I have since researched this and contacted them directly, and everything I saw online suggested it did not matter. I think they are a great value! I buy most of my gear from AgenaAstro. Great folks there. They sell Antila but they put a disclaimer on them saying that they will not accept returns for reflections or halos on Antila filters as they can happen.
I recently bought a WO 132mm OTA that is about 5-7 years old - a beautiful scope! It came with the original flattener and I am trying to find what the back focus is between the field flattener and the Camera CMOS - is it the industry standard 55mm? I think I am using about 90mm at present (long story why and there is coma - but the coma picture is that generally seen when the camera is too close - not too far from the camera. It has left me very puzzled and wondering what the correct offset is? Appreciate if you know and can share - many thanks, Matthew
Hi Matthew! The back focus is dependent on the specific flattener you have and the scope you have. I have the P-FLAT7A flattener/0.8X reducer, and on the 132mm FLT, the back focus is 69.24mm. If you had the FLAT68III Flattener alone, the backfocus for the 132 FLT is 62.7mm. If you have the P-FLAT8 flattener/0.72X reducer, the backfocus for the 132 FLT is 63.4mm. Williams Optics has charts online that show you the backfocus needed. Hope that helps! Pat
@@cosgrovescosmos it would if WO documented it for the original dome shaped flattener with this scope - I have seen 4 docs with 4 toally different lengths tha are supposed to relate to the Mark I FLAT68 model - with backfocus ranging from 44.45 to 55 to 65 to 113mm. Stunning that this document just doesn't seem to exist on the WO website!
I missed this comment before - but have you reached out to William Optics and asked? In the past, I have found them quite responsive... not sure if that is still true...
@@cosgrovescosmos Just to say problem largely solved - thanks to help from my local astro store who looked at the charts for determining if the camera is too close or too far from your star shapes - and told me they have NEVER seen a pattern of stars like that depicted for camera too far. Armed with that bit of knowlegde I adjusted the backfocus in about 20mm from memory - now it looks perfect!
I loved how you explained it step by step. It really helps me out to understand it. I am a newbie at this, and I get nervous messing my gear up. Thank You Thank you .
Thanks so much! We were all newbies once, and I, too, remember being super nervous about setting up my camera stuff correctly. Heck - I still am! But I have been trying to make videos and post web articles on stuff I wish I could have found when I first learned. So glad to hear that this was helpful to you!
All the best for your recovery I appreciate all the work you put into your videos thanks for sharing
Thank you so much! So far so good!
All the best with your recovery!!
Thank you so much! I have healed up nicely and am ready to capture new photons, but the Wild Fires in Alberta, Canada, are riding the jet stream to cover my region, and so I am still waiting for the first captures of this year!
Great presentation. Thank you!
Thank you for the feedback! Very much appreciated!
Pat
Thank you, for this informative tutorial. First time that I have seen a 2600mm pro installed on a filter wheel. Looks like I will be getting a light leak gasket for my similar setup. Wearing gloves was a nice touch or not.
You are most welcome, Steven!
Thank you for this video. Will you be uploading your backspacing testing and analysis? I have a couple more components to get, but hopefully I'll be collecting data soon...
You are most welcome!
I had not thought about doing a video for the backspacing test - but I will seriously consider it. It might be a little bit harder since it is done in the dark, but maybe I figure out a way that would not disrupt the testing itself!
Thanks for the suggestion!
Clear skies,
Pat
Enjoyed ur video. I have multiple mono cameras. I use a zero width 54MM adapter to directly attach my 2600MM to my EFW. I then can change cameras very quickly just by unscrewing the camera from the EFW body rather than removing 4 screws. Of course u need to leave tilt plate on. What do u think?
Thanks for your comment! If you can afford to leave the tilt plate on, this can be a great solution.
I was concerned about whether my unmounted 36mm filters would vignette the field, so I wanted to absolutely minimize the distance between the sensor and the filter. I sacrificed the tilt plate and bolted the camera right onto the EFW, as you saw. This has turned out well for me. The mounting is solid, and I have no significant vignetting. I also did not need to use the tilt plate. I also tend not to shift my gear configuration around or change cameras. I treat the camera and EFW as a unit, and bolting them together works well for me.
With your approach, you have a much greater ability to change cameras around. And you can use the tilt plate should you need it. The only downside I can see is that the camera can loosen its connection with the EFW and rotate a bit. I have run into this before myself. In the past, I set my scopes up in the driveway each night for imaging, so the rig's movement may have caused this.
Clear Skies,
Pat
Thanks for these great videos!! Question.. where did you get that dark gasket?
Thanks, Much! The dark gasket came with the EFW 7x36 II. It was not included in the first version of the EFW I bought last year, but I did get one with the most recent one I purchased for this project.
All the best,
Pat
@@cosgrovescosmos perfect!, thanks o much for your comment I just ordered an EFW and I can't wait to try this with the Antlia filters, keep up the good work!
Great walk through and editing. I'm still pretty early in my learning process but find myself reluctant to use electrical tape. You are probably a bit more certain of your assembly decisions but since I change configurations between two scopes and the challenges of the tape residue - I've opted for ProTapes 306P743160MSW Black Shurtape P743 Photo Tape, 2" x 60 yds off Amazon. A bit more like a paper/masking tape and no residue. Ever used or considered it or a gaffers tape? It has worked well for me since last fall - the heat of Alabama summer test will show its ultimate worth. Curious as to your thoughts.
Thank you!
I used back electrical tape as it was what I had handy.
I have used this in the past for similar purposes without trouble - but keep in mind that I am located in Western New York - we don't get the kind of heat and humidity that you do down in Alabama!
So I can see your concern. Regardless of the weather, I would say that a form of residual-free tape would be a better way to go in general.
Clear Skies,
Pat
@@cosgrovescosmos “Using what I have” is what keeps me within my hobby budget in line (kind of) :). Hadn’t delved that deep into your webpage yet but I’m familiar with that neck of the woods being born and raised around Utica
I'm heading up to the Adironacks next month and I was curious if you have been impacted by the wildfires in Canada - and how much?
We've been pretty much shut down over the last month or so due to it. The jet stream picks up the smoke and brings it down to NY state. We had two days that were somewhat clear as the smoke plume went down further south, and I was finally able to catch some fresh photons - but even then, I could see the effects of smoke in my subs. It seems better right now - of course, the moon is now in the way. Hopefully, we are past the worst of it!
Wondering if you tested the reflectivity of the Astrodnomik with the pen at all?
Antlia has the same claim but it still has a reflective side with pen ghosting.
I also found Antlia not to be parfocal….
This is the third set of Astronomiks NB filters I have gotten. I tried Astronomiks because the filters I was using were showing halos and reflections. A friend said that he had never had any such issues with Astronomiks, and when I shifted over them was a night and day difference.
For the first set of unmounted filters, I was unsure about what orientation I should use, so I tried the pen tip reflection test, and I could not see any real difference on one side or another. I have since researched this and contacted them directly, and everything I saw online suggested it did not matter. I think they are a great value!
I buy most of my gear from AgenaAstro. Great folks there. They sell Antila but they put a disclaimer on them saying that they will not accept returns for reflections or halos on Antila filters as they can happen.
I recently bought a WO 132mm OTA that is about 5-7 years old - a beautiful scope! It came with the original flattener and I am trying to find what the back focus is between the field flattener and the Camera CMOS - is it the industry standard 55mm? I think I am using about 90mm at present (long story why and there is coma - but the coma picture is that generally seen when the camera is too close - not too far from the camera. It has left me very puzzled and wondering what the correct offset is?
Appreciate if you know and can share - many thanks, Matthew
Hi Matthew! The back focus is dependent on the specific flattener you have and the scope you have. I have the P-FLAT7A flattener/0.8X reducer, and on the 132mm FLT, the back focus is 69.24mm. If you had the FLAT68III Flattener alone, the backfocus for the 132 FLT is 62.7mm. If you have the P-FLAT8 flattener/0.72X reducer, the backfocus for the 132 FLT is 63.4mm. Williams Optics has charts online that show you the backfocus needed.
Hope that helps!
Pat
@@cosgrovescosmos it would if WO documented it for the original dome shaped flattener with this scope - I have seen 4 docs with 4 toally different lengths tha are supposed to relate to the Mark I FLAT68 model - with backfocus ranging from 44.45 to 55 to 65 to 113mm. Stunning that this document just doesn't seem to exist on the WO website!
I missed this comment before - but have you reached out to William Optics and asked? In the past, I have found them quite responsive... not sure if that is still true...
@@cosgrovescosmos Just to say problem largely solved - thanks to help from my local astro store who looked at the charts for determining if the camera is too close or too far from your star shapes - and told me they have NEVER seen a pattern of stars like that depicted for camera too far. Armed with that bit of knowlegde I adjusted the backfocus in about 20mm from memory - now it looks perfect!