I've run into a lot of people who think I'm nuts. Well, that may be, However...
Why is it those with short focal length scopes think using a focal reducer is some sort of taboo on a long MAK to gain wide field? These are the same people who have a collection of Barlows to gain magnification.
I have a Meade 7" MAK and use an Anteres .7 reducer with a 27mm Panoptic to get about 1.27 degrees TFOV. Not bad really. The same can be done with a Meade or Celestron reducer at the visual back. Using spacers, I've pushed the limits out to about 1.61 degrees, but at that there's some edge and obstruction shadow. It's a matter of finding the sweet spot in the setup.
The scope is able to see all of the double cluster with ease. In fact there are less than a handful of celestial objects this setup can't handle. At about 1.5 degrees I got the whole Pleiades, but it wasn't well framed. For that I do have my piggyback achromat.
Has anyone else sought to test the lower limits? 8)
Why is it those with short focal length scopes think using a focal reducer is some sort of taboo on a long MAK to gain wide field? These are the same people who have a collection of Barlows to gain magnification.
I have a Meade 7" MAK and use an Anteres .7 reducer with a 27mm Panoptic to get about 1.27 degrees TFOV. Not bad really. The same can be done with a Meade or Celestron reducer at the visual back. Using spacers, I've pushed the limits out to about 1.61 degrees, but at that there's some edge and obstruction shadow. It's a matter of finding the sweet spot in the setup.
The scope is able to see all of the double cluster with ease. In fact there are less than a handful of celestial objects this setup can't handle. At about 1.5 degrees I got the whole Pleiades, but it wasn't well framed. For that I do have my piggyback achromat.
Has anyone else sought to test the lower limits? 8)
