Filters on a 5" newt worth it?

[chris285]

As above I've got a skywatcher 130 scope and I find deep sky stuff can be struggle, I know it's partly the scope but you can get filters to aid visual stuff I believe but no idea if they are worth it. Anyone care to weigh in on this subject?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Richardisgreat]

I have the 200p and I find the castel uhc filter helps with things like the orion nebular and ring nebular, it helped a little with the owl nebular too.

[chris285]

I'm wondering if it's worth the effort really, a mates 150 was obviously much easier to see nebula so I think I'd be disappointed to be honest. I might just wait till later in the year and get a better scope overall I think, save my money and get something I know will show better results

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Richardisgreat]

I probably wouldn't bother with a moon filter I hardly ever use mine (only when the moon is super bright), and I probably wouldn't bother with a light pollution filter again I never use mine it seems to make everything too dark,  My UHC filter gets the most outings when viewing nebular.  I have just acquired some baader solar film and a continuum filter.  They are both good, the solar film more so.  The continuum filter makes the disk of the sun light green so helps with contrast and viewing sun spots, but does not give any extra detail.

clear skies

Richard

[rory]

Filters won't really help with galaxies or reflection nebula. You want nice dark skies for a better view . Narrowband filters can make some planetary , emission nebula more distinct .

Most advise a uhc filter or uhc - s ( baader) for smaller apertures.

[chris285]

Cheers

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Richardisgreat]

yeah sounds like a good plan, save and get a bigger scope.  I have found with eyepieces and filters and stuff, that you spend a lot of money for only slight improvements in viewing, when most of the time its cloudy anyway   As they say Aperture is king, but even then there comes a point when the increments in price jump drastically for only slight improvements.   I recon for normal skies 8" - 12" is enough.  Im very happy with my 8" scope and don't feel the need for anything bigger.  You have to take into consideration the size and weight of the scope and the hassle of getting it outside or driving it to a dark site,  the best scope is one that is going to be used.    From my moderately light polluted location I have seen all the messiers in my sig with my 200p.  Galaxies can be a bit of a problem to be honest but I don't think its the scopes fault, if you can get to a dark location then more stuff will be available to you.  To get the best detail and some colour I think astrophotography is the way to go and stack some long exposure photos, however this is often referred to as a whole different hobby and many times more expensive.  There comes a point when you have to be happy with what you have got, unless money is no issue

[YKSE]

I had explorer 130P as my first scope, it was a struggle in the beginning to find and see stuffs, which to biggest extend, due to my untrained eyes. After 2-3 months, I started to find some faint DSO in my backyards. Over 30 of Messiers was found in that scope in my backyard half a year later. I'd suggest that you spend more time with the scope before buying anything.

[cotterless45]

The simple answer is seeing conditions. If you have dark skies and good views, then filters will enhance your observing. Particularly nebulae like the Eastern Veil in Cygnus , M42 in Orion and M27 in Vulecula. However if you have light pollution or poor seeing , you'll not gain with filters.

You might find that a good planetary view is enhanced by a filter, but these are ones which suit your vision. It's worth a try if you go to group observing or star parties .

Even small apertures will enhance nebulae views with a UHC filter,

Nick.

[AndyWB]

I found a Baader UHC-s filter useful in my 5". Not a magic bullet, but it definitely helps with emission nebulae. I did also find that under really good sky, it actually made less difference on things like the Veil than under a merely good sky. I think this was because there was so little LP, and so dark a sky, that there was little for it to filter out.

For example, the first time I saw the Veil it was under an exceptional sky - and the UHC made little difference to what I perceived. The next week I tried to see it from a light polluted site and couldn't make out even the faintest sign of it - until I used the filter, and even then it was faint. But there!

Yup, I do find it useful to have, though.

[Special K]

Hey Chris, I've got the 130P and get some positive results with filters depending on target. I haven't tried a LP filter and bought a UHC which seems ok.............only just ok. Researching it, the general view is that an O-III is too powerful on smaller apertures so you might want to avoid that. I have a moon filter which you can't really go wrong with; can even come in handy for bright planets if you want to experiment. I have three color filters for planets which are also useful to experiment with.

As the experts have said, conditions are King, and experience is rewarding. I looked at M42 last night just before some thin cloud rolled in and was totally surprised by the nebulosity! The stars of the Trapezium were even twinkling at 130x but the cloud of gas has never looked so pronounced to me which I really wouldn't expect. Having just looked at Jupiter, I could tell the seeing was turbulent, and I guess the transparency at that point must have been great.

We could spend a lot of time and money chasing after better and better equipment, that's for sure. I'm taking my time though, and might actually go for something smaller to increase convenience! For now, I'm definitely still happy with my scope and wish you best of luck with yours.

[John]

I think a UHC filter such as the UHC-S or Orion Ultrablock will deliver some real improvements to the views of some nebulae. I used to use a Baader UHC-S with 80mm and 100mm refractors to see the Veil Nebula which was virtually invisible without it. Without such a filter the Veil remains very hard to see even with larger apertures unless the skies are very dark and transparent. The Owl Nebula is another that a UHC filter will show significantly more clearly.

Back at the Veil Nebula, it's such a wonderful object that it's worth the price of the filter and a wide angle eyepiece alone in my opinion.