I bought the Starizona reducer for my SCT a couple years ago. I sold the celestron reducer quickly afterwards as it was going to accumulate dust. Starizona have great reducers!! I also bought those for my refractors. Never looked back!!
Beautiful image at the end there Ollie! and I thought it was good you discussed the connection side of things with the imaging train, super useful for people. Nice neat workstation you have there too!
Hey Chris - Well it goes thru phases of being neat and messy, so many black fittings, cables etc etc I try and keep somewhat organised. Yes I agree good to actually see how it all fits together.
Thanks for sharing your results with this reducer. Stars look definitely better than with the celestron FR. And very nice interacting galaxies that you captured. Let's hope and wish for clear skies (although this start of summer in Australia doesn't look too promising tbh...). All the best!
No worries and yes Indeed they sure are looking better. I'd like to maybe try this Galaxy without the reducer one day and get in closer. I know the weather of late is just dreadful I hope we all get a break soon. Cheers and clear skies to you soon 🤞:)
The Starizona seems to be doing a great job. Very nice final image - not a galaxy I was aware of until now. Always fun to image these interacting galaxies.
Hey Logan - Yes it's a pretty cool Galaxy, I wasn't aware either till I spotted someone on Instagram showing it. I think it could probably benefit from me being at prime focus without the reducer.
I just put the Starziona Large format corrector / reducer on my C11. IT oozes quality, allows a lot more light to come through for my OAG-L and seems to correct the field very well. Images look excellent. Feels like I upgraded my cheap second hand C11 XLT (bought for about $1100) to an EdgeHD for less than half the price.
Yes same here it feels like we've kinda cheated to get an Edge version of the scope, definitely not complaining though. Like you say these reducers built so well.
Very nice image! That Starizona reducer looks a ton better than the Celestron one. It boggles my mind why Celestron has not improved their reducers over the years.
Hey Thanks Bill - I've always found this curious too as I've read they haven't changed this reducer since we were all using film cameras? Seems they are missing a real opportunity here. Yes the reducer is looking much better the overall image sharpness seems a lot better to me too, I always found the Celestron ones a bit soft, although that could be my imagination.
Nice video Ollie! Looks like the Starizona reducer is a keeper. I'm pretty sure I have tilt issues from the compression fitting on my Older Stellarvue as well. Great image as well.. Sending some of my clear skies your way!
Hey Jason Im pretty sure it's a keeper like you say, I've already ordered that Baader clicklock fitting so hopefully helps keeping all centered or at least will make me feel better with my whole image train feeling secure. Always a little unnerving with just a compression fit. 😬
That looks like one heck of a nice reducer/corrector to me!! I'm not the biggest fan of the celestron/meade "classic" 0.63x offerings as the image seems soft and they tend to introduce some chromatic aberration too, hamstringing otherwise very capable scopes I reckon! - I think the clicklock sounds like a great idea too, I didn't know what all the fuss was about 'till I got one myself :-D What a superb shot you caught too, cracking work mate :-)
Hey Luke - I think that's a good way of describing the performance, like you say the images always come out a bit soft and you can see that nasty fringing on the stars. I wonder if they just didn't bother developing a new one rather pushing the Edge series more. Shame like you say because the scope is very capable. I actually got the Click lock today! It does look very solid. Now I need to watch your video pal, it's on my list I need to find out why your hair got blown off 🤣🧑🦲
@@OlliesSpace Oh that's brilliant mate! - I love the feedback you get through the lever as you lock it up, puts me in my happy place, lol! 😀 Unfortunately my hair did indeed get blown off, everything was fine then the first sub came in and bam, gone! pretty traumatic but I got a nice image so it's not all bad! 😀 Clear skies buddy!
Ollie, thank you very much for this very informative video. I'm working through similar issues on my C8, and I was wondering if you would consider filming a brief sequel that shows 1) how the Baader ClickLock connects to the SCT and the reducer; 2) how well works? Thanks for your consideration and clear skies!
I've got a similar experience as you with the Starizona reducer. It's definitively a step up from the Celestron one. The only thing I don't like is that I get some flare on bright stars probably due to pinching effect from the compression ring.
Hi Ollie, I don't like the SCT to 2" adapter. So the Starizona SCT Corrector has M48mm female threads and I plan on using a SCT to M48 adapter and I think this will be more secure as it all will now thread on as the SCT to 2" can be a bit loose...
Thanks for the tip. I'm not sure if I'd be fully confident using those threads. They're fairly short and designed for a 2 inch filter but I'll be interested to know if it works ok. Clear skies. 👍
Ollie, this is what i'm concerned about with the Starizona Virtual View - 2'' Rotating Visual Back unit is non centering and looking at the Baadar SCT but also read that it has the same issue as it's not a 360 clamping system? Did you order it?
Yes I've now got the Baader, I've read it's particularly good at centering so guess I'll just have to try it. Certainly is a huge improvement on a standard compression ring.
@@OlliesSpace I have have seen a few YT videos that say it's does not center the item, as it can't center due the compression system not putting equal pressure 360 degrees around the 2". 1 video says when you close the lock 1 side is not moving out and the other side is out so that's without any EP or the SCT Corrector. Does your do that also?
@@OlliesSpace I came up with an idea, if you have feeler gauges very thin ones you can insert the SCT corrector in to the Baader and then from the SCT thread side try to push in thin feeler gauge and at the positions 12,3,6,9 see if that feeler gauge has the same amount of friction at those 4 points this would prove that is centered?
I purchased the Starizona corrector for my C8 and was finally able to use it last night. I'm a little confused by your back space calculations. I have the Celestron OAG and have my Starizona attached to the OAG M42 female adapter (4.5mm) then the OAG body (29mm) then the OAG M42 male adapter (12.5 mm). I have a ZWO filter drawer (21mm) with an Antlia Quad Band filter, Then I have a 6mm spacer and finally the ASI071 MC Pro with 17.5mm. The total backspacing is 90.5mm which is on .2 mm longer than the Starizona 90.3mm backspace requirement. What was your reason to add an additional 5mm on back spacing? I have my OAG prism as far down as possible and I don't get any shadow on my ASI071 APS-C sensor. I also didn't have any issue obtaining guide stars with the ASI174MM guide camera on my target last night, M51, despite noticing the M42 OAG adapter seems to cut off part of the OAG camera hole when looking down from the OAG camera position. I have the guide camera sensor long side set parallel to the main camera long side so maybe only a small portion of the guide sensor is obstructed along the top. I find the Celestron OAG helical focuser a little too sloppy. I wish the camera slot had acloser tolerance to the camera cylinder. The two locking screws seem to tilt the camera cylinder so it rubs against the OAG focuser cylinder and you feel resistance in when turning the focus ring. I decided to try a 1.25" parfocal ring on the guide camera cylinder so I could remove the camera and not loose focus. It also helps center the camera and when the locking screws are tightened the tilt is minimized. I use the Baader Click Lock. Thanks for posting this video.
Thanks I think I may have got my spacing slightly wrong here and so long as you've got to your distance I'm sure you're good. Yes the helical focusser can be a little sloppy like you say. Hope you get some awesome images with the scope now, it's been a great piece of kit for me.
I purchased the Starizona SCT reducer for my C9.25; however mine is a Mark III, so it really reduces the C9 to f/6.3 (f/6.26 with my optical train), but my sample at least doesn't do a great job with broadband B filter: stars are a bit under-corrected at extreme corners of my ASI 1600 sensor (which is even smaller than that of the 2600). Apart from that it is a great piece of glass, capable of transforming a standard C9.25 in something even better than a C9.25 Edge HD, in my opinion, as resolution is increased also on axis. Stars in your frame look pretty good and keep in mind a thing: I bet you will notice no improvement using a Baader Clicklock. I use it on my OTA, and I think the remaining distorsion you are experiencing is not related to the clamping method. Your stars couldn't get any better than that, I think. It would be great if you could check your B channel and report me back whether it is corrected or not. In case I could consider buying a Mark IV ;) Greetings from Italy!
great video, I noticed the same triangular star shapes on my Celestron 0.63 reducer, using a 533mc pro, so I just placed an order for the Starizona reducer. Please post an update video on this if you get a chance. Thanks
Great video! I have a question regarding back focus. Looking at the Celestron OAG documentation, I see that the female M42 adapter uses 4.5mm of back focus, while the male M42 adapter uses 12.5mm of back focus. The OAG body is 29mm thick. Then there is the filter wheel (20mm) and the camera sensor offset (17.5mm). So, if I do the math, I get 4.5 + 29 + 12.5 + 20 + 17.5 = 83.5, which is roughly 7mm short of the Starizona SCT reducer ideal back focus (90.3mm), so something is not adding up. Did you add an extension that was not mentioned in this video? I am thinking of getting similar equipment, so a clarification would be very helpful. Thanks a ton! And keep the videos coming, they're great!
Apologies I never got to this comment. Just checked and my setup from reducer is 11mm spacer > 4.5mm OAG connector > 29mm OAG > 12.5mm OAG connector > 6mm spacer > EFW 20mm > Camera 7.5 mm (no tilt plate so connected direct to EFW). Hope this helps. I use this specific configuration as when I connect my camera to my refractor I just need to add a 16.5mm to my 6mm spacer to get correct backfocus. Hope this helps.
I don't know about this Starizona reducer, but the Celestron F6.3 reducer is sharper in the center than my Celestron 8 EDGE HD with the F7 reducer. Probably because it's f7 instead of F6.3. Now the new Starizona reducer makes the Celestron SCT 8 inch F7.1 again, so center sharpness can also change. I don't know what your experience with this is?
Are you able to drop the Celestron OAG prism low enough to get enough FOV to the guide camera sensor? I measured the width of my Celestron OAG body at 73mm. Half is 36.5mm to get the center point. I've calculated the closest the bottom of the prism from the center of the OAG body is 10.5mm. The size of the prism glass is 12.5mm x 12.5mm. The M42 OAG adapter is about 37mm diameter and 18.5mm radius. The prism height and the distance from the center will be 12.5mm +10.5 = 23mm). But part of the M42 circle will obscure the top of the prism by 4.5mm. I read the diameter of the Starizona SCT corrector is only 27mm diameter. Does that mean the prism will only pick up about 3mm of the edge of the corrector even with the OAG prism at its lowest level? The Celestron 6.3 correct lens diameter has a much larger diameter of 40mm. I have an ASI071MC Pro which has a similar sized sensor to your 2600. Have you set your prism at the lowest setting? Maybe not a problem since seeing your results. Just wondering about this since I'm interested in one of these correctors. Thanks.
Hi There. I don't have any issues illuminating the ASI 174MM sensor that I have now. I'm not exactly sure but I think the prism is close to it's lowest point. Hope this helps a little 👍
@@OlliesSpace On my Celestron OAG with the prism set to the lowest setting its about 47mm from the bottom of the OAG housing. It appears to clear my 23.6 x 15.6 sensor but when I take a flat I get a shadow at the bottom of my flat. I raised the prism and the shadow went away but when I put my M42 OAG female on the bottom of the prism is barely visible. At the lowest setting of the prism the M42 OAG female covers 1/2 of the prism but it would leave a shadow on the flats and I presume on the light frames. Are you getting prism shadow on your flats? If you could measure the bottom of you OAG housing up to the edge of the prism. I'd be interested in comparing it to my OAG. Thanks
Interesting how to do the right imaging train configuration for this setup. - I completely feel your pain with the M42/48 sometimes, especially at the beginning when starting the hobby. 10:35 (and beyond): looking really good! 👍🏼 By the way: Is that an Arp object/ and which one? 13:51 You are right Ollie! I looked it up out of curiosity: "teleskop-express" says the Celestron red. is 4 elements. Lovely final image!
Hey Michael - I didn't even know about the Arp designation 🫤 shows how many galaxies I've done. I looked it up NGC 1532 and can't see any Arp designation. Thanks for info surprised it has four, strange how even the Celestron site didn't show how many elements 🤔. Cheers for watching Pal 👍:)
@@OlliesSpace ;-) There are really cool objects in this "Arp category"...but I also didn't made an image of one of those myself yet. Thank you for looking up and replying the catalog number Ollie. 🙌
I have a 2600mc pro so no filter wheel and no OAG for me. What should my optical train look like to achieve back-focus with this for my 8se? I haven’t bought the starizona yet.
Please give me advice and information. I tested the Starizona SCT Corrector IV that arrived yesterday with a flatback type C9.25. I set the back focus to 90mm and pushed the reducer all the way forward. Even if the focus part is turned all the way to the left, it is slightly out of focus. The focus knob rotates 32 turns from far to near. Please let me know where your set is in focus. By the way, Celestron's original 0.63 reducer can be reduced with a back focus of 105mm. From Japan
Hello I'm really not sure why you're not getting focus. I also having it set about 90mm back focus. Have you tried asking Starizona for some advice. If you've reached maximum travel on your focusser could be tricky.
I bought the Starizona reducer for my SCT a couple years ago. I sold the celestron reducer quickly afterwards as it was going to accumulate dust. Starizona have great reducers!! I also bought those for my refractors. Never looked back!!
Yes indeed I must say the more I use it the more I'm liking it you can really tell it's a big step up in many ways from the Celestron one. 👍
Beautiful image at the end there Ollie! and I thought it was good you discussed the connection side of things with the imaging train, super useful for people. Nice neat workstation you have there too!
Hey Chris - Well it goes thru phases of being neat and messy, so many black fittings, cables etc etc I try and keep somewhat organised. Yes I agree good to actually see how it all fits together.
Thanks for sharing your results with this reducer. Stars look definitely better than with the celestron FR. And very nice interacting galaxies that you captured. Let's hope and wish for clear skies (although this start of summer in Australia doesn't look too promising tbh...). All the best!
No worries and yes Indeed they sure are looking better. I'd like to maybe try this Galaxy without the reducer one day and get in closer. I know the weather of late is just dreadful I hope we all get a break soon. Cheers and clear skies to you soon 🤞:)
Stars look nice and tight too with the Starizona - very nice final image Ollie!
Cheers Simon yes I think like you say they seem a bit tighter too. I felt the Celestron images always seemed a bit soft also.
The Starizona seems to be doing a great job. Very nice final image - not a galaxy I was aware of until now. Always fun to image these interacting galaxies.
Hey Logan - Yes it's a pretty cool Galaxy, I wasn't aware either till I spotted someone on Instagram showing it. I think it could probably benefit from me being at prime focus without the reducer.
Looks like it was a really good upgrade. Awesome final image too. CS Ollie!
Hey James, Yea I think worth it and looking forward to trying it out with some Galaxies. :)
I just put the Starziona Large format corrector / reducer on my C11. IT oozes quality, allows a lot more light to come through for my OAG-L and seems to correct the field very well. Images look excellent. Feels like I upgraded my cheap second hand C11 XLT (bought for about $1100) to an EdgeHD for less than half the price.
Yes same here it feels like we've kinda cheated to get an Edge version of the scope, definitely not complaining though. Like you say these reducers built so well.
Very nice image! That Starizona reducer looks a ton better than the Celestron one. It boggles my mind why Celestron has not improved their reducers over the years.
Hey Thanks Bill - I've always found this curious too as I've read they haven't changed this reducer since we were all using film cameras? Seems they are missing a real opportunity here. Yes the reducer is looking much better the overall image sharpness seems a lot better to me too, I always found the Celestron ones a bit soft, although that could be my imagination.
Nice video Ollie! Looks like the Starizona reducer is a keeper. I'm pretty sure I have tilt issues from the compression fitting on my Older Stellarvue as well. Great image as well.. Sending some of my clear skies your way!
Hey Jason Im pretty sure it's a keeper like you say, I've already ordered that Baader clicklock fitting so hopefully helps keeping all centered or at least will make me feel better with my whole image train feeling secure. Always a little unnerving with just a compression fit. 😬
That looks like one heck of a nice reducer/corrector to me!! I'm not the biggest fan of the celestron/meade "classic" 0.63x offerings as the image seems soft and they tend to introduce some chromatic aberration too, hamstringing otherwise very capable scopes I reckon! - I think the clicklock sounds like a great idea too, I didn't know what all the fuss was about 'till I got one myself :-D
What a superb shot you caught too, cracking work mate :-)
Hey Luke - I think that's a good way of describing the performance, like you say the images always come out a bit soft and you can see that nasty fringing on the stars. I wonder if they just didn't bother developing a new one rather pushing the Edge series more. Shame like you say because the scope is very capable. I actually got the Click lock today! It does look very solid. Now I need to watch your video pal, it's on my list I need to find out why your hair got blown off 🤣🧑🦲
@@OlliesSpace Oh that's brilliant mate! - I love the feedback you get through the lever as you lock it up, puts me in my happy place, lol! 😀
Unfortunately my hair did indeed get blown off, everything was fine then the first sub came in and bam, gone! pretty traumatic but I got a nice image so it's not all bad! 😀
Clear skies buddy!
Ollie, thank you very much for this very informative video. I'm working through similar issues on my C8, and I was wondering if you would consider filming a brief sequel that shows 1) how the Baader ClickLock connects to the SCT and the reducer; 2) how well works? Thanks for your consideration and clear skies!
I've got a similar experience as you with the Starizona reducer. It's definitively a step up from the Celestron one. The only thing I don't like is that I get some flare on bright stars probably due to pinching effect from the compression ring.
Hey that's good to know thanks, I do kinda wonder why they didn't go with making a screw in type connection.🤔
Thanks for the informative video. I was wondering what your guiding camera model is?
No worries I use the ASI 174MM Mini camera, has large pixels and is widely recommended for off axis guiding.
Hi Ollie, I don't like the SCT to 2" adapter. So the Starizona SCT Corrector has M48mm female threads and I plan on using a SCT to M48 adapter and I think this will be more secure as it all will now thread on as the SCT to 2" can be a bit loose...
Thanks for the tip. I'm not sure if I'd be fully confident using those threads. They're fairly short and designed for a 2 inch filter but I'll be interested to know if it works ok. Clear skies. 👍
Ollie, this is what i'm concerned about with the Starizona Virtual View - 2'' Rotating Visual Back unit is non centering and looking at the Baadar SCT but also read that it has the same issue as it's not a 360 clamping system? Did you order it?
Yes I've now got the Baader, I've read it's particularly good at centering so guess I'll just have to try it. Certainly is a huge improvement on a standard compression ring.
@@OlliesSpace I have have seen a few YT videos that say it's does not center the item, as it can't center due the compression system not putting equal pressure 360 degrees around the 2". 1 video says when you close the lock 1 side is not moving out and the other side is out so that's without any EP or the SCT Corrector. Does your do that also?
@@OlliesSpace I came up with an idea, if you have feeler gauges very thin ones you can insert the SCT corrector in to the Baader and then from the SCT thread side try to push in thin feeler gauge and at the positions 12,3,6,9 see if that feeler gauge has the same amount of friction at those 4 points this would prove that is centered?
I purchased the Starizona corrector for my C8 and was finally able to use it last night. I'm a little confused by your back space calculations. I have the Celestron OAG and have my Starizona attached to the OAG M42 female adapter (4.5mm) then the OAG body (29mm) then the OAG M42 male adapter (12.5 mm). I have a ZWO filter drawer (21mm) with an Antlia Quad Band filter, Then I have a 6mm spacer and finally the ASI071 MC Pro with 17.5mm. The total backspacing is 90.5mm which is on .2 mm longer than the Starizona 90.3mm backspace requirement. What was your reason to add an additional 5mm on back spacing?
I have my OAG prism as far down as possible and I don't get any shadow on my ASI071 APS-C sensor. I also didn't have any issue obtaining guide stars with the ASI174MM guide camera on my target last night, M51, despite noticing the M42 OAG adapter seems to cut off part of the OAG camera hole when looking down from the OAG camera position. I have the guide camera sensor long side set parallel to the main camera long side so maybe only a small portion of the guide sensor is obstructed along the top.
I find the Celestron OAG helical focuser a little too sloppy. I wish the camera slot had acloser tolerance to the camera cylinder. The two locking screws seem to tilt the camera cylinder so it rubs against the OAG focuser cylinder and you feel resistance in when turning the focus ring. I decided to try a 1.25" parfocal ring on the guide camera cylinder so I could remove the camera and not loose focus. It also helps center the camera and when the locking screws are tightened the tilt is minimized.
I use the Baader Click Lock. Thanks for posting this video.
Thanks I think I may have got my spacing slightly wrong here and so long as you've got to your distance I'm sure you're good. Yes the helical focusser can be a little sloppy like you say. Hope you get some awesome images with the scope now, it's been a great piece of kit for me.
I purchased the Starizona SCT reducer for my C9.25; however mine is a Mark III, so it really reduces the C9 to f/6.3 (f/6.26 with my optical train), but my sample at least doesn't do a great job with broadband B filter: stars are a bit under-corrected at extreme corners of my ASI 1600 sensor (which is even smaller than that of the 2600). Apart from that it is a great piece of glass, capable of transforming a standard C9.25 in something even better than a C9.25 Edge HD, in my opinion, as resolution is increased also on axis. Stars in your frame look pretty good and keep in mind a thing: I bet you will notice no improvement using a Baader Clicklock. I use it on my OTA, and I think the remaining distorsion you are experiencing is not related to the clamping method. Your stars couldn't get any better than that, I think. It would be great if you could check your B channel and report me back whether it is corrected or not. In case I could consider buying a Mark IV ;) Greetings from Italy!
Thanks for all the information, always good to hear from another owner of the same gear. I will take a look at the blue channel and get back to you.
great video, I noticed the same triangular star shapes on my Celestron 0.63 reducer, using a 533mc pro, so I just placed an order for the Starizona reducer. Please post an update video on this if you get a chance. Thanks
Thanks pal. Will do if I can.
Great video! I have a question regarding back focus. Looking at the Celestron OAG documentation, I see that the female M42 adapter uses 4.5mm of back focus, while the male M42 adapter uses 12.5mm of back focus. The OAG body is 29mm thick. Then there is the filter wheel (20mm) and the camera sensor offset (17.5mm). So, if I do the math, I get 4.5 + 29 + 12.5 + 20 + 17.5 = 83.5, which is roughly 7mm short of the Starizona SCT reducer ideal back focus (90.3mm), so something is not adding up. Did you add an extension that was not mentioned in this video? I am thinking of getting similar equipment, so a clarification would be very helpful. Thanks a ton! And keep the videos coming, they're great!
Apologies I never got to this comment. Just checked and my setup from reducer is 11mm spacer > 4.5mm OAG connector > 29mm OAG > 12.5mm OAG connector > 6mm spacer > EFW 20mm > Camera 7.5 mm (no tilt plate so connected direct to EFW). Hope this helps. I use this specific configuration as when I connect my camera to my refractor I just need to add a 16.5mm to my 6mm spacer to get correct backfocus. Hope this helps.
@@OlliesSpace Got it, thanks for getting back to me. Yup, that all adds up now.
I don't know about this Starizona reducer, but the Celestron F6.3 reducer is sharper in the center than my Celestron 8 EDGE HD with the F7 reducer. Probably because it's f7 instead of F6.3. Now the new Starizona reducer makes the Celestron SCT 8 inch F7.1 again, so center sharpness can also change. I don't know what your experience with this is?
Are you able to drop the Celestron OAG prism low enough to get enough FOV to the guide camera sensor? I measured the width of my Celestron OAG body at 73mm. Half is 36.5mm to get the center point. I've calculated the closest the bottom of the prism from the center of the OAG body is 10.5mm. The size of the prism glass is 12.5mm x 12.5mm. The M42 OAG adapter is about 37mm diameter and 18.5mm radius. The prism height and the distance from the center will be 12.5mm +10.5 = 23mm). But part of the M42 circle will obscure the top of the prism by 4.5mm. I read the diameter of the Starizona SCT corrector is only 27mm diameter. Does that mean the prism will only pick up about 3mm of the edge of the corrector even with the OAG prism at its lowest level? The Celestron 6.3 correct lens diameter has a much larger diameter of 40mm. I have an ASI071MC Pro which has a similar sized sensor to your 2600. Have you set your prism at the lowest setting? Maybe not a problem since seeing your results. Just wondering about this since I'm interested in one of these correctors. Thanks.
Hi There. I don't have any issues illuminating the ASI 174MM sensor that I have now. I'm not exactly sure but I think the prism is close to it's lowest point. Hope this helps a little 👍
@@OlliesSpace On my Celestron OAG with the prism set to the lowest setting its about 47mm from the bottom of the OAG housing. It appears to clear my 23.6 x 15.6 sensor but when I take a flat I get a shadow at the bottom of my flat. I raised the prism and the shadow went away but when I put my M42 OAG female on the bottom of the prism is barely visible. At the lowest setting of the prism the M42 OAG female covers 1/2 of the prism but it would leave a shadow on the flats and I presume on the light frames. Are you getting prism shadow on your flats? If you could measure the bottom of you OAG housing up to the edge of the prism.
I'd be interested in comparing it to my OAG. Thanks
I forgot to include I'm using the Celestron 6.3 focal reducer when I take my flats and see a prism shadow. Thanks
You dont have finderscope and directly connected your finderscope camera to main scope. What is this setup called, please?
This is called an Off Axis Guider, and is often how you guide at long focal lengths like this.
So, with the (I would say mandatory to remedy tilt) Baader adapter, $500. Cheap as chips!
Interesting how to do the right imaging train configuration for this setup. - I completely feel your pain with the M42/48 sometimes, especially at the beginning when starting the hobby. 10:35 (and beyond): looking really good! 👍🏼 By the way: Is that an Arp object/ and which one? 13:51 You are right Ollie! I looked it up out of curiosity: "teleskop-express" says the Celestron red. is 4 elements. Lovely final image!
Hey Michael - I didn't even know about the Arp designation 🫤 shows how many galaxies I've done. I looked it up NGC 1532 and can't see any Arp designation. Thanks for info surprised it has four, strange how even the Celestron site didn't show how many elements 🤔. Cheers for watching Pal 👍:)
@@OlliesSpace ;-) There are really cool objects in this "Arp category"...but I also didn't made an image of one of those myself yet. Thank you for looking up and replying the catalog number Ollie. 🙌
I have a 2600mc pro so no filter wheel and no OAG for me. What should my optical train look like to achieve back-focus with this for my 8se? I haven’t bought the starizona yet.
It will probably be very straightforward for you, just look up the backfocus for the reducer and all you will need to do is add spacers to get there.
Please give me advice and information.
I tested the Starizona SCT Corrector IV that arrived yesterday with a flatback type C9.25. I set the back focus to 90mm and pushed the reducer all the way forward. Even if the focus part is turned all the way to the left, it is slightly out of focus. The focus knob rotates 32 turns from far to near. Please let me know where your set is in focus.
By the way, Celestron's original 0.63 reducer can be reduced with a back focus of 105mm.
From Japan
Hello I'm really not sure why you're not getting focus. I also having it set about 90mm back focus. Have you tried asking Starizona for some advice. If you've reached maximum travel on your focusser could be tricky.
@@OlliesSpace Thank you for your comment.
I've seen some C9.25 out of focus in the community. No response from Starizona.
Just curious, the Celestron unit is also a field flaterner, it seems the Starizona unit is not, has this made any noticeable difference ?
Yes the Starizona still flattens the image as well as reducers, I think it's just terminology.
Thanks alot for sharing brother New friend here stay connected God bless you
Hey no worries pal I hope the information proves useful for people. Thanks very much.
Hello, how will it be in full frame?
Do yourself a favor, get the Clicklock. It works great!
Already done 👍 It's much better like you say works much better feels nice and secure.