For adapting any cell mounted Baader 2 inch Filter onto a camera lens with 52mm front filter thread you will need:
#2408166 Baader DSLR 2" Filter-Holder M48 / SP54: https://www.baader-planetarium.com/en/baader-dslr-2%22-filter-holder-m48sp54.html
#2958052 Baader Lens-Adapter-Ring SP54 / M52: https://www.baader-planetarium.com/en/baader-hyperion-dt-ring-sp54m52-for-dtadapter-iiandiii-and-hyperion-eyepieces.html
Based on the SP54 thread, we offer many more adapters for various camera threads, our so-called Hyperion DT-rings. https://www.baader-planetarium.com/en/catalogsearch/result/?q=sp54
Both thread sizes come with our proprietary pitch - which is not the same for the female and male threads.
This is our own proprietary "emergency solution" for uniting a world were manufacturers all over the world copy from each other - to the point that there are almost a dozen different pitches in use for male and female threads. Traditionally US-companies used to do a UNF-based pitch and the rest of the world went for metric threads - but these do vary from 0.5 to 0.75.
For this reason it does not make sense to publish our non standard pitch because our pitch is made to cope with all existing metric and US-pitch standards - and as said - our solution has evolved from sheer necessity. It is a mixture of a queer pitch and under-/over-dimensioning . We will not want to declare this as a standard and get bashed up for it. It works for us and is a result of 20 years adaptation to fit our filters onto all crazy threads we have seen. And inspite of this - every now and then there comes another "dragonboat-eyepiece" were even our filters may not fit...
Why does this happen if the specifications ensure that they do NOT produce halos?
Because there are so many combinations of camera (windows), flatteners, correctors a.s.o. possible, it may happen in that in some unlucky cases even "halo free" filters are involved in the halo production - but not guilty by themself. We know from customer that the windows in front of the chips of certain camera models are more likely to generate halos than other cameras. And some cheaper flatteners/reducers/correctors are also more often involved in the problem.
You can try to turn around the filter, it may be by chance that the reflection of different wavelength from the other side reduces the halo. Or - if anyway possible - bring more space in between filter and the other surfaces that are reflecting. That makes the halos bigger, less bright, and sometimes they disappear.
BUT: Are halos really terrible? If - for example - you make a photo of Horsehead Nebulae with filters, its impossible to get it without halos because the extremely bright star in the field. This fact and this appearance of the object is widely accepted - and it doesn´t look worse than the spikes of the spider of a Newtonian.
Please also read here: https://www.baader-planetarium.com/en/downloads/dl/file/id/287/product/2958/faq_problems_with_filters_can_have_the_strangest_causes.pdf
Even photos from professional Observatories show halos because its unavoidable. And nobody cares.
If you send us your photo with halo and detailled informations about the setup (camera, reducer, flattener, corrector, filter, telescope) then we can help you to find the source for the halo - but most likely you cannot get rid of it, only with image processing tricks.
- Related Articles
|Technical Data not yet specified||Please choose product variant from dropdown above to see technical data of your chosen product|