UHC filter

[bendiddley]

I want to start looking more at nebulas and I have heard that a UHC filter can help with this so can anyone recommend one? I've seen a skywatcher one, is this alright or does anyone know of anything better?

http://www.harrisontelescopes.co.uk/cgi-bin/sh000001.pl?WD=uhc&PN=SkyWatcher_Ultra_High_Contrast_Filter_1%2e25_%2ehtml#a195

[Mark at Beaufort]

I use a Skywatcher 2" UHC filter and find it ok. Yes you can buy better but it will cost you a great deal more.

You might find this link useful - http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org/resources/by-dave-knisely/filter-performance-comparisons-for-some-common-nebulae/

Mark

[Reeny]

I was wondering about the same thing - which one to go for.

thanks for the link

[andyboy1970]

I use a Baader UHC-s filter which does make the nebulae stand out more against a darker background.

Also use it for imaging (its the photo/visual version) and find that I can image when the moon is up using my one shot colour camera, bit like narrowband for mono cameras.

[bingevader]

Castell also do a pretty good and very reasonably priced UHC filter.

Cheers

[Moonshane]

Personally if I could only choose one filter it would be Oiii. a UHC will enhance more (already seen) objects in the sky but an Oiii will make things which you cannot see without it, obviously visible.

[John]

Personally if I could only choose one filter it would be Oiii. a UHC will enhance more (already seen) objects in the sky but an Oiii will make things which you cannot see without it, obviously visible.

I agree. An O-III is all I do use in fact.

[AlexB67]

Now that I have the option to use a 2 inch filters and it may as well be the OIII to begin with I am thinking with the bigger aperture, instead of the UHC. So while on that topic, from what I read if I understand it correctly, there is a way to fit a 2 inch filter so it works with a 1.25 inch eyepiece correct ? I've been looking around a bit, but not totally clear what item it is that I need exactly. Anyone can clarify ?

[Mark at Beaufort]

Personally if I could only choose one filter it would be Oiii. a UHC will enhance more (already seen) objects in the sky but an Oiii will make things which you cannot see without it, obviously visible.

Shane I believe you use a Castell O-III filter? Bendiddley has a 8" Dob - would that be ok or do you really need a 10" or 12" to get the best out of it?

John has an Astronomik O-III filter which are very expensive but gives fantastic detail. It would be great to try these filters side by side. I had a Skywatcher O-III which I did not like or rate which is why I now only use a Skywatcher UHC filter.

It would be interesting to hear other members experience - I appreciate we have discussed filters before but a review won't hurt!!

Mark

[stevepeverall]

You can screw a 2" filter into the 2" diadonal (the front end which fits into the telescope) and use 1.25" EPs in the 2" disgonal with the correct adapter of course.

[Mark at Beaufort]

Now that I have the option to use a 2 inch filters and it may as well be the OIII to begin with I am thinking with the bigger aperture, instead of the UHC. So while on that topic, from what I read if I understand it correctly, there is a way to fit a 2 inch filter so it works with a 1.25 inch eyepiece correct ? I've been looking around a bit, but not totally clear what item it is that I need exactly. Anyone can clarify ?

Alex the 2" filter should screw onto the bottom of the extension tube of your focuser on your 10" Dob. Make sure that the bottom of the eyepiece does not touch the filter otherwise you might get a circular scratch mark.

Mark

[AlexB67]

Alex the 2" filter should screw onto the bottom of the extension tube of your focuser on your 10" Dob. Make sure that the bottom of the eyepiece does not touch the filter otherwise you might get a circular scratch mark.

Mark

Thank you sir I like elegant simple solutions, sounds ideal as long as it does not do what you said and touch it.  I guess time to do some research, read some reviews. Sounds like the SW is not that good Perhaps the astronomik would be worth saving for in the long run and get it done with, i.e. buy the right thing once.

[hoops86]

Thanks for that link Mark! Thats an excellent review! Reading that has helped me a lot!

Have you guys read it? Do you agree on his findings? He seems to defo favour the UHC for the majority of objects.

I really wish he done a similar review but based on light polluted skies! Would factoring light pollution into it change his result a lot?

[AlexB67]

Thanks for that link Mark! Thats an excellent review! Reading that has helped me a lot!

Have you guys read it? Do you agree on his findings? He seems to defo favour the UHC for the majority of objects.

I really wish he done a similar review but based on light polluted skies! Would factoring light pollution into it change his result a lot?

Good read indeed, that review just makes me think I need/want both in the long run, isn't that the way in this hobby   

[swamp thing]

Shane I believe you use a Castell O-III filter? Bendiddley has a 8" Dob - would that be ok or do you really need a 10" or 12" to get the best out of it?

John has an Astronomik O-III filter which are very expensive but gives fantastic detail. It would be great to try these filters side by side. I had a Skywatcher O-III which I did not like or rate which is why I now only use a Skywatcher UHC filter.

It would be interesting to hear other members experience - I appreciate we have discussed filters before but a review won't hurt!!

Mark

Mark, I believe the main problem with the Castel filters is QC. If you get a good one, they do a fine job. Get a bad one, they can be ropey.

There was a thread on this but can't seem to find it.

In my experience aperture doesn't enter into it. I've used my Lumicon O-III in scopes from 4" upwards. I even use it held in front of my naked eye. For me, exit pupil is more important than aperture. The line filters (O-III and H-Beta) require a larger exit pupil than the UHC equivalent.

[bendiddley]

Wow this post has certainly grown since i last checked my emails! Thanks mark for your link, very interesting and to the others who made suggestions about uhc makes, I will go away and look these up.

[Moonshane]

Thank you sir I like elegant simple solutions, sounds ideal as long as it does not do what you said and touch it.  I guess time to do some research, read some reviews. Sounds like the SW is not that good Perhaps the astronomik would be worth saving for in the long run and get it done with, i.e. buy the right thing once.

http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/84086-novel-use-for-baader-fine-tuning-rings/

[AlexB67]

http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/84086-novel-use-for-baader-fine-tuning-rings/

Thanks you. Cheap as chips also, a nice bonus

[Moonshane]

Shane I believe you use a Castell O-III filter? Bendiddley has a 8" Dob - would that be ok or do you really need a 10" or 12" to get the best out of it?

John has an Astronomik O-III filter which are very expensive but gives fantastic detail. It would be great to try these filters side by side. I had a Skywatcher O-III which I did not like or rate which is why I now only use a Skywatcher UHC filter.

It would be interesting to hear other members experience - I appreciate we have discussed filters before but a review won't hurt!!

Mark

hi Mark

Yes, I have Castell Oiii and UHC filters and find them both excellent. The Oiii for general use and the UHC is simply outstanding on a few objects like the Orion Neb. I think Steve has a point about QC though. Like a lot of the cheaper brands you don't get individual checks on every unit sold unlike Televue but their value for money is undoubted to me. I got two good ones it seems out of two purchased.

I have used the Oiii in scopes from 90mm to 16" and the view has been good in all of them taking account for aperture.

Personally I'd recommend them highly but with the caveat based on comments of others about QC. I am not sure though how much of the comments of others is expectation based. Like Steve I cannot recall where I saw the thread.

[LukeSkywatcher]

I have the Skywatcher UHC and OIII filters. They work really well for me. The OIII is a bit more exciting though as (its already been said) is allows me to see things that are not visible to the naked eye. 

[bendiddley]

I have the Skywatcher UHC and OIII filters. They work really well for me. The OIII is a bit more exciting though as (its already been said) is allows me to see things that are not visible to the naked eye. 

Thanks Paul. Does the OIII still do a good job of showing up what is visible though? And also if you could pick one to start with which would you go for? I think I will probably get one of those two for now but get the other later when I have some more dosh, maybe for christmas.

[LukeSkywatcher]

To be honest,i have not really used the OIII on those nebulae that are already visible. Its either one or the other on any given object for me. 

Which one to start off with?. Tough question. I suppose it depends how well you know the sky and how good you are at finding objects. Obviously its easier to find objects that you can see with the naked eye,so in that case a UHC filter would be a good one to start with. If you are well able to locate nearly any object you wish to see (that are not visible), then an OIII filter would be the way to go.

So it depends on you really.