Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_6_banner_jupiter_2021.jpg.eacb9f0c2f90fdaafda890646b3fc199.jpg

 

 

JTmunmun

New Members
  • Posts

    30
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

15 Good

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Florida

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. 120x15" ISO800 + 30x30" ISO400 Canon T5i modded Celestron C8N/Advanced VX
  2. Interesting! Is that specific to the NPBs or do pretty much all of the UHCs and OIIIs do that?
  3. Do you have any issue with red tinted stars with that? I read on some forum post that someone had that issue with the NPB, but there were also some in the same thread that said they didn't have that at all.
  4. That was kind of another thing I was wondering. Is it worth getting the 2" filters? I have an 8" reflector, an F/5, and only have one 2" eyepiece at 35mm so it didn't seem worth it to get it over the 1.25". Perhaps with the combo price for the NPB though it is worth it, being cheaper than the Lumicon 2" for both.
  5. Since I do plan on astroimaging eventually, do the UHC and OIII fare well for imaging in light pollution, or is it better to get a separate broadband like Astronomik CLS for that? or is the answer mostly "depends on what you're imaging?"
  6. I have heard that too - unfortunately a true dark sky site is about 2.5 hours away. So I am torn about purchasing the UHC or OIII first. According to the Lumicon guide to filters, OIII supposedly performs better in light pollution. Can anyone confirm the OIII is better in light pollution vs. the UHC? Or is it mostly going to depend on the object being viewed?
  7. As I understand, OIII and UHC are pretty much only going to help with nebulae, and do pretty much nothing for galaxies. I read through that article and it said the broadband filters (like DeepSky) would help a little bit with galaxy viewing. As it stands, in my location I can pick up a few galaxies, albeit very faintly and just the center - Bodes, Sombrero, Blackeye. Do these broadband filters actually do anything worthy of their cost to help with galaxy viewing in your experience? I have looked those up and it seems some like them, some say they do nothing. I know a dark sky is pretty much the only real solution though, but I am definitely open to getting a UHC/OIII and broadband if it will help.
  8. I recently picked up a QHY5-II-M for autoguiding for a good price for when I start my astrophotography. I am still gathering all necessary pieces for this. Does the guide scope for the QHY5-II-M it is attached to need to be "synced" to my scope? Just using logic, I would think that it could create error if the guide scope/camera is not on the same page. I know, very scientific terminology.... The telescope I am going to be using for imaging is a Celestron C8N F/5 on AVX. I see QHY sells a Mini Guide Scope but am unsure if this is a good match for my scope. Any advice, or recommendations (preferably ones that don't break the bank) for a guide scope? TYIA.
  9. Thanks for the excellent advice. I knew you guys would have helpful answers. I'm glad I didn't buy the DeepSky on a whim! Looking like the UHC might be the winner to me.
  10. Just wondering what the title says. I am specifically looking at the Lumicon DeepSky as it seems a pretty good all-around filter for an affordable price - if it works. I am currently just doing visual, and hoping for any assistance in seeing nebulae in the light polluted area I live in. I don't expect a filter to be a magic fix, but anything helps. Is it worth the cost for this? I may also get around to astrophotography in due time so even if it is negligible for visual but helpful for AP, that would be worth it to me. If that specific Lumicon one is not all that great do you have any other recommendations for a decent filter for nebulae viewing in light pollution in same price range? I have seen some posts where people say the Lumicon UHC is actually better than the DeepSky. Anyone with experience with either? TYIA.
  11. I scoped out that area last night, and that actually seems like a good spot. One neighbor a couple houses down where the panorama glitched has a bright light at night which messes with my dark adaptation, but from that spot I can easily avoid it as that keeps it behind the fence. I think it might also be flat enough there that I can get away without too much messing around with the wood and digging holes. I'll lose a bit more of the north but I think you have a point that there is plenty to see in the good views I have. I will have to report back in a few nights on how this all works out! No kids for me, so not an issue! On a side note, you'd be surprised what the neighbors across the other side of the canal let their kids do. I see them swimming in there, paddle boarding, and even riding around on a little motorboat! That concrete pier is a great idea, but I'm not sure how long I will be staying at this house so probably a bit too much cost/effort considering that possibility. Great idea for the future though.
  12. Now that is actually an interesting idea. I didn't think of digging down to make level. Haha I am more worried about the mullet that randomly jump out of the water and startle me. The dolphins and turtles keep to themselves, and the alligators like shallower water, though one of the neighbors did see one swimming in the canal not too long ago!
  13. Thank you for suggestions. That wood platform makes a lot of sense for weight distribution. So Freff, you are saying to drive the tent posts into the ground with the top curved end hooked into the 1/4" hole then, correct? As in drive them so the wood is pressed firmly against the ground? I figure this may also help with pictures. Here is a view of my backyard so you can get an idea of exactly what I'm working with. Two regular pictures are taken from the north looking south. I have the worst view of the north for the most part due to trees blocking the view, and can't see Polaris. I am standing under in this. West and south are fantastic views and the east is limited by the house and how close to the water I am willing to get. The panorama is taken from right at that intersection where the two sidewalks meet in front of the door, going south to west to north, from left to right. Where would you set up?
  14. Beginner here, haven't even got my scope set up yet, but I think I may have a problem. My entire backyard (only reasonable viewing area) is on a slope. About a 30 degree slope. Is it possible to set up on a slope by adjusting the tripod legs to make it level, or will it still be unstable and tip over (8" OTA reflector, 14 lbs and 2 x 12lb counterweights on the mount)? My only option for a flat spot is a dock (vibrations of course then the issue) or in a corner between the house and fence with very limited view and streetlight in view. Any suggestions on what to do?
  15. I am in the planning stages for astrophotography, aka total beginner, so hoping this doesn't sound stupid. I have a Celestron AVX equatorial mount, which does have the All-Star polar alignment thing, that says it is "accurate enough for short exposure prime focus planetary imaging (a couple of seconds) and short exposure piggyback astroimaging (a couple of minutes)." From what I have read, you kind of have to be able to align on Polaris to be accurate for astrophotography. The problem is that in my backyard, the north is completely blocked by trees. How would I go about getting proper alignment? Is the Celestron Starsense any good or would it even solve the problem? Someone in another thread of mine also said an autoguider is necessary so that is on my list also.
×
×
  • 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.