Questoin for Roland: Waited too long to buy 175TCC (discontinued) for my 175EDF....is QUADTCC is as good of a solution.


jmfcst
 

Hi Roland,

I've put Wanted ads for a 175CC on Astromart and Cloudy Nights and offered up to $2000...but no one wants to sale theirs.

How big of a mistake did I make, or is QUADTCC just as good with no vignetting?


Roland Christen
 

Yes, you can use the QTCC that we make now. You will need to add an adapter to your 4" focuser to fit the QTCC. Talk to George at AP for further info.

Roland


-----Original Message-----
From: jmfcst via groups.io <jmfcst@...>
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io
Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2021 7:37 am
Subject: [ap-ug] Questoin for Roland: Waited too long to buy 175TCC (discontinued) for my 175EDF....is QUADTCC is as good of a solution.

Hi Roland,

I've put Wanted ads for a 175CC on Astromart and Cloudy Nights and offered up to $2000...but no one wants to sale theirs.

How big of a mistake did I make, or is QUADTCC just as good with no vignetting?


ROBERT WYNNE
 

Is a new multi function TCC/FF corrector in the cards? -Best, Robert

On 06/30/2021 7:06 AM Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...> wrote:
 
 
Ye s, you can use the QTCC that we make now. You will need to add an adapter to your 4" focuser to fit the QTCC. Talk to George at AP for further info.
 
Roland
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: jmfcst via groups.io <jmfcst@...>
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io
Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2021 7:37 am
Subject: [ap-ug] Questoin for Roland: Waited too long to buy 175TCC (discontinued) for my 175EDF....is QUADTCC is as good of a solution.

Hi Roland,

I've put Wanted ads for a 175CC on Astromart and Cloudy Nights and offered up to $2000...but no one wants to sale theirs.

How big of a mistake did I make, or is QUADTCC just as good with no vignetting?


Roland Christen
 

Not sure what you are referring to.

Rolando



-----Original Message-----
From: ROBERT WYNNE <robert-wynne@...>
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io; Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...>
Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2021 11:59 am
Subject: Re: [ap-ug] Questoin for Roland: Waited too long to buy 175TCC (discontinued) for my 175EDF....is QUADTCC is as good of a solution.

Is a new multi function TCC/FF corrector in the cards? -Best, Robert
On 06/30/2021 7:06 AM Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...> wrote:
 
 
Ye s, you can use the QTCC that we make now. You will need to add an adapter to your 4" focuser to fit the QTCC. Talk to George at AP for further info.
 
Roland
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: jmfcst via groups.io <jmfcst@...>
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io
Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2021 7:37 am
Subject: [ap-ug] Questoin for Roland: Waited too long to buy 175TCC (discontinued) for my 175EDF....is QUADTCC is as good of a solution.

Hi Roland,

I've put Wanted ads for a 175CC on Astromart and Cloudy Nights and offered up to $2000...but no one wants to sale theirs.

How big of a mistake did I make, or is QUADTCC just as good with no vignetting?


ROBERT WYNNE
 

Tried to respond via your personal e-mail account rather than make a public post of the subject. My message was returned as undeliverable. -Best, Robert

On 06/30/2021 10:16 AM Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...> wrote:
 
 
No t sure what you are referring to.
 
Rolando
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: ROBERT WYNNE <robert-wynne@...>
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io; Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...>
Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2021 11:59 am
Subject: Re: [ap-ug] Questoin for Roland: Waited too long to buy 175TCC (discontinued) for my 175EDF....is QUADTCC is as good of a solution.

Is a new multi function TCC/FF corrector in the cards? -Best, Robert
On 06/30/2021 7:06 AM Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...> wrote:
 
 
Ye s, you can use the QTCC that we make now. You will need to add an adapter to your 4" focuser to fit the QTCC. Talk to George at AP for further info.
 
Roland
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: jmfcst via groups.io <jmfcst@...>
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io
Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2021 7:37 am
Subject: [ap-ug] Questoin for Roland: Waited too long to buy 175TCC (discontinued) for my 175EDF....is QUADTCC is as good of a solution.

Hi Roland,

I've put Wanted ads for a 175CC on Astromart and Cloudy Nights and offered up to $2000...but no one wants to sale theirs.

How big of a mistake did I make, or is QUADTCC just as good with no vignetting?
 


Roland Christen
 

What exactly would a multi-function TCC/FF do? Is it something for visual you are looking for or something for imaging? What would it do for either function?

Rolando

-----Original Message-----
From: ROBERT WYNNE <robert-wynne@...>
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io; Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...>
Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2021 5:33 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-ug] Questoin for Roland: Waited too long to buy 175TCC (discontinued) for my 175EDF....is QUADTCC is as good of a solution.

Tried to respond via your personal e-mail account rather than make a public post of the subject. My message was returned as undeliverable. -Best, Robert
On 06/30/2021 10:16 AM Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...> wrote:
 
 
No t sure what you are referring to.
 
Rolando
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: ROBERT WYNNE <robert-wynne@...>
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io; Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...>
Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2021 11:59 am
Subject: Re: [ap-ug] Questoin for Roland: Waited too long to buy 175TCC (discontinued) for my 175EDF....is QUADTCC is as good of a solution.

Is a new multi function TCC/FF corrector in the cards? -Best, Robert
On 06/30/2021 7:06 AM Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...> wrote:
 
 
Ye s, you can use the QTCC that we make now. You will need to add an adapter to your 4" focuser to fit the QTCC. Talk to George at AP for further info.
 
Roland
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: jmfcst via groups.io <jmfcst@...>
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io
Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2021 7:37 am
Subject: [ap-ug] Questoin for Roland: Waited too long to buy 175TCC (discontinued) for my 175EDF....is QUADTCC is as good of a solution.

Hi Roland,

I've put Wanted ads for a 175CC on Astromart and Cloudy Nights and offered up to $2000...but no one wants to sale theirs.

How big of a mistake did I make, or is QUADTCC just as good with no vignetting?
 


ROBERT WYNNE
 

I'd rather take this up off the board. I started out feeling I only needed a FF which is no longer available for a recently acquired 155. The only FF on the A-P site available is: 

2.7" Prime Focus Field Flattener for 140 f/7.5 StarFire EDF, 130 f/8.35 StarFire EDT, 155 f/7 StarFire EDFS, Star130ED, Star12ED, 5" f/8 StarFire and 5" f/8 Standard (67PF582)

 
You & I exchanged messages on this topic and you referred me to the A-P website in what was a possible confusion on my part about the use of the FF vs a TC. And I may yet still be confused except for one issue you advised. The answer to that issue was what I expected when questioned about the use of both a FF and TC - the combination is not possible. 
 
My 155 arrived sans FF but with a 4" extension. Despite your advice I can find no A-P material that describes the utility of a FF compared to a TC. Only the FF web material seems to provide the end user of its scope and purpose. The TC seems to allude its use is primarily to move the focal point of the scope inward to effect focus inward onto the focal plane of a CCD or CMOS chip. Both purposes are desirable as far as I can determine. I would like round stars out to the corners and be able to bring that image into focus onto a mid large - large chip depending on schedule.
 
From the string of recent posts there seems a bit of demand for a FF that spans a number of scopes of this vintage and size. I was advised I could remove the 4" focuser and replace it with a 3.5 focuser after which a FF is available. The answer to your question to me is: not certain. Couple that with a tacit word that a suitable replacement may be forthcoming that somewhat does double duty without replacement of the 4" focuser - a 4" focuser replacement is something I would not prefer to replace except under your advice. But I will follow freshest advice given from the master of all things A-P.
 
My plan at this point, is observing through the 155 until a better mount and or FF becomes available, at which point I intend to advance into astrophotography as my skill set allows. -Best, Robert

On 06/30/2021 4:13 PM Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...> wrote:
 
 
Wha t exactly would a multi-function TCC/FF do? Is it something for visual you are looking for or something for imaging? What would it do for either function?
 
Rolando
 
-----Original Message-----
From: ROBERT WYNNE <robert-wynne@...>
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io; Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...>
Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2021 5:33 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-ug] Questoin for Roland: Waited too long to buy 175TCC (discontinued) for my 175EDF....is QUADTCC is as good of a solution.

Tried to respond via your personal e-mail account rather than make a public post of the subject. My message was returned as undeliverable. -Best, Robert
On 06/30/2021 10:16 AM Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...> wrote:
 
 
No t sure what you are referring to.
 
Rolando
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: ROBERT WYNNE <robert-wynne@...>
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io; Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...>
Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2021 11:59 am
Subject: Re: [ap-ug] Questoin for Roland: Waited too long to buy 175TCC (discontinued) for my 175EDF....is QUADTCC is as good of a solution.

Is a new multi function TCC/FF corrector in the cards? -Best, Robert
On 06/30/2021 7:06 AM Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...> wrote:
 
 
Ye s, you can use the QTCC that we make now. You will need to add an adapter to your 4" focuser to fit the QTCC. Talk to George at AP for further info.
 
Roland
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: jmfcst via groups.io <jmfcst@...>
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io
Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2021 7:37 am
Subject: [ap-ug] Questoin for Roland: Waited too long to buy 175TCC (discontinued) for my 175EDF....is QUADTCC is as good of a solution.

Hi Roland,

I've put Wanted ads for a 175CC on Astromart and Cloudy Nights and offered up to $2000...but no one wants to sale theirs.

How big of a mistake did I make, or is QUADTCC just as good with no vignetting?
 
 


Roland Christen
 

If you have the 155 scope, then there is a field flattener available for it. It is the 67PF582. There will also be a QuadTCC for this 155 scope available as we are finishing up the optics. It will be available soon.

No field flattener or telecompressor is required for visual use of this scope.
The 67PF582 field flattener is available and can be used for imaging with any camera, CCD, CMOS or digital.
The Quad TCC will reduce the focal length of the F7 scope and produce a wider flat field for any CCD, CMOS or Digital camera that you may wish to use.

That's all there is accessory-wise, and that applies to any of our scopes. There is nothing further needed for imaging.

I hope this clears up any misunderstanding.

Rolando



-----Original Message-----
From: ROBERT WYNNE <robert-wynne@...>
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io
Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2021 6:55 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-ug] Questoin for Roland: Waited too long to buy 175TCC (discontinued) for my 175EDF....is QUADTCC is as good of a solution.

I'd rather take this up off the board. I started out feeling I only needed a FF which is no longer available for a recently acquired 155. The only FF on the A-P site available is: 

2.7" Prime Focus Field Flattener for 140 f/7.5 StarFire EDF, 130 f/8.35 StarFire EDT, 155 f/7 StarFire EDFS, Star130ED, Star12ED, 5" f/8 StarFire and 5" f/8 Standard (67PF582)

 
You & I exchanged messages on this topic and you referred me to the A-P website in what was a possible confusion on my part about the use of the FF vs a TC. And I may yet still be confused except for one issue you advised. The answer to that issue was what I expected when questioned about the use of both a FF and TC - the combination is not possible. 
 
My 155 arrived sans FF but with a 4" extension. Despite your advice I can find no A-P material that describes the utility of a FF compared to a TC. Only the FF web material seems to provide the end user of its scope and purpose. The TC seems to allude its use is primarily to move the focal point of the scope inward to effect focus inward onto the focal plane of a CCD or CMOS chip. Both purposes are desirable as far as I can determine. I would like round stars out to the corners and be able to bring that image into focus onto a mid large - large chip depending on schedule.
 
From the string of recent posts there seems a bit of demand for a FF that spans a number of scopes of this vintage and size. I was advised I could remove the 4" focuser and replace it with a 3.5 focuser after which a FF is available. The answer to your question to me is: not certain. Couple that with a tacit word that a suitable replacement may be forthcoming that somewhat does double duty without replacement of the 4" focuser - a 4" focuser replacement is something I would not prefer to replace except under your advice. But I will follow freshest advice given from the master of all things A-P.
 
My plan at this point, is observing through the 155 until a better mount and or FF becomes available, at which point I intend to advance into astrophotography as my skill set allows. -Best, Robert
On 06/30/2021 4:13 PM Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...> wrote:
 
 
Wha t exactly would a multi-function TCC/FF do? Is it something for visual you are looking for or something for imaging? What would it do for either function?
 
Rolando
 
-----Original Message-----
From: ROBERT WYNNE <robert-wynne@...>
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io; Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...>
Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2021 5:33 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-ug] Questoin for Roland: Waited too long to buy 175TCC (discontinued) for my 175EDF....is QUADTCC is as good of a solution.

Tried to respond via your personal e-mail account rather than make a public post of the subject. My message was returned as undeliverable. -Best, Robert
On 06/30/2021 10:16 AM Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...> wrote:
 
 
No t sure what you are referring to.
 
Rolando
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: ROBERT WYNNE <robert-wynne@...>
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io; Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...>
Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2021 11:59 am
Subject: Re: [ap-ug] Questoin for Roland: Waited too long to buy 175TCC (discontinued) for my 175EDF....is QUADTCC is as good of a solution.

Is a new multi function TCC/FF corrector in the cards? -Best, Robert
On 06/30/2021 7:06 AM Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...> wrote:
 
 
Ye s, you can use the QTCC that we make now. You will need to add an adapter to your 4" focuser to fit the QTCC. Talk to George at AP for further info.
 
Roland
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: jmfcst via groups.io <jmfcst@...>
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io
Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2021 7:37 am
Subject: [ap-ug] Questoin for Roland: Waited too long to buy 175TCC (discontinued) for my 175EDF....is QUADTCC is as good of a solution.

Hi Roland,

I've put Wanted ads for a 175CC on Astromart and Cloudy Nights and offered up to $2000...but no one wants to sale theirs.

How big of a mistake did I make, or is QUADTCC just as good with no vignetting?
 
 


ROBERT WYNNE
 

Thanks again.
 
My confusion arises out of the 67PF582 specification. The initial line starts stating, 2.7" Prime focus Field Flattener. This seems to specifically exclude those scopes that have a 4" focuser. But are you recommending the 67PF582 is compatible with a 4" focuser for a 155?
 
Having said all that has been said in this exchange why or what is the driver or shortcoming that would cause one to choose the 67PF582 FF over the Quad TCC other than shorter focal length and faster exposure times or the upcoming newer version?
 
Because I am gearing up for imaging in the near future I would not be too enthusiastic about installing a 67PF582 only to later find out I have acquired a camera whose imaging chip FOV is greater than allowed by the current 67PF582 FF.
 
If the current A-P FF is available why are so many complaining that they are having trouble locating one even on the secondary market. I should have stated I already have the 67PF582 which you recommended for my 127 F8 and appears interchangeable upward to the 155? I doubt there is occasion where I would need the same FF for both scopes at the same time. I suppose there's the option of having both the soon to be released QuadTCC with the 67PF582 for conditions that may use of one or the other. No problemo.
 
I haven't felt like the village idiot in some time. But it is somewhat refreshing to get sent back to the first grade. I only wish it were true for the rest of other parts of my body.
 
Best,
Robert

On 06/30/2021 5:11 PM Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...> wrote:
 
 
If you have the 155 scope, then there is a field flattener available for it. It is the 67PF582. There will also be a QuadTCC for this 155 scope available as we are finishing up the optics. It will be available soon.
 
No field flattener or telecompressor is required for visual use of this scope.
The 67PF582 field flattener is available and can be used for imaging with any camera, CCD, CMOS or digital.
The Quad TCC will reduce the focal length of the F7 scope and produce a wider flat field for any CCD, CMOS or Digital camera that you may wish to use.
 
That's all there is accessory-wise, and that applies to any of our scopes. There is nothing further needed for imaging.
 
I hope this clears up any misunderstanding.
 
Rolando
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: ROBERT WYNNE <robert-wynne@...>
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io
Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2021 6:55 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-ug] Questoin for Roland: Waited too long to buy 175TCC (discontinued) for my 175EDF....is QUADTCC is as good of a solution.

I'd rather take this up off the board. I started out feeling I only needed a FF which is no longer available for a recently acquired 155. The only FF on the A-P site available is: 

2.7" Prime Focus Field Flattener for 140 f/7.5 StarFire EDF, 130 f/8.35 StarFire EDT, 155 f/7 StarFire EDFS, Star130ED, Star12ED, 5" f/8 StarFire and 5" f/8 Standard (67PF582)

 
You & I exchanged messages on this topic and you referred me to the A-P website in what was a possible confusion on my part about the use of the FF vs a TC. And I may yet still be confused except for one issue you advised. The answer to that issue was what I expected when questioned about the use of both a FF and TC - the combination is not possible. 
 
My 155 arrived sans FF but with a 4" extension. Despite your advice I can find no A-P material that describes the utility of a FF compared to a TC. Only the FF web material seems to provide the end user of its scope and purpose. The TC seems to allude its use is primarily to move the focal point of the scope inward to effect focus inward onto the focal plane of a CCD or CMOS chip. Both purposes are desirable as far as I can determine. I would like round stars out to the corners and be able to bring that image into focus onto a mid large - large chip depending on schedule.
 
From the string of recent posts there seems a bit of demand for a FF that spans a number of scopes of this vintage and size. I was advised I could remove the 4" focuser and replace it with a 3.5 focuser after which a FF is available. The answer to your question to me is: not certain. Couple that with a tacit word that a suitable replacement may be forthcoming that somewhat does double duty without replacement of the 4" focuser - a 4" focuser replacement is something I would not prefer to replace except under your advice. But I will follow freshest advice given from the master of all things A-P.
 
My plan at this point, is observing through the 155 until a better mount and or FF becomes available, at which point I intend to advance into astrophotography as my skill set allows. -Best, Robert
On 06/30/2021 4:13 PM Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...> wrote:
 
 
Wha t exactly would a multi-function TCC/FF do? Is it something for visual you are looking for or something for imaging? What would it do for either function?
 
Rolando
 
-----Original Message-----
From: ROBERT WYNNE <robert-wynne@...>
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io; Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...>
Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2021 5:33 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-ug] Questoin for Roland: Waited too long to buy 175TCC (discontinued) for my 175EDF....is QUADTCC is as good of a solution.

Tried to respond via your personal e-mail account rather than make a public post of the subject. My message was returned as undeliverable. -Best, Robert
On 06/30/2021 10:16 AM Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...> wrote:
 
 
No t sure what you are referring to.
 
Rolando
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: ROBERT WYNNE <robert-wynne@...>
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io; Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...>
Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2021 11:59 am
Subject: Re: [ap-ug] Questoin for Roland: Waited too long to buy 175TCC (discontinued) for my 175EDF....is QUADTCC is as good of a solution.

Is a new multi function TCC/FF corrector in the cards? -Best, Robert
On 06/30/2021 7:06 AM Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...> wrote:
 
 
Ye s, you can use the QTCC that we make now. You will need to add an adapter to your 4" focuser to fit the QTCC. Talk to George at AP for further info.
 
Roland
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: jmfcst via groups.io <jmfcst@...>
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io
Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2021 7:37 am
Subject: [ap-ug] Questoin for Roland: Waited too long to buy 175TCC (discontinued) for my 175EDF....is QUADTCC is as good of a solution.

Hi Roland,

I've put Wanted ads for a 175CC on Astromart and Cloudy Nights and offered up to $2000...but no one wants to sale theirs.

How big of a mistake did I make, or is QUADTCC just as good with no vignetting?
 
 
 


Roland Christen
 

The 67 part of the 67PF582 refers to the size of the coverage of that flattener. It covers a 67mm circle at the focus point. That's plenty big to cover a puny 35mm full format CMOS chip. I doubt that you will ever encounter a larger one. The 67PF582 will operate at approximately F7.3, and will produce the highest resolution images that the 155 scope can produce. So, it is great for things like galaxies, globular clusters and medium size deep sky objects.

The Quad TCC will take that 155F7 scope down to about F5 and will compress that large 67mm field size down to a 48mm circle so that a smaller CCD or CMOS chip can produce a larger field than the basic scope produces for that size chip. Although you can still image galaxies with that, the faster speed and wider field is better suited to deep sky nebulae, either with color or narrowband filters. You will probably fit the entire North America Nebula complex on a 35mm full frame sensor, as well as the Orion Nebula, M16 and other largish deep sky objects.

You might want to start out by trying some imaging on bright objects with just the field flattener and see what you can achieve, before investing in telecompressors. Imaging is not for the faint of heart, and takes quite a bit of skill in guiding and processing.

Rolando



-----Original Message-----
From: ROBERT WYNNE <robert-wynne@...>
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io
Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2021 9:10 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-ug] Questoin for Roland: Waited too long to buy 175TCC (discontinued) for my 175EDF....is QUADTCC is as good of a solution.

Thanks again.
 
My confusion arises out of the 67PF582 specification. The initial line starts stating, 2.7" Prime focus Field Flattener. This seems to specifically exclude those scopes that have a 4" focuser. But are you recommending the 67PF582 is compatible with a 4" focuser for a 155?
 
Having said all that has been said in this exchange why or what is the driver or shortcoming that would cause one to choose the 67PF582 FF over the Quad TCC other than shorter focal length and faster exposure times or the upcoming newer version?
 
Because I am gearing up for imaging in the near future I would not be too enthusiastic about installing a 67PF582 only to later find out I have acquired a camera whose imaging chip FOV is greater than allowed by the current 67PF582 FF.
 
If the current A-P FF is available why are so many complaining that they are having trouble locating one even on the secondary market. I should have stated I already have the 67PF582 which you recommended for my 127 F8 and appears interchangeable upward to the 155? I doubt there is occasion where I would need the same FF for both scopes at the same time. I suppose there's the option of having both the soon to be released QuadTCC with the 67PF582 for conditions that may use of one or the other. No problemo.
 
I haven't felt like the village idiot in some time. But it is somewhat refreshing to get sent back to the first grade. I only wish it were true for the rest of other parts of my body.
 
Best,
Robert
On 06/30/2021 5:11 PM Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...> wrote:
 
 
If you have the 155 scope, then there is a field flattener available for it. It is the 67PF582. There will also be a QuadTCC for this 155 scope available as we are finishing up the optics. It will be available soon.
 
No field flattener or telecompressor is required for visual use of this scope.
The 67PF582 field flattener is available and can be used for imaging with any camera, CCD, CMOS or digital.
The Quad TCC will reduce the focal length of the F7 scope and produce a wider flat field for any CCD, CMOS or Digital camera that you may wish to use.
 
That's all there is accessory-wise, and that applies to any of our scopes. There is nothing further needed for imaging.
 
I hope this clears up any misunderstanding.
 
Rolando
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: ROBERT WYNNE <robert-wynne@...>
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io
Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2021 6:55 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-ug] Questoin for Roland: Waited too long to buy 175TCC (discontinued) for my 175EDF....is QUADTCC is as good of a solution.

I'd rather take this up off the board. I started out feeling I only needed a FF which is no longer available for a recently acquired 155. The only FF on the A-P site available is: 

2.7" Prime Focus Field Flattener for 140 f/7.5 StarFire EDF, 130 f/8.35 StarFire EDT, 155 f/7 StarFire EDFS, Star130ED, Star12ED, 5" f/8 StarFire and 5" f/8 Standard (67PF582)

 
You & I exchanged messages on this topic and you referred me to the A-P website in what was a possible confusion on my part about the use of the FF vs a TC. And I may yet still be confused except for one issue you advised. The answer to that issue was what I expected when questioned about the use of both a FF and TC - the combination is not possible. 
 
My 155 arrived sans FF but with a 4" extension. Despite your advice I can find no A-P material that describes the utility of a FF compared to a TC. Only the FF web material seems to provide the end user of its scope and purpose. The TC seems to allude its use is primarily to move the focal point of the scope inward to effect focus inward onto the focal plane of a CCD or CMOS chip. Both purposes are desirable as far as I can determine. I would like round stars out to the corners and be able to bring that image into focus onto a mid large - large chip depending on schedule.
 
From the string of recent posts there seems a bit of demand for a FF that spans a number of scopes of this vintage and size. I was advised I could remove the 4" focuser and replace it with a 3.5 focuser after which a FF is available. The answer to your question to me is: not certain. Couple that with a tacit word that a suitable replacement may be forthcoming that somewhat does double duty without replacement of the 4" focuser - a 4" focuser replacement is something I would not prefer to replace except under your advice. But I will follow freshest advice given from the master of all things A-P.
 
My plan at this point, is observing through the 155 until a better mount and or FF becomes available, at which point I intend to advance into astrophotography as my skill set allows. -Best, Robert
On 06/30/2021 4:13 PM Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...> wrote:
 
 
Wha t exactly would a multi-function TCC/FF do? Is it something for visual you are looking for or something for imaging? What would it do for either function?
 
Rolando
 
-----Original Message-----
From: ROBERT WYNNE <robert-wynne@...>
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io; Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...>
Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2021 5:33 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-ug] Questoin for Roland: Waited too long to buy 175TCC (discontinued) for my 175EDF....is QUADTCC is as good of a solution.

Tried to respond via your personal e-mail account rather than make a public post of the subject. My message was returned as undeliverable. -Best, Robert
On 06/30/2021 10:16 AM Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...> wrote:
 
 
No t sure what you are referring to.
 
Rolando
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: ROBERT WYNNE <robert-wynne@...>
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io; Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...>
Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2021 11:59 am
Subject: Re: [ap-ug] Questoin for Roland: Waited too long to buy 175TCC (discontinued) for my 175EDF....is QUADTCC is as good of a solution.

Is a new multi function TCC/FF corrector in the cards? -Best, Robert
On 06/30/2021 7:06 AM Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...> wrote:
 
 
Ye s, you can use the QTCC that we make now. You will need to add an adapter to your 4" focuser to fit the QTCC. Talk to George at AP for further info.
 
Roland
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: jmfcst via groups.io <jmfcst@...>
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io
Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2021 7:37 am
Subject: [ap-ug] Questoin for Roland: Waited too long to buy 175TCC (discontinued) for my 175EDF....is QUADTCC is as good of a solution.

Hi Roland,

I've put Wanted ads for a 175CC on Astromart and Cloudy Nights and offered up to $2000...but no one wants to sale theirs.

How big of a mistake did I make, or is QUADTCC just as good with no vignetting?
 
 
 


Roland Christen
 

Oh, I forgot to mention, the 67PF582 fits right into the 2.7" adapter that came with your 4" focuser. Just unscrew the 2"visual adapter to reveal the 2.7" threads.

Rolando

-----Original Message-----
From: chris1011@...
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io <main@ap-ug.groups.io>
Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2021 9:39 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-ug] Questoin for Roland: Waited too long to buy 175TCC (discontinued) for my 175EDF....is QUADTCC is as good of a solution.

The 67 part of the 67PF582 refers to the size of the coverage of that flattener. It covers a 67mm circle at the focus point. That's plenty big to cover a puny 35mm full format CMOS chip. I doubt that you will ever encounter a larger one. The 67PF582 will operate at approximately F7.3, and will produce the highest resolution images that the 155 scope can produce. So, it is great for things like galaxies, globular clusters, planetary nebulae and other medium size deep sky objects.

The Quad TCC will take that 155F7 scope down to about F5 and will compress that large 67mm field size down to a 48mm circle so that a smaller CCD or CMOS chip can produce a larger field than the basic scope produces for that size chip. Although you can still image galaxies with that, the faster speed and wider field is better suited to deep sky nebulae, either with color or narrowband filters. You will probably fit the entire North America Nebula complex on a 35mm full frame sensor, as well as the Orion Nebula, M16 and other largish deep sky objects.

You might want to start out by trying some imaging on bright objects with just the field flattener and see what you can achieve, before investing in telecompressors. Imaging is not for the faint of heart, and takes quite a bit of skill in guiding and processing.

Rolando



-----Original Message-----
From: ROBERT WYNNE <robert-wynne@...>
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io
Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2021 9:10 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-ug] Questoin for Roland: Waited too long to buy 175TCC (discontinued) for my 175EDF....is QUADTCC is as good of a solution.

Thanks again.
 
My confusion arises out of the 67PF582 specification. The initial line starts stating, 2.7" Prime focus Field Flattener. This seems to specifically exclude those scopes that have a 4" focuser. But are you recommending the 67PF582 is compatible with a 4" focuser for a 155?
 
Having said all that has been said in this exchange why or what is the driver or shortcoming that would cause one to choose the 67PF582 FF over the Quad TCC other than shorter focal length and faster exposure times or the upcoming newer version?
 
Because I am gearing up for imaging in the near future I would not be too enthusiastic about installing a 67PF582 only to later find out I have acquired a camera whose imaging chip FOV is greater than allowed by the current 67PF582 FF.
 
If the current A-P FF is available why are so many complaining that they are having trouble locating one even on the secondary market. I should have stated I already have the 67PF582 which you recommended for my 127 F8 and appears interchangeable upward to the 155? I doubt there is occasion where I would need the same FF for both scopes at the same time. I suppose there's the option of having both the soon to be released QuadTCC with the 67PF582 for conditions that may use of one or the other. No problemo.
 
I haven't felt like the village idiot in some time. But it is somewhat refreshing to get sent back to the first grade. I only wish it were true for the rest of other parts of my body.
 
Best,
Robert
On 06/30/2021 5:11 PM Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...> wrote:
 
 
If you have the 155 scope, then there is a field flattener available for it. It is the 67PF582. There will also be a QuadTCC for this 155 scope available as we are finishing up the optics. It will be available soon.
 
No field flattener or telecompressor is required for visual use of this scope.
The 67PF582 field flattener is available and can be used for imaging with any camera, CCD, CMOS or digital.
The Quad TCC will reduce the focal length of the F7 scope and produce a wider flat field for any CCD, CMOS or Digital camera that you may wish to use.
 
That's all there is accessory-wise, and that applies to any of our scopes. There is nothing further needed for imaging.
 
I hope this clears up any misunderstanding.
 
Rolando
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: ROBERT WYNNE <robert-wynne@...>
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io
Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2021 6:55 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-ug] Questoin for Roland: Waited too long to buy 175TCC (discontinued) for my 175EDF....is QUADTCC is as good of a solution.

I'd rather take this up off the board. I started out feeling I only needed a FF which is no longer available for a recently acquired 155. The only FF on the A-P site available is: 

2.7" Prime Focus Field Flattener for 140 f/7.5 StarFire EDF, 130 f/8.35 StarFire EDT, 155 f/7 StarFire EDFS, Star130ED, Star12ED, 5" f/8 StarFire and 5" f/8 Standard (67PF582)

 
You & I exchanged messages on this topic and you referred me to the A-P website in what was a possible confusion on my part about the use of the FF vs a TC. And I may yet still be confused except for one issue you advised. The answer to that issue was what I expected when questioned about the use of both a FF and TC - the combination is not possible. 
 
My 155 arrived sans FF but with a 4" extension. Despite your advice I can find no A-P material that describes the utility of a FF compared to a TC. Only the FF web material seems to provide the end user of its scope and purpose. The TC seems to allude its use is primarily to move the focal point of the scope inward to effect focus inward onto the focal plane of a CCD or CMOS chip. Both purposes are desirable as far as I can determine. I would like round stars out to the corners and be able to bring that image into focus onto a mid large - large chip depending on schedule.
 
From the string of recent posts there seems a bit of demand for a FF that spans a number of scopes of this vintage and size. I was advised I could remove the 4" focuser and replace it with a 3.5 focuser after which a FF is available. The answer to your question to me is: not certain. Couple that with a tacit word that a suitable replacement may be forthcoming that somewhat does double duty without replacement of the 4" focuser - a 4" focuser replacement is something I would not prefer to replace except under your advice. But I will follow freshest advice given from the master of all things A-P.
 
My plan at this point, is observing through the 155 until a better mount and or FF becomes available, at which point I intend to advance into astrophotography as my skill set allows. -Best, Robert
On 06/30/2021 4:13 PM Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...> wrote:
 
 
Wha t exactly would a multi-function TCC/FF do? Is it something for visual you are looking for or something for imaging? What would it do for either function?
 
Rolando
 
-----Original Message-----
From: ROBERT WYNNE <robert-wynne@...>
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io; Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...>
Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2021 5:33 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-ug] Questoin for Roland: Waited too long to buy 175TCC (discontinued) for my 175EDF....is QUADTCC is as good of a solution.

Tried to respond via your personal e-mail account rather than make a public post of the subject. My message was returned as undeliverable. -Best, Robert
On 06/30/2021 10:16 AM Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...> wrote:
 
 
No t sure what you are referring to.
 
Rolando
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: ROBERT WYNNE <robert-wynne@...>
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io; Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...>
Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2021 11:59 am
Subject: Re: [ap-ug] Questoin for Roland: Waited too long to buy 175TCC (discontinued) for my 175EDF....is QUADTCC is as good of a solution.

Is a new multi function TCC/FF corrector in the cards? -Best, Robert
On 06/30/2021 7:06 AM Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...> wrote:
 
 
Ye s, you can use the QTCC that we make now. You will need to add an adapter to your 4" focuser to fit the QTCC. Talk to George at AP for further info.
 
Roland
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: jmfcst via groups.io <jmfcst@...>
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io
Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2021 7:37 am
Subject: [ap-ug] Questoin for Roland: Waited too long to buy 175TCC (discontinued) for my 175EDF....is QUADTCC is as good of a solution.

Hi Roland,

I've put Wanted ads for a 175CC on Astromart and Cloudy Nights and offered up to $2000...but no one wants to sale theirs.

How big of a mistake did I make, or is QUADTCC just as good with no vignetting?
 
 
 


ROBERT WYNNE
 

Once again thanks for your explanation.
 
Based on what I've read on this and other venues I remain unconvinced in CMOS chip technology's ability to capture an equal amount of photons compared to an CCD, in focus and without tilt at the pixel well level with 0 or near 0 noise in reasonable time frames. I would not underestimate my desire to obtain the largest Sony CCD available if the notion caught my interest nor a CMOS chip if the advancement in CMOS quality presents itself in the next year which could easily exceed a 67 mm circle. Thus my push.
 
While this field is one of the most complex endeavors I've ever undertaken - a lot to get one's head around in order to present results to the public - I remain hopeful to be able to provide some proof on this board after a mount of sufficient precision becomes available. Here I may have to resort to one of your competitor's product which is not my wish or intention. There are just not many options available when it comes to a Mach II though one comes up as a worthy mount made in Colorado.
 
It would be too fortunate for all the equipment I require to become available before the next acquisition - a better camera - becomes the next necessity. My current camera is a medium format Sony with a medium size chip. Though it is not quite pushing the limit of a 67 mm circle and I have no stacked images for show and tell again due an adequate mount.
 
The next camera will likely be one of the mid range ZWO's. But with ever rapidly evolving technology it's hard to predict what may become available in the coming year. I look forward to the day when I am able to post a photo on this board without humiliation at the same time I know that just having the some of the best equipment available does not buy one a place at this table. At this point you have convinced me the 67PF582 is sufficient for observing if not a bit of overkill for my current use.
 
Best,
Robert

On 06/30/2021 7:39 PM Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...> wrote:
 
 
The 67 part of the 67PF582 refers to the size of the coverage of that flattener. It covers a 67mm circle at the focus point. That's plenty big to cover a puny 35mm full format CMOS chip. I doubt that you will ever encounter a larger one. The 67PF582 will operate at approximately F7.3, and will produce the highest resolution images that the 155 scope can produce. So, it is great for things like galaxies, globular clusters and medium size deep sky objects.
 
The Quad TCC will take that 155F7 scope down to about F5 and will compress that large 67mm field size down to a 48mm circle so that a smaller CCD or CMOS chip can produce a larger field than the basic scope produces for that size chip. Although you can still image galaxies with that, the faster speed and wider field is better suited to deep sky nebulae, either with color or narrowband filters. You will probably fit the entire North America Nebula complex on a 35mm full frame sensor, as well as the Orion Nebula, M16 and other largish deep sky objects.
 
You might want to start out by trying some imaging on bright objects with just the field flattener and see what you can achieve, before investing in telecompressors. Imaging is not for the faint of heart, and takes quite a bit of skill in guiding and processing.
 
Rolando
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: ROBERT WYNNE <robert-wynne@...>
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io
Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2021 9:10 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-ug] Questoin for Roland: Waited too long to buy 175TCC (discontinued) for my 175EDF....is QUADTCC is as good of a solution.

Thanks again.
 
My confusion arises out of the 67PF582 specification. The initial line starts stating, 2.7" Prime focus Field Flattener. This seems to specifically exclude those scopes that have a 4" focuser. But are you recommending the 67PF582 is compatible with a 4" focuser for a 155?
 
Having said all that has been said in this exchange why or what is the driver or shortcoming that would cause one to choose the 67PF582 FF over the Quad TCC other than shorter focal length and faster exposure times or the upcoming newer version?
 
Because I am gearing up for imaging in the near future I would not be too enthusiastic about installing a 67PF582 only to later find out I have acquired a camera whose imaging chip FOV is greater than allowed by the current 67PF582 FF.
 
If the current A-P FF is available why are so many complaining that they are having trouble locating one even on the secondary market. I should have stated I already have the 67PF582 which you recommended for my 127 F8 and appears interchangeable upward to the 155? I doubt there is occasion where I would need the same FF for both scopes at the same time. I suppose there's the option of having both the soon to be released QuadTCC with the 67PF582 for conditions that may use of one or the other. No problemo.
 
I haven't felt like the village idiot in some time. But it is somewhat refreshing to get sent back to the first grade. I only wish it were true for the rest of other parts of my body.
 
Best,
Robert
On 06/30/2021 5:11 PM Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...> wrote:
 
 
If you have the 155 scope, then there is a field flattener available for it. It is the 67PF582. There will also be a QuadTCC for this 155 scope available as we are finishing up the optics. It will be available soon.
 
No field flattener or telecompressor is required for visual use of this scope.
The 67PF582 field flattener is available and can be used for imaging with any camera, CCD, CMOS or digital.
The Quad TCC will reduce the focal length of the F7 scope and produce a wider flat field for any CCD, CMOS or Digital camera that you may wish to use.
 
That's all there is accessory-wise, and that applies to any of our scopes. There is nothing further needed for imaging.
 
I hope this clears up any misunderstanding.
 
Rolando
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: ROBERT WYNNE <robert-wynne@...>
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io
Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2021 6:55 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-ug] Questoin for Roland: Waited too long to buy 175TCC (discontinued) for my 175EDF....is QUADTCC is as good of a solution.

I'd rather take this up off the board. I started out feeling I only needed a FF which is no longer available for a recently acquired 155. The only FF on the A-P site available is: 

2.7" Prime Focus Field Flattener for 140 f/7.5 StarFire EDF, 130 f/8.35 StarFire EDT, 155 f/7 StarFire EDFS, Star130ED, Star12ED, 5" f/8 StarFire and 5" f/8 Standard (67PF582)

 
You & I exchanged messages on this topic and you referred me to the A-P website in what was a possible confusion on my part about the use of the FF vs a TC. And I may yet still be confused except for one issue you advised. The answer to that issue was what I expected when questioned about the use of both a FF and TC - the combination is not possible. 
 
My 155 arrived sans FF but with a 4" extension. Despite your advice I can find no A-P material that describes the utility of a FF compared to a TC. Only the FF web material seems to provide the end user of its scope and purpose. The TC seems to allude its use is primarily to move the focal point of the scope inward to effect focus inward onto the focal plane of a CCD or CMOS chip. Both purposes are desirable as far as I can determine. I would like round stars out to the corners and be able to bring that image into focus onto a mid large - large chip depending on schedule.
 
From the string of recent posts there seems a bit of demand for a FF that spans a number of scopes of this vintage and size. I was advised I could remove the 4" focuser and replace it with a 3.5 focuser after which a FF is available. The answer to your question to me is: not certain. Couple that with a tacit word that a suitable replacement may be forthcoming that somewhat does double duty without replacement of the 4" focuser - a 4" focuser replacement is something I would not prefer to replace except under your advice. But I will follow freshest advice given from the master of all things A-P.
 
My plan at this point, is observing through the 155 until a better mount and or FF becomes available, at which point I intend to advance into astrophotography as my skill set allows. -Best, Robert
On 06/30/2021 4:13 PM Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...> wrote:
 
 
Wha t exactly would a multi-function TCC/FF do? Is it something for visual you are looking for or something for imaging? What would it do for either function?
 
Rolando
 
-----Original Message-----
From: ROBERT WYNNE <robert-wynne@...>
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io; Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...>
Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2021 5:33 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-ug] Questoin for Roland: Waited too long to buy 175TCC (discontinued) for my 175EDF....is QUADTCC is as good of a solution.

Tried to respond via your personal e-mail account rather than make a public post of the subject. My message was returned as undeliverable. -Best, Robert
On 06/30/2021 10:16 AM Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...> wrote:
 
 
No t sure what you are referring to.
 
Rolando
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: ROBERT WYNNE <robert-wynne@...>
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io; Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...>
Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2021 11:59 am
Subject: Re: [ap-ug] Questoin for Roland: Waited too long to buy 175TCC (discontinued) for my 175EDF....is QUADTCC is as good of a solution.

Is a new multi function TCC/FF corrector in the cards? -Best, Robert
On 06/30/2021 7:06 AM Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...> wrote:
 
 
Ye s, you can use the QTCC that we make now. You will need to add an adapter to your 4" focuser to fit the QTCC. Talk to George at AP for further info.
 
Roland
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: jmfcst via groups.io <jmfcst@...>
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io
Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2021 7:37 am
Subject: [ap-ug] Questoin for Roland: Waited too long to buy 175TCC (discontinued) for my 175EDF....is QUADTCC is as good of a solution.

Hi Roland,

I've put Wanted ads for a 175CC on Astromart and Cloudy Nights and offered up to $2000...but no one wants to sale theirs.

How big of a mistake did I make, or is QUADTCC just as good with no vignetting?
 
 
 
 


ROBERT WYNNE
 

Ah ha & Oh. Best, Robert

On 06/30/2021 7:42 PM Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...> wrote:
 
 
O h, I forgot to mention, the 67PF582 fits right into the 2.7" adapter that came with your 4" focuser. Just unscrew the 2"visual adapter to reveal the 2.7" threads.
 
Rolando
 
-----Original Message-----
From: chris1011@...
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io <main@ap-ug.groups.io>
Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2021 9:39 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-ug] Questoin for Roland: Waited too long to buy 175TCC (discontinued) for my 175EDF....is QUADTCC is as good of a solution.

The 67 part of the 67PF582 refers to the size of the coverage of that flattener. It covers a 67mm circle at the focus point. That's plenty big to cover a puny 35mm full format CMOS chip. I doubt that you will ever encounter a larger one. The 67PF582 will operate at approximately F7.3, and will produce the highest resolution images that the 155 scope can produce. So, it is great for things like galaxies, globular clusters, planetary nebulae and other medium size deep sky objects.
 
The Quad TCC will take that 155F7 scope down to about F5 and will compress that large 67mm field size down to a 48mm circle so that a smaller CCD or CMOS chip can produce a larger field than the basic scope produces for that size chip. Although you can still image galaxies with that, the faster speed and wider field is better suited to deep sky nebulae, either with color or narrowband filters. You will probably fit the entire North America Nebula complex on a 35mm full frame sensor, as well as the Orion Nebula, M16 and other largish deep sky objects.
 
You might want to start out by trying some imaging on bright objects with just the field flattener and see what you can achieve, before investing in telecompressors. Imaging is not for the faint of heart, and takes quite a bit of skill in guiding and processing.
 
Rolando
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: ROBERT WYNNE <robert-wynne@...>
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io
Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2021 9:10 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-ug] Questoin for Roland: Waited too long to buy 175TCC (discontinued) for my 175EDF....is QUADTCC is as good of a solution.

Thanks again.
 
My confusion arises out of the 67PF582 specification. The initial line starts stating, 2.7" Prime focus Field Flattener. This seems to specifically exclude those scopes that have a 4" focuser. But are you recommending the 67PF582 is compatible with a 4" focuser for a 155?
 
Having said all that has been said in this exchange why or what is the driver or shortcoming that would cause one to choose the 67PF582 FF over the Quad TCC other than shorter focal length and faster exposure times or the upcoming newer version?
 
Because I am gearing up for imaging in the near future I would not be too enthusiastic about installing a 67PF582 only to later find out I have acquired a camera whose imaging chip FOV is greater than allowed by the current 67PF582 FF.
 
If the current A-P FF is available why are so many complaining that they are having trouble locating one even on the secondary market. I should have stated I already have the 67PF582 which you recommended for my 127 F8 and appears interchangeable upward to the 155? I doubt there is occasion where I would need the same FF for both scopes at the same time. I suppose there's the option of having both the soon to be released QuadTCC with the 67PF582 for conditions that may use of one or the other. No problemo.
 
I haven't felt like the village idiot in some time. But it is somewhat refreshing to get sent back to the first grade. I only wish it were true for the rest of other parts of my body.
 
Best,
Robert
On 06/30/2021 5:11 PM Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...> wrote:
 
 
If you have the 155 scope, then there is a field flattener available for it. It is the 67PF582. There will also be a QuadTCC for this 155 scope available as we are finishing up the optics. It will be available soon.
 
No field flattener or telecompressor is required for visual use of this scope.
The 67PF582 field flattener is available and can be used for imaging with any camera, CCD, CMOS or digital.
The Quad TCC will reduce the focal length of the F7 scope and produce a wider flat field for any CCD, CMOS or Digital camera that you may wish to use.
 
That's all there is accessory-wise, and that applies to any of our scopes. There is nothing further needed for imaging.
 
I hope this clears up any misunderstanding.
 
Rolando
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: ROBERT WYNNE <robert-wynne@...>
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io
Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2021 6:55 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-ug] Questoin for Roland: Waited too long to buy 175TCC (discontinued) for my 175EDF....is QUADTCC is as good of a solution.

I'd rather take this up off the board. I started out feeling I only needed a FF which is no longer available for a recently acquired 155. The only FF on the A-P site available is: 

2.7" Prime Focus Field Flattener for 140 f/7.5 StarFire EDF, 130 f/8.35 StarFire EDT, 155 f/7 StarFire EDFS, Star130ED, Star12ED, 5" f/8 StarFire and 5" f/8 Standard (67PF582)

 
You & I exchanged messages on this topic and you referred me to the A-P website in what was a possible confusion on my part about the use of the FF vs a TC. And I may yet still be confused except for one issue you advised. The answer to that issue was what I expected when questioned about the use of both a FF and TC - the combination is not possible. 
 
My 155 arrived sans FF but with a 4" extension. Despite your advice I can find no A-P material that describes the utility of a FF compared to a TC. Only the FF web material seems to provide the end user of its scope and purpose. The TC seems to allude its use is primarily to move the focal point of the scope inward to effect focus inward onto the focal plane of a CCD or CMOS chip. Both purposes are desirable as far as I can determine. I would like round stars out to the corners and be able to bring that image into focus onto a mid large - large chip depending on schedule.
 
From the string of recent posts there seems a bit of demand for a FF that spans a number of scopes of this vintage and size. I was advised I could remove the 4" focuser and replace it with a 3.5 focuser after which a FF is available. The answer to your question to me is: not certain. Couple that with a tacit word that a suitable replacement may be forthcoming that somewhat does double duty without replacement of the 4" focuser - a 4" focuser replacement is something I would not prefer to replace except under your advice. But I will follow freshest advice given from the master of all things A-P.
 
My plan at this point, is observing through the 155 until a better mount and or FF becomes available, at which point I intend to advance into astrophotography as my skill set allows. -Best, Robert
On 06/30/2021 4:13 PM Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...> wrote:
 
 
Wha t exactly would a multi-function TCC/FF do? Is it something for visual you are looking for or something for imaging? What would it do for either function?
 
Rolando
 
-----Original Message-----
From: ROBERT WYNNE <robert-wynne@...>
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io; Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...>
Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2021 5:33 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-ug] Questoin for Roland: Waited too long to buy 175TCC (discontinued) for my 175EDF....is QUADTCC is as good of a solution.

Tried to respond via your personal e-mail account rather than make a public post of the subject. My message was returned as undeliverable. -Best, Robert
On 06/30/2021 10:16 AM Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...> wrote:
 
 
No t sure what you are referring to.
 
Rolando
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: ROBERT WYNNE <robert-wynne@...>
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io; Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...>
Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2021 11:59 am
Subject: Re: [ap-ug] Questoin for Roland: Waited too long to buy 175TCC (discontinued) for my 175EDF....is QUADTCC is as good of a solution.

Is a new multi function TCC/FF corrector in the cards? -Best, Robert
On 06/30/2021 7:06 AM Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...> wrote:
 
 
Ye s, you can use the QTCC that we make now. You will need to add an adapter to your 4" focuser to fit the QTCC. Talk to George at AP for further info.
 
Roland
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: jmfcst via groups.io <jmfcst@...>
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io
Sent: Wed, Jun 30, 2021 7:37 am
Subject: [ap-ug] Questoin for Roland: Waited too long to buy 175TCC (discontinued) for my 175EDF....is QUADTCC is as good of a solution.

Hi Roland,

I've put Wanted ads for a 175CC on Astromart and Cloudy Nights and offered up to $2000...but no one wants to sale theirs.

How big of a mistake did I make, or is QUADTCC just as good with no vignetting?
 
 
 
 


Dale Ghent
 

On Jul 1, 2021, at 01:54, ROBERT WYNNE <robert-wynne@comcast.net> wrote:

Based on what I've read on this and other venues I remain unconvinced in CMOS chip technology's ability to capture an equal amount of photons compared to an CCD, in focus and without tilt at the pixel well level with 0 or near 0 noise in reasonable time frames. I would not underestimate my desire to obtain the largest Sony CCD available if the notion caught my interest nor a CMOS chip if the advancement in CMOS quality presents itself in the next year which could easily exceed a 67 mm circle. Thus my push.
With all due respect, but none of this makes any sense.

Current CMOS sensors have QE in the high 80's, pushing 90%, and approach 1e- read noise in typical operating modes. 5, and even 3 minute long narrowband exposures at circa f/5 are normal... no more 15-20 minute exposures that can be ruined by a passing cloud or other interference. On top of that, you don't need to endure the comparatively glacial readout speeds that CCDs have, which eats into total integration time when you sum up the 15-20 seconds it takes to pull each frame off a CCD camera.

You sentiments would have made more sense perhaps up to 2 years ago. But the current generation of CMOS sensors, namely the IMX533 (1", color), IMX571 (APS-C color+mono), IMX455 (FF, color+mono), and IMX411 (150mp medium format, mono), have performance characteristics that make choosing them over CCD almost a no-brainer. They also have such low dark current that chilling them below -10C is very firmly in the territory of diminishing returns, making these sensors more warm-climate friendly top operate.

I will say that there seems to be a lot of sentimental or emotional attachment to CCDs; perhaps more so now that stocks of them are running on fumes. There are *plenty* of compelling reasons to adopt modern tech, however.


ROBERT WYNNE
 

Perhaps my sentiments are based upon 2 year old data. As matters stand, what is to prevent an improvement in CCD chip technology that won't outpace the performance of a CMOS chip in the coming year or so? If so then where does one stand having committed to the relatively new jump in CMOS performance.

Or are you saying CCD technology has had its day and will never again be surpassed?

I don't really have a bias and making the post as I did provided an education that elucidated a response that would not have otherwise been available since I'm not at the forefront of either technology. The speed at which this technology advances outpaces my ability to keep pace with it. Thanks for your input.

Best, Robert

On 07/01/2021 10:44 AM Dale Ghent <daleg@elemental.org> wrote:


On Jul 1, 2021, at 01:54, ROBERT WYNNE <robert-wynne@comcast.net> wrote:

Based on what I've read on this and other venues I remain unconvinced in CMOS chip technology's ability to capture an equal amount of photons compared to an CCD, in focus and without tilt at the pixel well level with 0 or near 0 noise in reasonable time frames. I would not underestimate my desire to obtain the largest Sony CCD available if the notion caught my interest nor a CMOS chip if the advancement in CMOS quality presents itself in the next year which could easily exceed a 67 mm circle. Thus my push.
With all due respect, but none of this makes any sense.

Current CMOS sensors have QE in the high 80's, pushing 90%, and approach 1e- read noise in typical operating modes. 5, and even 3 minute long narrowband exposures at circa f/5 are normal... no more 15-20 minute exposures that can be ruined by a passing cloud or other interference. On top of that, you don't need to endure the comparatively glacial readout speeds that CCDs have, which eats into total integration time when you sum up the 15-20 seconds it takes to pull each frame off a CCD camera.

You sentiments would have made more sense perhaps up to 2 years ago. But the current generation of CMOS sensors, namely the IMX533 (1", color), IMX571 (APS-C color+mono), IMX455 (FF, color+mono), and IMX411 (150mp medium format, mono), have performance characteristics that make choosing them over CCD almost a no-brainer. They also have such low dark current that chilling them below -10C is very firmly in the territory of diminishing returns, making these sensors more warm-climate friendly top operate.

I will say that there seems to be a lot of sentimental or emotional attachment to CCDs; perhaps more so now that stocks of them are running on fumes. There are *plenty* of compelling reasons to adopt modern tech, however.


Edward Beshore
 
Edited

Robert

Outside of strictly professional applications with unique requirements (for instance, products from companies like e2v), there are few market forces pushing commercial CCD technology to make the technological leap you hope for.  It’s the  large commercial consumer camera market and the desire for better low light performance (among other things) that have made modern CMOS chips so good, as Dale testifies.

Of course, we amateurs will always be ready for the next great thing, but I think if you peruse astrobin for a while, it will be clear that CMOS is capable of performance levels that exceed most of our skill levels.

Respectfully,

Ed Beshore


ROBERT WYNNE
 

Thanks for your advice with which I agree. I'm not making a case for either technology's superiority except for the possibility that one may outpace the other as the technology for each advances. Are all the CCD chip foundry's folding up?
 
The unanswered question I posed is: Has CCD chip technology seen its best days and is now replaced by CMOS permanently? That is where I am uncertain.
 
Then there is the newest JOT technology which has no pixels and promises better S/N and resolution.
 
While we are on the CCD/CMOS topic; there  seems a general consensus that 3.7 micron pixels is the minimum geometry for optimal pixels?
 
Best,
Robert

On 07/02/2021 5:19 AM Edward Beshore via groups.io <ebeshore@...> wrote:
 
 
Robert

Outside of strictly professional applications with unique requirements (for instance, products from companies like e2v), there are few market forces pushing commercial CCD technology to make the technological you hope for.  It’s the  large commercial consumer camera market and the desire for better low light performance (among other things) that have made modern CMOS chips so good, as Dale testifies.

Of course, we amateurs will always be ready for the next great thing, but I think if you peruse astrobin for a while, it will be clear that CMOS is capable of performance levels that exceed most of our skill levels.

Respectfully,

Ed Beshore


Alex M
 

Robert,

My two cents: I would agree with your statement that CCD technology has seen its best days. The amount of money that is spent on CMOS technology annually (My wife works for TSMC and they will likely spend in excess of $30 billion this year on research and new CMOS equipment) dwarfs anything that has ever been spent on CCD technology. None of the current top tier camera companies utilize CCD technology for their main stream personal cameras. All now use CMOS. 

There was another alternative to CMOS and CCD that utilized silicon to filter out RGB data called Fovean. The beauty of this technology was each pixel decodes RGB color dependent upon the varying depth of penetration of the various colors in silicon substrates. In essence, three times the resolution for the same number of pixels. (No Debayer) The company in question never did that well because CMOS was considered lower risk by Sony, Nikon, Canon, etc. The only company to produce a personal SLR camera with the Fovean silicon technology was Sigma. I worked for National Semiconductor for seven years which is the company that funded the initial research into the Fovean silicon solution. 

No turning back at this stage. CMOS will continue to dominate until they hit a physical brick wall that prevents further transistor shrinkage. So far, they keep finding ways around so called limits but the costs to do so grow exponentially.  ($3 plus billion to set up a cutting edge fab line, soon to be 5 billion, etc.)

Best,
Alex





ROBERT WYNNE
 

Thanks again. Forgot to mention the sensitivity of a jot camera is essentially one photon per equivalent pixel with 0 s/n. -Best, Robert 

On 07/02/2021 1:46 PM Alex M <alex@...> wrote:
 
 
Robert,

My two cents: I would agree with your statement that CCD technology has seen its best days. The amount of money that is spent on CMOS technology annually (My wife works for TSMC and they will likely spend in excess of $30 billion this year on research and new CMOS equipment) dwarfs anything that has ever been spent on CCD technology. None of the current top tier camera companies utilize CCD technology for their main stream personal cameras. All now use CMOS. 

There was another alternative to CMOS and CCD that utilized silicon to filter out RGB data called Fovean. The beauty of this technology was each pixel decodes RGB color dependent upon the varying depth of penetration of the various colors in silicon substrates. In essence, three times the resolution for the same number of pixels. (No Debayer) The company in question never did that well because CMOS was considered lower risk by Sony, Nikon, Canon, etc. The only company to produce a personal SLR camera with the Fovean silicon technology was Sigma. I worked for National Semiconductor for seven years which is the company that funded the initial research into the Fovean silicon solution. 

No turning back at this stage. CMOS will continue to dominate until they hit a physical brick wall that prevents further transistor shrinkage. So far, they keep finding ways around so called limits but the costs to do so grow exponentially.  ($3 plus billion to set up a cutting edge fab line, soon to be 5 billion, etc.)

Best,
Alex