The best way to view m42?

[sunshine185]

Was amazed last night with my first view of m42, is the best view to be had just by looking through ep, our its it best to view through a filter of some sort attached to ep? Seen lots of filters advertised but do they work?

[swamp thing]

The nebula filters certainly do work

The UHC, O-III and H Beta filter all work.

IMO the moon filters are an utter waste of money but others seem to need them. but be aware they will not improve the image at all.

A nebula filter can make the difference between seeing an object or not.

On objects like M42 an O-III will definitely enhance the available view.

Regards Steve

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[sunshine185]

Thnx Steve.

[twotter]

My big plan for this winter is to use my O-III filter on M42. If I can do that I'll be happy and anything else will be a bonus

Btw, I like my Moon filter

[umadog]

I too don't use a moon filter, but I hear on-line that some people like them. In fact, I've seen some very heated discussions where people have virtually be throwing abuse at each other over moon filters. Crazy, huh?

I find M42 to be an object which looks good both with and without a filter. There's a lot to be said for the un-filtered view since the object is so bright. I can never decide if I prefer it with or without a filter. It's true, though, that the fainter parts show up a little better with a filter. The nebulae which are really helped by a filter are those in Cygnus. All of those can go from invisible to visible with an OIII or UHC. Many of those in Sagittarius are also aided substantially. There are others, but those are the main ones which spring to mind.

[Stargazer Jack]

I am thinking about buying a nebula filter. Will I get a better view even though I have a small telescope?

[acey]

Best way to view it is from the darkest possible place, when highest in the sky (i.e. due south). Though it's so bright it can be seen in a very bright sky: I observed it in dawn twilight a few weeks ago.

I generally prefer an unfiltered view but from a light-polluted site a filtered view may be better. Only filter I use is a Lumicon UHC, and only on objects that are difficult or impossible to see otherwise.

A filter cuts starlight (so dims the Trapezium in M42 or central star in planetaries). It also kills colour, so the only hope of ever seeing red in M42 is without a filter (but with large aperture at a dark site). Also the only way to enjoy objects like the Blinking Planetary is without a filter. But a nebula filter like the UHC can be great for enhancing faint objects.

Moon filters are neutral and cut all light equally: useful on the Moon if it hurts your eye, but not much else.

[sunshine185]

According to the sales pitch, with these filters you can see "things you only see in photos" is this true? Loads of multicolour gasses?

[John]

According to the sales pitch, with these filters you can see "things you only see in photos" is this true? Loads of multicolour gasses?

Nope

Their effect is quite subtle apart from a few objects where it's more obvious (the Veil and Owl nebulae for example) but still no colours.

[Ags]

According to the sales pitch, with these filters you can see "things you only see in photos" is this true? Loads of multicolour gasses?

Youhave to remember that a filter can only make an object dimmer, not brighter. The filters help by darkening the sky background more than the object.

[umadog]

Well if you can use a filter to "see things you only see in photos" then it's not true that you can only see those things in photos. So it's obviously a silly statement.

You certainly can't use the filters to see colour. Remember the reason that you can't see the colours isn't because the objects aren't coloured, it's because you're using rod vision which isn't colour-sensitive. It isn't colour sensitive because there is only variety of rod. No colour filter is going to change that and no colour filter is going to make the object brighter, so enabling cone vision.

[sunshine185]

So i would be better off saving my money and spending it on a better quality ep, as i said i was only using the standard 25mm and 10mm that came with the scope so hopefully something like an x-cel lx or a hyperion will give me better views than any filter could do.

[Moonshane]

the best view I have ever had of M42/3 was at a dark(ish) site recently with my 16" dob and UHC filter and 26mm Nagler. it was almost photographic quality but as mentioned was still basically monochrome.

as with most things in space the (visual) view will be enhanced by dark skies first, then (closely followed by) aperture and then other things trailing behind.

I don't use a moon filter even with my 16" dob but do use Oiii, UHC and a Baader Neodymium (for Jupiter and sometimes the moon when 50%+ illuminated as it increases contrast).

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

In a smaller scope I would prefer a UHC filter to an O-III, because the latter cuts down a lot of light from the nebula itself. UHC certainly improves contrast, even in a dark site high up in the Alps in my APM 80mm F/6. In M42 (and to a lesser extent M57) I do seem to see hints of colour (some greenish and reddish tones) with my C8 under really clear skies, and the Saturn Nebula, Blue Snowball, and some other planetaries show a distinct greenish blue colour. As the 25mm supplied with many scopes is not too bad, I would check out a new filter before looking at new EPs. If you are limited to buying just one, go for the UHC, not the O-III which is more restrictive.

[John]

As said above, certain filters and better quality eyepieces will improve the views of M42 slightly but darker skies and good seeing conditions will have a bigger impact - trouble is you can't buy those

There was a great line used on the Cloudynights forum in response to the question "whats the best thing I could buy for $100 to improve my views of deep sky objects ?". The response was "a tankful of gas (petrol) to get you and your scope to a dark site". Lot of truth in that