|
I'm interested to hear the community's opinions on the Pros and Cons of William Optics' WIFD. To me, it looks like they're leaning into this technology and may transition to it fully, potentially leaving consumers no choice but to use WIFD if they want a William Optics scope. Thoughts?
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
|
Not an expert on William Optics products -- can you tell us what is WIFD? I probably won't be able to respond in any useful way anyway, but maybe others would.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
I'm interested to hear the community's opinions on the Pros and Cons of William Optics' WIFD. To me, it looks like they're leaning into this technology and may transition to it fully, potentially leaving consumers no choice but to use WIFD if they want a William Optics scope. Thoughts?
I wanted to give WIFD a try, so I jumped in at the entry level. Got the Redcat 51 WIFD. I have to say, I love this little astrograph. I put an EAF on it and the thing just produces a nice picture. The internal focuser removes the possibility of tilt all the way to your attachments. I've dealt with tilt and anything that gets me further from it is good. Although, the RC51 III comes with a built in tilt adjuster in a four corner arrangement rather than the triangle. I suppose the other models with WIFD would also. I've had it out three nights and I can't wait to get back at it... weather permitting.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Richard Carande:
Not an expert on William Optics products -- can you tell us what is WIFD? I probably won't be able to respond in any useful way anyway, but maybe others would.
It's their new and patented internal focuser design. Their website has an overview about it.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
DavesView:
I'm interested to hear the community's opinions on the Pros and Cons of William Optics' WIFD. To me, it looks like they're leaning into this technology and may transition to it fully, potentially leaving consumers no choice but to use WIFD if they want a William Optics scope. Thoughts?
I wanted to give WIFD a try, so I jumped in at the entry level. Got the Redcat 51 WIFD. I have to say, I love this little astrograph. I put an EAF on it and the thing just produces a nice picture. The internal focuser removes the possibility of tilt all the way to your attachments. I've dealt with tilt and anything that gets me further from it is good. Although, the RC51 III comes with a built in tilt adjuster in a four corner arrangement rather than the triangle. I suppose the other models with WIFD would also. I've had it out three nights and I can't wait to get back at it... weather permitting.
Yes the idea of removing the imaging train weight from the focusing mechanism is a positive. The original Redcat (which I have) also did the same thing with the helical focuser, and it's great.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
|
One other point to make about WO moving traditionally external components into the scope body. On the latest Pleiades series, they have moved the field flattener to internal. The Pleiades 68 would work just fine in my scope lineup.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
I’m more concerned with good stars across the field than i am with an internal focuser.
WO has not impressed me lately.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
I just got a WO 91FLT. I wanted a scope in the 80-90+ mm range for a travel scope. For the same price, I value the aperature. This assumes the focusers are both capable. If I was going to completely load up the focuser on my rig, then maybe I would feel compelled to get the WIFD and sacrifice aperature. As it turns out, my first night trying to get backfocus set, I did run into issues. I found that the focuser tube was a bit wobbly. A very tiny amount. A slight turn on the top tension screw completely corrected the issue. It might have been my fault during the addition of the focus motor.
I can see a slight bump in price for something like an improved focus mechanism, which here includes the idea that the image train may be more robust. However, for me, I did not want to be the test person to find the bugs in the new system. And if they are going to turn over the whole lineup with these WIFD layouts, it seem hard to imagine that the cost of the materials really means that much added cost to the unit. You might almost interpret their literature on the advantages of the new OTAs as their admitting that the old OTAs were defective in a sense (I'm thinking of the pictures and videos showing the internal draw tubes angled, etc.) Not necessarily the most keen marketing!
And what's with the issue with these designs related to condensation and the need to be careful with drying?
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Sean Mc:
I’m more concerned with good stars across the field than i am with an internal focuser.
WO has not impressed me lately.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I think that definitely goes without saying!
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Alan Brunelle:
I just got a WO 91FLT. I wanted a scope in the 80-90+ mm range for a travel scope. For the same price, I value the aperature. This assumes the focusers are both capable. If I was going to completely load up the focuser on my rig, then maybe I would feel compelled to get the WIFD and sacrifice aperature. As it turns out, my first night trying to get backfocus set, I did run into issues. I found that the focuser tube was a bit wobbly. A very tiny amount. A slight turn on the top tension screw completely corrected the issue. It might have been my fault during the addition of the focus motor.
I can see a slight bump in price for something like an improved focus mechanism, which here includes the idea that the image train may be more robust. However, for me, I did not want to be the test person to find the bugs in the new system. And if they are going to turn over the whole lineup with these WIFD layouts, it seem hard to imagine that the cost of the materials really means that much added cost to the unit. You might almost interpret their literature on the advantages of the new OTAs as their admitting that the old OTAs were defective in a sense (I'm thinking of the pictures and videos showing the internal draw tubes angled, etc.) Not necessarily the most keen marketing!
And what's with the issue with these designs related to condensation and the need to be careful with drying?
Indeed. I also have a Z103 and it's a solid scope...no issues with the stock focuser, even when loaded with a reducer, filter wheel (1.25" 8 position), and camera (ASI533mm). The condensation issue is interesting...they really don't explain what the consequences are, they just say to avoid it.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Sean Mc:
I’m more concerned with good stars across the field than i am with an internal focuser.
WO has not impressed me lately.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
My new Redcat 51 III WIFD gets perfect stars. I also have the FLT 91 and was plagued with tilt and egg shaped stars. I finally chased it down to the 6AIII flattener/reducer. Now I only use the 68III flattener and get perfectly round stars the entire field.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
I recently acquired two WO scopes: FLT91 (not WIFD) and PL68 (with WIFD). Some observations:
- The idea of a solid image train attachment to the telescope body instead of the focuser sounds like a great way to deal with tilt issues from a heavy imaging train at the end of a focuser. Great concept.
- But (so far!) I've not had tilt-issues with the FLT91 or some other mid/high-end scopes without WIFD. I have had issues with some Explore Scientific scopes.
- I've never had real issues with cable management, but it's just cleaner with the focuser inside. Nice to have.
- With WIFD you get one image scale - that of the builtin optics. No way to swap between say a 1.0x flattener and 0.8x reducer.
- At least for the PL68, you have to flip the scope upside-down to attach a (ZWO) auto-focuser and have clearance with some mounts. So far, WO does not make risers for all the WIFD scopes to work around that. Honestly, it's silly for an imaging only scope to have this issue.
- Not really compatible with visual - it's really for imaging only.
- Using a dew strap with WIFD is just not as reassuring. Since the objective is sliding through the tube, and there's a necessary gap, there is no firm direct connection. That said, in my limited use, I've not had dew issues yet. I kind of eyeballed where the objective was at focus and put the strap just behind there.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Tom Zepf:
I recently acquired two WO scopes: FLT91 (not WIFD) and PL68 (with WIFD). Some observations:
- The idea of a solid image train attachment to the telescope body instead of the focuser sounds like a great way to deal with tilt issues from a heavy imaging train at the end of a focuser. Great concept.
- But (so far!) I've not had tilt-issues with the FLT91 or some other mid/high-end scopes without WIFD. I have had issues with some Explore Scientific scopes.
- I've never had real issues with cable management, but it's just cleaner with the focuser inside. Nice to have.
- With WIFD you get one image scale - that of the builtin optics. No way to swap between say a 1.0x flattener and 0.8x reducer.
- At least for the PL68, you have to flip the scope upside-down to attach a (ZWO) auto-focuser and have clearance with some mounts. So far, WO does not make risers for all the WIFD scopes to work around that. Honestly, it's silly for an imaging only scope to have this issue.
- Not really compatible with visual - it's really for imaging only.
- Using a dew strap with WIFD is just not as reassuring. Since the objective is sliding through the tube, and there's a necessary gap, there is no firm direct connection. That said, in my limited use, I've not had dew issues yet. I kind of eyeballed where the objective was at focus and put the strap just behind there.
Your point about visual observing is very interesting!
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
|
Generally speaking, WIFD and add-on focal reducers are not mutually exclusive. WO's current WIFD implementation may not be designed this way, but this doesn't mean it cannot be done. A WIFD scope with internal flattener can still have a focal reducer. There are many examples of a flattener and then reducer cases, like TAK FSQ, Pentax EDHF/SDHF/SDP, Vixen VSD (which is inherited from Pentax), Vixen HD reducers, etc. So if WO is smart enough (they are) and if there is enough demand, maybe their next generation WIFD scopes will have the capability to allow a dedicated reducer.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
I had a thought about this WIFD scope and I think this might be a con, but note, I don't own one of these:
Imagine you platesolved and slewed to an object, but your stars are not in focus, so you get the bahtinov mask and you put it on there, and you focus, and then, you take off the bahtinov mask; wouldn't taking off the bahtinov mask cause some movement in the front-end of the scope, that might put the scope little out of focus again?
I'm probably exaggerating; I just don't know how sensitive the front-end of the scope is to pressure to cause it to go out of focus; isn't it possible if the guy is a little rough?
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
I had a thought about this WIFD scope and I think this might be a con, but note, I don't own one of these:
Imagine you platesolved and slewed to an object, but your stars are not in focus, so you get the bahtinov mask and you put it on there, and you focus, and then, you take off the bahtinov mask; wouldn't taking off the bahtinov mask cause some movement in the front-end of the scope, that might put the scope little out of focus again?
I'm probably exaggerating; I just don't know how sensitive the front-end of the scope is to pressure to cause it to go out of focus; isn't it possible if the guy is a little rough?
No, the objective is on a moving tube that slides inside of the main OTA. That isolates the objective part of the telescope from the main tube and the dew shield. A Bahtinov mask would be placed on the dew shield and cannot affect the focus position. This, whether the dew shield is extended or retracted.
See here:  |
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
|
oh, okay, makes much more sense.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
4.72
1.20
1.20
2.71
1.20
12.08
4.02
