tooth_dr

I use an item called a siqveland matrix band on a daily basis. It’s pronounced SWEEV-LAND. So i think I like the one mentioned above ‘Sviebonie’

Beautiful Tom, striking view of M89

Nice job Mick, the outer shell is indeed showing nicely

Very very nice Peter. I’ve bookmarked this to have a go myself

Unfortunately it's the opposite, these new LED lights cost peanuts to run. I'm genuinely annoyed for you, he/she is just a pillock

Definitely have a look around, there class leading photos on here with the OSC. You don’t have to compromise any more.

Equipment is only a part of it, your ability to process the data can make the difference too. I’ve the mono QHY268M and the OSC ZWO2600MC and love both. If I had to choose only one, I honestly don’t know which one I’d choose.

Some of the best central detail I’ve seen with the Iris Rodd! Still a little noisy for 25 hours of data?

Nice one Carole, I must admit I have a real thing for dark nebula, and if it's dark clear and the moons not there, I almost feels it's a waste not to image them.

Thanks Richard. It's a little untidy. The focus for the Epsilon OSC was out a bit, it is blurry and there are double diffraction spikes on the brighter stars. The luminance layer from the APM has helped a lot.

I found this region by chance when composing my image of the Coathanger. These bits of dark nebula are located just below (or is it above?) the flat section of the Coathanger. A bit about this region: vdB 126 is a reflection nebula in Vulpecula, and lies along the line between the stars Albireo and α Vulpeculae. vdB 126 shines in the foreground of the dark nebulae LDN 768 and LDN 769, which are easily visible against the millions of stars in the backgorund. The gas and dust in the nebula reflects the light of the main sequence star HD 182918. This image was made up from exactly two hours of luminance data and 2 hours 18 minutes of OSC data. I dont think I've ever seen so many stars in one image. C+C welcome Adam

They are for holding frameless/unmounted filters and not for fine tuning the backfocus. You are correct - you need to add 0.7mm backfocus to account for the glass, so if eg you need 55mm backfocus, then if you have filters in the light path, this needs to be adjusted to 55.7mm. I agreed with Rob above, measure to hard edges and add the 6.5mm on

Baader did offer to send me a filter specifically for my F2.8 scope as a replacement. I briefly had a Sharpstar 94 with the 0.8x focal reducer.

Possibly some reflection from the optics due to moon brightness.

Fantastic! I like this, your processing is gentle and less artefacts around the stars. The only thing might be to increase the saturation a little as it’s a bit grey.

@rsarwar I’ve exchanged them for the slower ones to use on an F4.8 scope, do you reckon they will be ok?

I was offered a replacement but I’ve already returned it and TBH don’t want to waste any more time on it, losing 20 hours moon-free imaging time was annoying enough. I don’t have any other filters, and I don’t have an antila filter. I had previously used an Optolong 6.5nm Oiii filter on the same scope and it worked ok, but I’ve since sold it.

Love the look of these scopes Ciaran, all the best with it.

Could be a stacking artefact, what’s the subs like?

Would it be possible for my Takahashi Epsilon to be causing the filter to be off band?

Here is another mono+OSC image, comprising of a total of just 68 minutes of data under poor conditions. Epsilon 180 / ZWO2600MC - RGB APM 105 / QHY268M - LUM C+C welcome. Adam.

I seen these in the image Paul. Thanks for identifying them. I had a suspicion they were something slow moving and not an artefact. I don’t mind these at all, unlike artificial satellites

I have send Baader an email about it. If the test are to be believed then the filters may lie outside the band, but if it affects all the high speed ultra narrow filters then I'd expect more reports online about it.

The haloes I think were an improvement on the previous filters for my setup, but not passing any Oiii through the filter was more of an issue

Thanks Alan, it's be reduced to 40% to original size. The stars with the refractor are excellent as youd expect, but the reflector stars are a bit more bloated.