Proper backfocus with x0.63 reducer Celestron C8 · Vitaly · ... · 7 · 284 · 1

@littlehubble 1.81
...
· 
·  6 likes
·  Share link
I’ve been struggling quite a bit with dialing in the correct backfocus for the f/6.3 setup using the reducer, aiming to get as close as possible to the theoretical focal length — 1280.16 mm (2032 mm × 0.63). The originally proposed distance of 105 mm was giving me bad star shapes at the outskirts of the images. Collimation was not the issue.

My setup uses an imaging train with an OSC camera + filter. If you're using filters too, don’t forget to factor in the glass thickness in your final measurements. For example, the Optolong L-Pro filter I’m using has a 2mm thickness, so I added 0.7 mm to the backfocus (2 mm ÷ 3).

Here’s how I assemble my imaging train for DSO imaging — from scope to camera:
  • 50 mm – Celestron T-Adapter (screwed directly onto the reducer)
  • 16.5 mm – ZWO M48 to T2 adapter
  • 17 mm – Altair Filter Holder
  • 0.7 mm – added distance for filter glass thickness
  • 8 mm – T2 extension ring
  • 11 mm – T2 ring that came with the camera
  • 6.5 mm – camera flange to sensor distance
  • 1.5 mm – spacer ring

That totals 111.2 mm from the reducer glass to the camera sensor.
With this distance, I get a focal length that ranges between 1278 mm and 1283 mm, which is very close to theoretical.

Also, star shapes at the image edges have minimal "tails" with this setup, indicating I’m likely hitting the correct focal plane and achieving the flattest image possible with this reducer.

Hope this helps someone out there struggling with the same thing. Clear skies! ✨imaging_train.jpg
Edited ...
Like
jewzaam 3.01
...
· 
·  Share link
Do you happen to have example images at the 105mm and 111.2mm backfocus you can share for comparison?  I have an old orange tube C8 (~1985 based on the SN) and I never could get good star shapes on the edges.  Mostly curious how bad yours might be in comparison.  I didn't spend much effort dialing in the backfocus as I assumed it was a problem with the scope being so old and not well matched for the 0.63x reducer. And that BlurXTerminator is black magic and fixed so much of the problems smile
Edited ...
Like
Ikon308 0.00
...
· 
·  2 likes
·  Share link
Based on my 5yr experience using a Celestron 0.63 reducer/corrector with standard C8:
1.  sharp stars are achievable near center of FOV, but cropping may be needed to salvage images
2.  star shapes in corners can be improved by shifting focus to 1/3 to 1/2 FoV from center, and also by adjusting BF spacing, per Celestron guidance
3. star shapes can be significantly improved in post processing via BlurXterminator.

Bottom line:  the Celestron corrector is cheap but performs poorly compared to the Starizona FR.

For imaging, the Starizona SCT corrector IV delivers Significantly better star shapes in the corners of APSC sensor for std. C8 than Celestron unit.  I regret the many hours wasted trying to get the Celestron reducer to exceed it's potential.

Clear skies!
Dave Stokes
Like
Gamaholjad 5.01
...
· 
·  Share link
105mm backfocus given by celestron is for 0.7x your using and different reducer. 0.63. So that rules 105 out, if it was me I'd tinker until you get good stars make a note. Good luck such a fun telescope I love mine.
Like
jesco_t 1.81
...
· 
·  1 like
·  Share link
105mm backfocus given by celestron is for 0.7x your using and different reducer. 0.63. So that rules 105 out, if it was me I'd tinker until you get good stars make a note. Good luck such a fun telescope I love mine.

The 0.63x reducer also has 105mm backfocus as stated by Celestron. In theory.

in reality, it’s usually a bit more than that. I always used around 110mm.

my recommendation would be to disregard final focal length and only look at star shapes. Pick the backfocus that gives you the nicest stars. It doesn’t really matter if you’re at 1280mm or 1350mm focal length, in the end.

The reducer cannot correct the full field for an APS-C sized sensor. An ASI533, yes, but any larger and I recommend some mild cropping.

its still a good bargain for the price. Especially considering that its original meant for visual.
Like
@littlehubble 1.81
Topic starter
...
· 
·  1 like
·  Share link
Do you happen to have example images at the 105mm and 111.2mm backfocus you can share for comparison?  I have an old orange tube C8 (~1985 based on the SN) and I never could get good star shapes on the edges.  Mostly curious how bad yours might be in comparison.  I didn't spend much effort dialing in the backfocus as I assumed it was a problem with the scope being so old and not well matched for the 0.63x reducer. And that BlurXTerminator is black magic and fixed so much of the problems

Sorry I don't have a comparison ready. I will make one next time I have an opportunity. Clear skies!
Like
hotrabbitsoup 0.00
...
· 
·  Share link
Unfortunately distorted stars at the edges are normal when using a reducer on the Celestron SCT telescopes if you are using APS-C or larger sensors.   I have an edge 8" model and when I operate it at F7 I see elongated stars along the edges, and some vignetting in the corners.   

Cropping the images is necessary but I would likely do it anyway to frame the object I wanted.  The elongated stars can cause trouble with autofocus runs and so if you use NINA or something that gives you the same capability you can reduce the crop ratio used for the star detection algorithms to help feed them better data.
Like
maxchess 2.61
...
· 
·  Share link
I have to agree with David Stokes when he says
“performs poorly compared to the Starizona FR.

For imaging, the Starizona SCT corrector IV delivers Significantly better star shapes in the corners of APSC sensor for std. C8 than Celestron unit.  I regret the many hours wasted trying to get the Celestron reducer to exceed it's potential.”

the Starizona FR is in a different class, stars are sharper and there is more detail in nebulosity.
Like
 
Register or login to create to post a reply.