Come join the friendliest, most engaging and inclusive astronomy forum geared for beginners and advanced telescope users, astrophotography devotees, plus check out our "Astro" goods vendors.
Come join the friendliest, most engaging and inclusive astronomy forum geared for beginners and advanced telescope users, astrophotography devotees, plus check out our "Astro" goods vendors.
My 9.25" (235mm) F10 SCT has a focal length of 2350mm. I put an F6.3 focal reducer on it which should, according to the maths, reduce my focal length to 1480mm.
I use ASTAP to Plate Solve and it's excellent, really quick. However, it reports that my focal length should be set to 1317mm.
My camera back focus is bang on. Nothing else has changed. My ASI294MC used to do the same thing. The Plate Solve still works, so it's not too much of a problem but it would be good to know what's happening.
I have noticed the same thing using Plate Solve 2. It makes me wonder also. But, I look at the frame and if it includes everything I want, well then I chalk it up to a mechanical curiosity. In my case, the only thing in the optical path is a field flattener that should not alter the FL at all. Hmmm!
I just did a plate solve in All Sky Plate Solver from one of last night's images and it computes an FL of 708mm. The scope is listed at 714mm, so I guess that isn't such a big deal.
∞ Primary Scopes: #1: Celestron CPC1100 #2: 8" f/7.5 Dob #3: CR150HD f/8 6" frac ∞ AP Scopes: #1: TPO 6" f/9 RC #2: ES 102 f/7 APO #3: ES 80mm f/6 APO ∞ G&G Scopes: #1: Meade 102mm f/7.8 #2: Bresser 102mm f/4.5 ∞ Guide Scopes: 70 & 80mm fracs -- The El Cheapo Bros. ∞ Mounts: iOptron CEM70AG, SW EQ6R, Celestron AVX, SLT & GT (Alt-Az), Meade DS2000 ∞ Cameras: #1: ZWO ASI294MC Pro #2: 662MC #3: 120MC, Canon T3i, Orion SSAG, WYZE Cam3 ∞ Binos: 10X50,11X70,15X70, 25X100 ∞ AP Gear: ZWO EAF and mini EFW and the Optolong L-eXteme filter ∞ EPs: ES 2": 21mm 100° & 30mm 82° Pentax XW: 7, 10, 14, & 20mm 70°
Searching the skies since 1966. "I never met a scope I didn't want to keep."
Yes, the plate solve still works so it's possibly not a problem.
But 1480 to 1317 is a huge difference and it means that I have to enter the settings in NINA incorrectly to match or the plate solving doesn't work. So that means I can't be certain of the displayed field of view in the Framing tab. Also, I use Stellerium as the planetarium in NINA so I need to set the ocular settings incorrectly for that to display correctly too.
My main issue is that I have a 13% error in my focal length figures that I can't explain and there could be implications that I've not thought of!
SCTs have variable focal length, since they focus by altering the focal length of the system. 2350 mm is just the nominal focal length, what it was designed around. It will probably give you the clearest image if you arrange the back spacing so that the focal point is actually at 2350 mm. But measuring different focal lengths by plate solving is normal for SCTs.
DSO AP:Orion 200mm f/4 Newtonian Astrograph; ATIK 383L+; EFW2 filter wheel; Astrodon Ha,Oiii,LRGB filters; KWIQ/QHY5 guide scope; Planetary AP:Celestron C-11; ZWO ASI120MC; Portable: Celestron C-8 on HEQ5 pro; C-90 on wedge; 20x80 binos; Etc: Canon 350D; Various EPs, etc. Obs: 8' Exploradome; iOptron CEM60 (pier); Helena Observatory (H2O)Astrobin
So would a 1480mm to 1317mm focal length reduction be considered normal and to be expected?
Also, is it not the case that all telescopes adjust their focus by adjusting their focal length? And they come to focus at their design focal length. So my 2350mm telescope will come to focus somewhere either side of 2350mm depending on the optics attached. My focal reducer should reduce that by x 0.63 to 1480.5mm. But it actually reduces it by x 0.56 to 1317mm.
I've got the 105mm documented back focus measurement and my stars are perfectly round across the field. So I won't be changing that.
So perhaps I'll use 1317 in Stellerium and NINA and stop worrying about it and enjoy the wider field of view!
Graeme1858 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 7:17 pm
Also, is it not the case that all telescopes adjust their focus by adjusting their focal length? And they come to focus at their design focal length.
Other designs (Newts, fracs) have fixed focal length and focus by moving EP or camera. It is only in some folded designs (SCT, Maks) one moves the prim mirror to focus and thus changes FL. But even there you have an option of attaching external focuser. In such case one can lock the primary at the fixed FL, but not necessary "native" FL since you need to accommodate light path added by focuser.
Graeme1858 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 7:17 pm
Also, is it not the case that all telescopes adjust their focus by adjusting their focal length?
No. Most telescopes have a fixed focal length that never changes. Those telescopes focus by moving the eyepiece until its focal point coincides with the telescope's focal point.
Cassegrain designs (SCTs, Maks, and possibly some others) focus by keeping the eyepiece stationary and changing the focal length until the focal point coincides with the eyepiece's focal point.
DSO AP:Orion 200mm f/4 Newtonian Astrograph; ATIK 383L+; EFW2 filter wheel; Astrodon Ha,Oiii,LRGB filters; KWIQ/QHY5 guide scope; Planetary AP:Celestron C-11; ZWO ASI120MC; Portable: Celestron C-8 on HEQ5 pro; C-90 on wedge; 20x80 binos; Etc: Canon 350D; Various EPs, etc. Obs: 8' Exploradome; iOptron CEM60 (pier); Helena Observatory (H2O)Astrobin
Thanks for the clarification. All these years of using reflectors and I never really thought much about the difference between focal length and length of light path!
Anyway, getting back on topic, is it normal for a 2350mm focal length catadioptric telescope with a 6.3mm focal reducer to have a focal length of 1317mm? Or is there something wrong with my telescope?
you should be able to adjust your focal length with the distance from ccd/cmos to barlow aswell, i always let fire capture calc the target fl and relabel the image after for a quick documentation when imaging planets. i don't know where i have seen this ,but i recall someone might of had a calculation for it ie 1mm spacing = 13mm adjusted real fl
scopes :gso/bintel f4 12"truss tube, bresser messier ar127s /skywatcher 10'' dob,meade 12'' f10 lx200 sct
cameras : asi 1600mm-c/asi1600mm-c,asi120mc,prostar lp guidecam, nikkon d60, sony a7,asi 290 mm
mounts : eq6 pro/eq8/mesu 200 v2
filters : 2'' astronomik lp/badder lrgb h-a,sII,oIII,h-b,Baader Solar Continuum, chroma 3nm ha,sii,oiii,nii,rgb,lowglow,uv/ir,Thousand Oaks Solar Filter,1.25'' #47 violet,pro planet 742 ir,pro planet 807 ir,pro planet 642 bp ir.
extras : skywatcher f4 aplanatic cc, Baader MPCC MKIII Coma Corrector,Orion Field Flattener,zwo 1.25''adc.starlight maxi 2" 9x filter wheel,tele vue 2x barlow .
Graeme1858 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 6:39 am
Thanks for the clarification. All these years of using reflectors and I never really thought much about the difference between focal length and length of light path!
Anyway, getting back on topic, is it normal for a 2350mm focal length catadioptric telescope with a 6.3mm focal reducer to have a focal length of 1317mm? Or is there something wrong with my telescope?
Graeme
This CN thread has a table for a C11 and focal reducer, HTH.
... Henk. Telescopes: GSO 12" Astrograph, "Comet Hunter" MN152, ES ED127CF, ES ED80, WO Redcat51, Z12, AT6RC, Celestron Skymaster 20x80, Mounts and tripod: Losmandy G11S with OnStep, AVX, Tiltall, Cameras: ASI2600MC, ASI2600MM, ASI120 mini, Fuji X-a1, Canon XSi, T6, ELPH 100HS, DIY: OnStep controller, Pi4b/power rig, Afocal adapter, Foldable Dob base, Az/Alt Dob setting circles, Accessories: ZWO 36 mm filter wheel, TV Paracorr 2, Baader MPCC Mk III, ES FF, SSAG, QHY OAG-M, EAF electronic focuser, Plossls, Barlows, Telrad, Laser collimators (Seben LK1, Z12, Howie Glatter), Cheshire, 2 Orion RACIs 8x50, Software: KStars-Ekos, DSS, PHD2, Nebulosity, Photo Gallery, Gimp, CHDK, Computers:Pi4b, 2x running KStars/Ekos, Toshiba Satellite 17", Website:Henk's astro images
yobbo89 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 10:15 am
you should be able to adjust your focal length with the distance from ccd/cmos to barlow aswell, i always let fire capture calc the target fl and relabel the image after for a quick documentation when imaging planets. i don't know where i have seen this ,but i recall someone might of had a calculation for it ie 1mm spacing = 13mm adjusted real fl
Thanks for that Rob. But, that would need an additional 12mm of spacer to bring the fl up to 1480. Or maybe 12 x 0.63, but either way this would put me well over the 105mm recommended back focus and this would start happening.
Well it seems to me, all things considered, in this thread and Henk's thread, (thanks Henk), that there's nothing wrong with my telescope and nobody knows why my focal length is 1317 not 1480 given my native focal length, focal reducer and camera backfocus.
So I'll set up Stellerium and NINA to 1317fl and get on with it!
Graeme1858 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 4:46 pm
Well it seems to me, all things considered, in this thread and Henk's thread, (thanks Henk), that there's nothing wrong with my telescope and nobody knows why my focal length is 1317 not 1480 given my native focal length, focal reducer and camera backfocus.
I think Kathy had it right. Anytime you focus with an SCT, for instance to add the focal reducer, you change the focal length of the combined primary and secondary mirror system. It is not that difficult to analyze with thin lens formulas, equating the SCT to a Barlowed primary objective lens. The analysis shows that you cannot simply apply the focal reduction factor to the original (non-reduced) focal length. I attached the calculations if you are interested.
I had been looking into the Barlow formulas when I wanted to image Saturn by putting a Barlow into my 12" Newt astrograph (using more than 20 cm of rings to get focus). I figured I could try adding a focal reducer to that idea and solve your problem. Hopefully I did if there are no bugs.
Graeme1858 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 7:17 pm
Ah, yes, that makes sense.
So would a 1480mm to 1317mm focal length reduction be considered normal and to be expected?
Also, is it not the case that all telescopes adjust their focus by adjusting their focal length? And they come to focus at their design focal length. So my 2350mm telescope will come to focus somewhere either side of 2350mm depending on the optics attached. My focal reducer should reduce that by x 0.63 to 1480.5mm. But it actually reduces it by x 0.56 to 1317mm.
I've got the 105mm documented back focus measurement and my stars are perfectly round across the field. So I won't be changing that.
So perhaps I'll use 1317 in Stellerium and NINA and stop worrying about it and enjoy the wider field of view!
Graeme
Uh, no. As the mirrors have their spacings increased or reduced by moving the primary mirror, this changes the focal length of the scope--for every 10mm added to the back length over 100mm (aprox), the focal length of the scope increases about 31mm on the 8" SCT.
It'll be slightly different on the 9.25" since the primary mirror is slower and the secondary magnifies less.
Focal reducers are like anti-Barlows--with increasing distance from the lens, the reduction increases, the opposite of a Barlow.
Hence, an f/6.3 reducer will only yield a 37% reduction at one distance back from the lens (I don't know what that is, but it's about that with a 1.25" diagonal and increases its reduction to 45-50% with most 2" diagonals.
Perhaps your camera's chip sits a good distance back from the lens.
With most telescopes (refractors, newtonians, etc.), the focal length of the scope is fixed and varying the position of accessories does not change the focal length.
Astronomer since 1963
Currently using a 12.5" dob and a 4" apo refractor