¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

ctrl + shift + ? for shortcuts
© 2025 Groups.io

Re: dob tube length vis a vis CMOS imagers


 

¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

Hi Gary,
If I remember correctly I did not need to shorten my truss poles initially when I was using my camera only (asi294MCPro) and cona corrector. It was only after I wanted to try using a nexus focal reducer that I needed more back focus. I¡¯m using an 18¡± f4.3 dob that has a low profile feather touch mounted to the astrosystems filter slider. I had a falcon rotator that I had wanted to add into the image train but it needed so much more back focus when added. It would have made the truss poles extremely tight where they mount to the upper cage due to even more shortening so I sold it. One thing you also should check is to see if a larger secondary mirror will help provide a more fully illuminated image circle. I upgraded my secondary from a 3.5¡± to a 4¡± and I did notice images improved a fair amount.

Mike

On May 13, 2024, at 9:03?AM, K9RX - Gary via groups.io <amateurK9RX@...> wrote:

?Hello all... so - there are a few guys on here that have done imaging using their Obsession or similar dob. I'm curious what I should expect to have to do with the truss tube length. I have heard, anecdotally, that the length has to be shortened, that there isn't enough 'range' in a typical system/focuser to accommodate a normal CCD system. Anyone have an idea what to expect??

Also I'm thinking of the ZWO 533 as a starter... I want to stay away from amp glow. Note I'm not looking for outstanding images that require hours of post-processing. Just looking to do EAA work for outreach but want a decent enough camera that I can do some longer term (short exposure, lots of stacking) imaging. Thoughts here as well would be welcome.?

Gary Myers
12" F5 Obsession

Join [email protected] to automatically receive all group messages.