Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

Inexpensive light pollution filter

alcol620

By alcol620
in Discussions - Eyepieces

Recommended Posts

Earl

Earl

Posted
Posted

there is no simple answer its just depends on your sky, what is good for one site is not always good for the other, I found the Astronomiks were good for my old location when i needed a LP filter and using a OSC camera,

Alot depends on what street light type you are combating etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RikM

RikM

Posted
Posted

I use the 2" for imaging and it works well. I tried the 1.25" for visual use and it didn't make too much difference. I use UHC and OIII filters for visual and find these are much more effective at revealing faint detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charic

Charic

Posted
Posted

alcol620.......Tough subject filters? Your best option is a truly dark site where you can't see any light source. The  problem with any light pollution is to become sufficiently 'dark eye' adapted. Just sticking  a filter in  won't achieve that IMO! 

If you can't get away from the light pollution, then viewing from under a cover ( dont cover the OTA aperture?) will help to dark adapt your eyes, also extending the OTA with a snood, cut from camping foam underlay, will help reduce unwanted light entering the telescope, even flocking maybe? The fact that you can see the light pollution with your own eyes, every time you come away from the eyepiece,  a filter won't help you, its not a light switch! I bought a cheapo Moon/Light pollution filter. Think I've used it twice on the Moon!
I sit in the darker shadows in my garden and cover up. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Moonshane

Moonshane

Posted
Posted

I never use light pollution filters for light pollution, more for increasing contrast on the moon, Mars and Jupiter at which this filter would be good. For anti-light pollution I tend to use a slightly higher magnification but as above, there's nothing like dark skies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
szymon

szymon

Posted
Posted

Would the 2 inch version work with a dslr for wide field imaging?

An emphatic yes.  I use one.  The only issue you may have, depending on your scope, is getting the right set-up so that you can actually put a filter inline.  I had a hell of a time with my 200P, although I managed it with a "wider" t-ring adapter which has an m48 thread on the end.  If you can use it, it makes a dramatic difference, at least in my part of NorthWest London.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MyRomeo

MyRomeo

Posted
Posted

An emphatic yes. I use one. The only issue you may have, depending on your scope, is getting the right set-up so that you can actually put a filter inline. I had a hell of a time with my 200P, although I managed it with a "wider" t-ring adapter which has an m48 thread on the end. If you can use it, it makes a dramatic difference, at least in my part of NorthWest London.

Thanks for the feedback. I think I wasn't clear on my intended use tho, not with a scope but just on a dslr and lens with a step down ring to fit it. I assume these are available. I don't use my scope for imaging as its really not up to the job

Link to comment
Share on other sites
szymon

szymon

Posted
Posted

Thanks for the feedback. I think I wasn't clear on my intended use tho, not with a scope but just on a dslr and lens with a step down ring to fit it. I assume these are available. I don't use my scope for imaging as its really not up to the job

Ahhh.  With a lens I would think it would be fine.  Actually I have a set of step-down rings, I could try taking some pictures this evening if you like (and if there are no clouds and I have time and etc).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bish

bish

Posted
Posted

A UHC works wonders on bright neb such as M27 or M57. I also have an LP filter which does a similar job but not so well. They are quite limited, but great on the DSO's that they do work for. My UHC is SW - fairly cheap but still effective on certain targets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ptarmigan

Ptarmigan

Posted
Posted

Interesting topic, thanks.

Continuing the straying from Alcol's op ( this is after all the Eyepiece section ! )

I read a comment in a DSO AP article :-

he described his "expensive" light pollution filter as having "saved a fortune" in fuel getting to a dark site !

Which is one way of looking on the bright side!

I would also add, all that time saved in driving = more short subs to be stacked / more chance of dodging clouds.

Just a random thort :)

But yes, ultimately, all other things being equal and no risk to domestic harmony a dark site is best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MyRomeo

MyRomeo

Posted
Posted

Ahhh. With a lens I would think it would be fine. Actually I have a set of step-down rings, I could try taking some pictures this evening if you like (and if there are no clouds and I have time and etc).

Oh yes please if you get the chance! I usually use a 50mm prime or 70-300 telephoto but that uses a larger 62mm filter, I'm not sure I could get away with a 2" filter on this? Maybe worth a try tho if I cut out a template.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.