Trying visual...

[GlassWalker]

I've been imaging for a couple years now, but I never really tried much visual observation seriously beyond the moon and bigger planets. I think I'm overdue correcting that.

My first scope wasn't up for much anyway, the Celestron Nexstar 4SE (102mm mak - 1325mm f/13). I loved looking at the moon. Jupiter showed some bands, and Saturn showing its rings. Venus and Mars were never more than tiny blobs though. Andromeda was a barely visible fuzzy patch.

Recently I got a Skywatcher StarTravel 120mm refractor (600mm f/5) which obviously gets me a bit more aperture, also without that centre obstruction. It's primary application will be CaK solar observation once I get it set up, but I can't resist giving it a go at night too. I had a play pointing it randomly and didn't find anything more than stars, stars, the odd satellite, and even more stars. I know I need to look up where more interesting things are and have a go at them.

My eyepieces and accessories include:

Erecting diagonals for each scope

Skywatcher light pollution filter

Opticstar 0.5x focal reducer

Celestron X-cel ED 2x barlow

Celestron E-lux 25mm Plossl that came with the '4SE

Unbranded 20mm kellner that came with the PST

"Super" 25mm and 10mm eyepieces that came with the ST120

Baader Hyperion 17mm with a stuck fine tune ring so it's 13mm now. I have the other fine tune ring I can fit to make it 9mm. I love the big view it gives over all the other eyepieces!

Given I want to look at more deep sky stuff (clusters, galaxies, maybe nebula if possible with this size scope?) does what I have give reasonable coverage? Is there anything else I should consider getting to make things easier? For the moment I'm using the cheap and nasty alt-az mount it comes with. A fat motorised EQ mount is on the shopping list, but not until later this year. If it makes a significant difference, I'm observing in somewhat light polluted skies. For indication, Megrez, the star where the handle joins the bowl of the 'dipper, is usually not visible to the naked eye.

[Mr Q]

A light pollution filter will help some. Never used one so waite for some one with more experience. You can look at some of the brightest DSOs, which are shown on the below link for monthly sky charts. It's free and printable.

http://www.skymaps.com/downloads.html

[JamesF]

Plenty of objects should be visible with the ST120. I have a 25mm Celestron E-Lux too and it's actually not as poor as I was expecting for an eyepiece included with a scope, but I'd suggest another longer focal length eyepiece. I find my 32mm gets used more than anything when DSO hunting with the ST120.

I spent a long time earlier this year imaging Mars and doing very little visual other than occasional views of Comet Garradd and so on. Since then I've gone back to visual and whilst I do enjoy the imaging it's a real pleasure just to plonk the mount down and get on with finding different objects of interest all over the sky, not having to worry about polar alignment, power, cabling, laptop and somewhere to put it all.

James

[acey]

My eyepieces and accessories include:

Erecting diagonals for each scope

Skywatcher light pollution filter

I'm observing in somewhat light polluted skies. For indication, Megrez, the star where the handle joins the bowl of the 'dipper, is usually not visible to the naked eye.

If you want to see DSOs then the most important thing is not equipment, it's the darkness of the sky.

Megrez is magnitude 3.3 approx and if you have trouble seeing that then your sky is severely light polluted: about 10 times brighter than one that could be counted dark. If the light pollution is from low-pressure (orange) sodium lights then a light pollution filter might help but if the skyglow is white then it will make no difference.

In any case, even if you could filter the skyglow (and you probably can't) the glare from ground-level ambient light (reflected off ground, buildings etc) is going to be killing your dark-adaptation. A hood over your head might help, but you'll still only be adapting to a sky with limiting magnitude 3 or 4.

A nebula filter (e.g. UHC) might give you acceptable views of emission nebulae (including planetary nebulae such as M57, one of the first things you should try). It won't help on anything else. In a sky as bright as yours you might be able to see M13 and maybe glimpse M31 (in autumn) but it won't be much of a view.

Best thing would be to take your scope to a darker place, ideally you want to see the Milky Way with the naked eye but at the very least you want to be able to see all the main stars of the Plough (Big Dipper) and Little Dipper/Bear (Ursa Minor).

At a dark site (one where the Milky Way is visible with the naked eye) your scope will easily show all the Messier objects plus a great many NGCs. At your present site you'll struggle to see any. And don't forget that we're also at the brightest time of the year in UK (just past the solstice), when much of the country is in all-night twilight and those places that do get decent darkness only have it for a short time around 1a.m.

So my suggestion would be to check out any dark sites you might start visiting later in the year. I don't mean an unlit park in a city - where you might just get mugged anyway - I mean a rural site without skyglow. Maybe it'll only be feasible as a weekend holiday destination - nobody expects to go mountaineering or snorkelling in their back garden, and I'm afraid visual deep-sky astronomy is going that way too.

Failing that, I'd say stick to moon, planets, double stars. You could have very enjoyable views of those from your present site. Your solar project sounds good too.

Incidentally, when it comes to mounts, thousands of deep-sky observers (including me) manage fine with an undriven alt-az mount, such as a dobsonian. An EQ might be useful if you end up concentrating on moon and planets.

The Astronomical League has a list of targets for light-polluted sites (DSOs and double/variable stars) that have been viewed in skies of limiting magnitude 4 or brighter: you could give those a go and see how you get on.

http://www.astroleag...an/urbanls.html

http://www.astroleag...an/urbanld.html

[GlassWalker]

Thanks for the comments. I will look at a longer focal length eyepiece, maybe a UHC style filter. Kinda been wondering about that anyway.

I know a dark site will help lots, but I have a (worse than) 9-5 job so I'm also very time limited too. For now, I'm just trying to do the best I can with what I've got. From my imaging, a significant proportion of the LP is filterable, but there's also enough of it that isn't to make colour imaging pretty much a no go area for me. My comment on the invisibility of Megrez was based over a some years of incidental winter viewing, where stray sunlight is not a contributing factor. However, on a "good" night I can just about make out the milky way with my naked eye too. They're not so frequent though. Megrez is also fairly low in the winter, where LP is worse, and generally it clears up quite a bit towards the zenith.

As for the mount, I know a motorised EQ isn't essential, but I'm getting it for imaging anyway so once I do I might as well use it!

Failing all that, even if I can't see it, I can continue to image it even if it means a more indirect viewing on a computer screen.

[rory]

interested to know. when purely imaging, how do you locate your object in the first place ? im curious as the way this thread has gone ,its like your not used to finding a particular object. i thought the imaging would start with finding visualy ?

so for example your going to photograph a planetary nebula ,how do you locate it before the imaging process starts ?

(this is not a sarcastic post by the way,im genuinely interested to know).

[GlassWalker]

I pretty much only image for about half a year when it gets dark early. I rarely get to stay up long enough for a dark enough sky around summer. As such I'm really unfamiliar with what's visible right now. Winter sky, easy. Summer sky: clueless. Of course the stuff visible all year round is constant, but that aside, I don't know what's out there right now, and where. So on the previous play, I just looked around randomly without finding out what's around. If I look up what's where, I'm sure I can find them. Oh, I've only got easy access to SW/S/SE views anyway.

Also due to the current limitations of my imaging kit, I tend to go for relatively large objects which are relatively easy to find e.g. Pleiades, Rosette, stuff around Orion and Cygnus... I have no sense of comparison of field of view when it comes to visual use of a scope, where I believe I'm looking at much smaller patches of sky.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

A 120 scope can get you a lot of DSOs, as others have noted. UHC filters help quite a bit on emission nebulae, but not on galaxies (LPR filter is better, no LP best). Try getting the Ring nebula and the Dumbbell: quite easy to find with a star chart and of pretty decent surface brightness. M13 is another stalwart.

[GlassWalker]

Hmm... how did I miss those before? Ring/Dumbbell seem easy enough to find relative to Cygnus, but I guess I was distracted by the other end previously.

Just to jinx things, the forecast suggests it is clear tonight so I could try then...

[Guest]

I have just got myself a star travel 120 and am interested to see how you get on.I am waiting for some cloud breaks.Then I will star hop.

Martin.

[GlassWalker]

I'm glad I'm making some silly mistakes right now and not later...

Saw the moon was out, so I grabbed the nearest eyepiece (the 25mm the scope came with) put it in the holder, lined up the moon and... can't get focus. Weird. Tried another eyepiece. Same again. But I know I have used this setup before fine. By trial and error I found out the focus point was further out than the focuser would go. Weird. What could have caused this shift? I took the scope off the mount and shook it. Nothing loose other than the focuser. Since I had taken out the optics from my barlow and it was nothing more than an extension tube now, so I used that for a little. Hmm... need a shorter focal length eyepiece. I went back in to grab it and what did I see next to it? The diagonal the scope came with! DOH! There's my missing extension... and with it in place, now it's upright too. Double win.

[JamesF]

"You know you've been imaging too long when..."

James

[GlassWalker]

Seeing as we finally have a clear night I just had a go at the previous suggestions in this thread. Of course it still isn't very dark yet, and almost bed time so no more waiting up for me. Visible limit... I could make out at least magnitude 4 by naked eye.

Since the earlier post I picked up a Seben 8-24 zoom eyepiece so that went in the ST120. First tried looking for M56, M57, M27, couldn't see anything interesting in their general vicinity. In case my aim was off, I thought I'd pick one nearer a bright star, M29... not sure what I'm looking for but all I could see were random stars around there. Ok, one last try... M13... found it! Fuzzy blob. If I zoom in, I get a bigger fainter fuzzy blob. Woohoo! Tried LP filter, no difference as the background light is very broad spectrum. So that's my second ever fuzzy blob (M31 was first). LP filter did nothing since it was so broad spectrum.

Does that sound about right? I'm about to order some other imaging bits anyway so thinking of tacking on a UHC filter to try while I'm at it...

If the weather stays clear tomorrow I think I'll get a camera onto M13... just easier viewing for me that way!

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Nice to hear you got your second fuzzy. A UHC filter does not work on galaxies and globulars, because the light they emit is a continuum. It works well on planetaries and other emission nebulae (brilliant on the Veil).