Bugdozer

I have an Astronomik UHC filter. It's the only nebula filter I have used so I can't compare with other brands. However, it definitely improves the view of all emission nebulae I have observed with it - M42 and the Crab included. The main difference using the filter is twofold - it increases the contrast with the background sky, and it seems to bring out more structural detail. This first characteristic was invaluable when I was trying to observe the Eagle nebula, which I literally could not see without the filter. I have only used it in skies with moderate to low light pollution, so I cannot speak to how it would help if you were in an area with higher light pollution.

The universe is full of amazing stuff. And I just want to see it all.

Ah right! I have a converted DSLR for my infrared uses. I wouldn't dare try and convert anything myself though!

That's a wonderful image. Superia 100 was a great emulsion with very little grain to it and it was popular among all photographers for its colour rendering, as you say. I have used it for some untracked shots of the sky, but not at that large format.

I have no regrets at all with any of my astronomy gear. It's always been what was exactly right for me at the time. More of an annoyance than a regret was that a couple of months after buying my Meade ETX, they brought out the Goto version, which I would have preferred. But I didn't regret the telescope I did have.

My recent infrared moon shot in the Lunar Imaging section was taken on a D70. They can still hold their own with good processing.

No. Panoramic images don't squash more in one direction than another, that's why their aspect ratio is elongated.

I put my finder on and off every time I set up and take down my scope, and it seems to always remain exactly on target.

You certainly shouldn't be embarrassed, that's a great picture. You have processed it well with a smooth range of tones and no highlight blowout and avoided the trap of going bananas with oversharpening.

I have generally been using quite a high ISO setting when trying to image objects such as nebulae and galaxies, to try and capture as much faint detail as possible per sub. My understanding is that using a high ISO reduces the overall dynamic range of the image. This isn't such a problem with an extended target where the detail doesn't go to the extremes of black or white and stays more in the middle of the range, but I can imagine for good images of stars, where they are a bright point, a wider dynamic range might be beneficial. Therefore, would it be sensible to use a lower ISO when imaging something like an open cluster?

Welcome, you will get lots of useful tips here!

Welcome, and congratulations on being Forum Member Least Likely To Get Aperture Fever!

This obviously isn't what the OP is describing though, is it?

This is exactly my point. Everyone on this forum falls into one of two types: those who say "no scope is ideal for everything" and those who say "get an 8 inch Dob" regardless of the needs of the person. 8 inch Dobs are great, but they're not good for people who lack space, people who need to travel to observe, people who have difficulty finding faint objects, and people who may have trouble with large tubes. There's more to the ideal telescope than simply "it's a fast scope with a big aperture that doesn't cost much".

It's possible the lists can be wrong. Look at NGC - even after they revised it to correct duplicates, things in the wrong place and things that didn't exist, they STILL had errors in it.

I was going to joke that one of the Dob Squad will imminently be along to say "an 8 inch Dob is good at everything" but the post immediately after yours beat me to it!

It's interesting reading books from the past where things are yet to be discovered. I am lucky enough to have inherited an original edition if John Herschel's book from the 1830s, in which he speculates on the distances of the stars being "many hundreds of miles" and Saturn's rings being a solid opaque substance - and of course there's no mention at all of Neptune, with Uranus having been discovered by his father as the last planet. Although I am unsure if Ceres was still considered a planet at that time.

Oh yes of course, that makes perfect sense. For some reason I was imagining rotating the eyepiece within the focuser!

I don't understand what you mean by "when I find a target, the eyepiece/finder needs to be rotated". Why?

That doesn't really address my point.

There's a fundamental problem with detecting an object purely by occultation. You would need at least one more, and preferably several more occultations to determine an orbit. The advantage of a visible object, even if it's faint, is you will always be able to see it. If we detected an object by occultation, but then didn't see any further occultations, you have then pretty much lost it entirely. It could have gone anywhere at any speed.

Pluto failed to meet the criterion of being gravitationally dominant in its orbit, I believe because its orbit crosses over with Neptune's. However, this makes me question whether Neptune should therefore also be eliminated for the same reason. It hasn't managed to boot Pluto off, so...

This reminds me of the Japanese classical musician (unfortunately whose name escapes me) in his 80's who was asked by someone why he still practiced every day after being at the top level of performance for decades already. To which he modestly replied "because I think I am starting to become quite good at playing". The point being, when you consider yourself to be a "real imager", but not others, you are losing sight of the fact that it's a journey, not a goal. There will always be stuff to learn. We have been "real imagers" from the moment we started, we are just at different points along the journey, using different tools and progressing at different speeds.

Welcome Frank, you will get good advice here!

Doesn't work. My mum believed this for a while, leaving conkers in the corner of her rooms, until I pointed out a spider had actually built a small web between two of the conkers...