RobertI

That’s really helpful and illuminating, thanks John. It’s also the cheapest option so I can’t really go wrong! I’ll probably press the button tomorrow unless someone can come up with another convincing argument in the meantime. 
 

I understand what you’re saying about the fine tuning rings, I guess I‘ve used them a lot because I am too tight to buy some more glass! 

Looking for some help and advice as I just dont have enough eyepiece experience.....

I want to be able to take my various scopes upto higher powers for lunar, planetary and particularly doubles. Budget is around the £100 mark, but could stretch a bit further if necessary. As you can see from my sig my smallest e/p is the BST 5mm, which as it happens is not a fab eyepiece anyway (it produces a slightly 'misty' image despite cleaning, wasn't always like this, not sure what happened). For doubles I was hoping to be able to get a range of focal lengths if possible, so the options I have been considering are:

1. A barlow such as the Baader Classic 2.25x (£39) or the Explore Scientific 3x (£86) - this would give a nice range of FLs with my 5mm BST and 10mm Hyperion (I have the fine tuning rings which turn it into 6mm, 7mm or 8.4mm, but also makes the eyepiece much longer!)
2. A 5mm Hyperion - with the fine tuning rings it will give me (2.6mm, 3.2mm and 4.0mm)
3. Another eyepiece suited to lunar/planetary/doubles. The OVL Nirvana-ES UWA-82º 4mm (£69) has previously been recommended. I feel I would also need another eyepiece for the 'mega-magnifications' that can sometimes be applied for resolving tight doubles. Perhaps the Celestron X-Cel LX 2.3mm (£66)?

The appeal of option 1 is that I could also use my 8-24 zoom e/p as a 2.7-8.0 zoom, which sounds really useful for doubles/planetary, but possibly not giving very good views in practice?? Option 2 is nice and flexible, I have been very happy with the Hyperions and regularly use the fine turing rings. Option 3 is possibly the most expensive and least flexible, but possibly providing the best views.

I also enjoy using two scopes during a session to compare views of the same object and it's nice to have the variety of eyepiece FLs to I get both scopes to the same magnification - possibly another tick in the box for option 1?

Really not sure where to go, any advice really appreciated! 

Rob

10 hours ago, domstar said:

A great read. It's good to have a nemesis. I've had a few. It's so much more satisfying when it's vanquished. I also find that after the first time, it capitulates more and more easily each time. Cygnus is a lovely constellation but I find it very difficult to find a target there because there are just too many stars.

You’re so right about things capitulating more easily once you’ve found them - the Veil is a great example for me. 
 

I now have OIII and UHC filters which should really help with the Crescent, plus slowly darkening skies. Really looking forward to unearthing it’s glories! 🙂

Nice report and video. Amazing what 72mm can do!

Having been agonising whether to buy an Astronomik UHC or OIII filter, these two came up for sale from a fellow member for the price a new one. Looking forward to using them.

Well done on creating some new converts, I'm sure your enthusiasm helped. Sorry to hear about your bad news. 

Great report John, glad you enjoyed some 'eyeballing' and hope you do some more.

Like you, I don't know that much about the moon and have promised myself on several occasions to do more given how often it's there. If you've not come across it, the Lunar 100 is a good list for getting to know the moon, there are plenty of resources out there about it.

I'm glad you enjoyed the experience of doubles. I really love observing doubles, although not an expert, I am learning all the time, and it's something that can be done even when the moon's out. I bought the 150PL Newtonian specifically for doubles and it's working brilliantly. I tend to get bamboozled by colours with doubles. Often a brightly coloured primary can make the the secondary seem to have colour when it doesn't have any. I've never really managed to see the difference between white and blue stars, epsecially fainter stars. Shades of red are much easier to discern. Carbon stars are fun to find and observe.

I sympathise with your contortions, I remember cursing the last time I had my 100mm refractor out! I guess that's where a really tall tripod pays dividends. I must admit, I have found that my Newtonians are the most comfortable observing experiences, with the eyepiece always easy to access when standing, even when pointing near the zenith. And with slow motion extension cables hovering at waist height it's easy to control the mount. It's the best setup I have found to date.

I look forward to your next report!

Rob

19 minutes ago, Hughsie said:

Does that help Rob?

Probably will be the best way to read it!

Looks good, I can now read it! Thanks.

Hi John,

I can't see any of your text - I think you might have used a white font or something (I am using the 'default' SGL theme)?

Rob

Reasonably dark here, last night at around midnight I could see the milky way and was observing some DSO's with my 6" Newt - managed to see the Veil with a UHCE filter. I'm at 52° N.

32 minutes ago, Stu said:

Pretty tough at this time of year Robert. Once astro darkness returns I’m sure you will have more luck.

Thanks Stu, yes summer solstice is not the best time to observe faint nebs! I was pleased to finally locate it though - will motivate me to get out more in future. Good point about exit pupil, the 21mm is the widest practical eyepiece I have (I tried my 40mm Plossl - unusable - the eye relief was about 3 feet from the scope!) which gives exit pupil of 2.6mm and 60x. My C8 with reducer would give 3.3 and a similar mag. So I think I might need a longer FL eyepiece (in addition to darker skies and filters). Open to suggestions! 

On 21/06/2020 at 23:46, John said:

A first for me, as far as I recall, is Beta 648 which is close to Gamma Lyrae. I got a definite split of this close uneven brightness pair at 281x and 300x.

Inspired by your success I had a go at this one with the 150PL tonight. Sadly conditions were just not right, with the star jumping all over the place and no sign of a secondary. I was also limited to 240x - I need more magnification for these tight doubles. So I ended up looking at some nebulae instead. One for another time.

My nemesis? I am talking about the Crescent nebula. I have tried to find this a number of times, although my efforts have been fairly ill prepared. In theory it is easy to find, being one third of the way from gamma Cygni to Eta Cygni and there is a prominent 'triangle of stars' to help find it. However I have never found said triangle or any sign of the nebula. So tonight, on a less than ideal luminous summer night,  I ventured forth,  with my 150PL and a 21mm Hyperion sporting a Astronomik UHCE filter - not the best filter for the job as it's designed for scopes of 5" or less but it does improve contrast signficiantly and it's all I have! Using my marvellous ES 8x50 straight though correct image finder, I located the area and tried to find the elusive Crescent. Again no sign of the triangle of stars, and after 20 minutes of looking and scanning, with observing hood in place, no luck. So I sought help from the internet and found a finder chart from Skyhound website. Comparing the chart with the eyepiece view I was gobsmacked to see the identical pattern of stars in the eyepiece - they were also in same orientation as the chart!! So I knew I was in the right place, now to see if I could see any trace. After a good half hour of staring, swapping eyes, moving the scope back and forth to increase visibility, I can confidently say that I could see.....part of it! I've indicated in yellow in the finder chart below the area I could see. I felt there were hints of the lower curve too.

I am hopeful that with my 8" SCT, darker skies and a UHC or OIII filter (both of which I'll have in the next week  or so) I'll be able to see more of the Crescent. A little project for the coming weeks and months.

I finished the session with a look at the Eastern Veil - frankly a piece of cake compared to the Crescent! The Veil was still pretty faint though and I have had much clearer views before - this just confirmed that conditions were really not ideal for seeking out the Cresent.

I'd be interested to hear other people's experiences with the Crescent.

Nice report Chris, glad you’re enjoying the scope. Hopefully it’s ease of use (apart from the finder!) will enable you to do lots of observing.  I also observed Jupiter and was surprised at the detail considering how low it was. My H130P is currently sitting atop my SkyProdigy mount - must get it out for a session soon. 

5 minutes ago, Don Pensack said:

If you want something that works well on M42/M43/M8/M20/M17/M16 and The Veil, the Crescent, Thor's Helmet, The Helix, The Owl, etc., then the UHC.

It is the closest to a "universal" nebula filter (though no filter really helps on dark nebulae or reflection nebulae).

But if your interest runs more to planetary nebulae, then the O-III.  Eventually, you'll have both.

Thanks Don

I'm going to change my answer on the basis that vlaiv and jimjam111 know what they're talking about. Also I can see more detail now I'm looking on my monitor instead of an iphone.

Hi Matt, an interesting challenge, hard to choose - not being an imager I’m going to make a fool of myself and say the  first one is itelescope? 

What a great night! You covered a lot of ground, you must have been very satisfied at the end of the session. The noctilucent clouds look wonderful. 

Good catch John, wish I’d read this before, I would have had a stab last night when I was out. 

1 minute ago, jetstream said:

How dark are your skies?

The old exit pupil deal applies- both OIII and UHC like a bit more than the 21mm Hyperion gives at f6.3. For the Veil itself the OIII is what you want and it will also excel on many other targets. The extra detail you might have heard about with a UHC typically comes from using one under dark skies IMHO.

The newest Astronomik OIIIs have a vg tight passband, the older ones are a bit wider.

My skies are Bortle 4 on a good night. Overhead can be really dark on a nice transparent night, which are not that frequent. Darkness also depends on which neighbour happens to be going to the lavatory.  

1 minute ago, MarkAR said:

If you want to shoot narrowband on nebula then the Oiii is what you want. Do you have an Astronomic Ha to match with the Oiii ?

I should have mentioned, this is for visual! Apologies. 

Informative thread. 🙂 I have a question and hope it’s ok to put it here rather than starting a new thread. 

I am looking to get an OIII filter, primarily for the Veil, but also any other nebs which may benefit from OIII. I had settled on the Astronomik OIII. I’m now wondering if the Astronomik UHC might be a better bet, not quite so good on Veil but possibly a better all rounder. I’d be using it with a C8 (+0.63 reducer), 150PL and possibly 130P. The lowest power eyepiece I have a present is the Hyperion 21mm. 

What do folks think - Astronomik OIII or Astronomik UHC? 

Thanks. 👍

4 hours ago, Lockie said:

here is my first look and comparison to the H130p video:

Great vid as always Chris. 

Well if you can afford it, you can’t do much better than hyperstar - F2 is super quick which is what you want with the less sensitive colour cameras. I would definitely go this way if had the time and money. Good luck and keep us updated. Perhaps start your own thread letting us know how you are doing? 🙂 

As Mick H said, @noah4x4 has a wireless Fastar setup with the same scope, so will be able to advise. 

Hi Barry,

Welcome to the wonderful world of EAA! You have chosen a really nice scope. Have you managed to use your scope outside to view any objects yet? That might be a good idea while the weather is still warm, so you can familiarise with the scope and understand what it’s capable of and where any problems lie. As you say, you are going at this pretty quickly, so I personally think it would be a good idea to try and get some results as cheaply as possible before splashing out any more. For example, do you have a DSLR camera? If so you could start with some imaging of the moon and then move on to some brighter star clusters so you can understand the challenges of locating, focussing, tracking, stacking, processing, etc. 

When you’ve got the hang of it and decided it’s definitely for you, then a dedicated camera and a reducer is required. Ideally a focal reduction to F5 or less is what you need for fainter deep sky objects. The more focal reduction you use, the more ‘coma’ like effects you get at the edges, hence a camera with a very small chip is desirable to minimise these effects. 

I use a Lodestar mono CCD  (mono cameras are more sensitive than colour) which I have been  very happy with, but people are increasingly using colour CMOS cameras with excellent results. I am not that up to date with latest cameras so will leave it to someone else to recommend something!

I use an old Meade 0.33 reducer (no longer made) - some people manage to use them at 0.33 without coma, but the best I have managed is 0.4 which is still reasonably fast. You could also try a 0.5 or 0.63 reducer and set the spacing to get as low as possible before coma appears.

HTH

Rob