What EP do you find best on tweaking galaxy detail?

[bomberbaz]

I am trying to gather how other people find various eyepieces on the differing galaxies

With globulars and open clusters you are "usually" driven by the nature of the type of dso that they are in the first place, so larger, wide field eyepieces for OC's and higher mag EP's for the globs.

With nebula you are typically, although again not exclusively driven by performance parameters of the different types of filter (exit pupil) and also the size of what you are viewing as well.

However galaxies are a different animal altogether so I am curious as to what others use to view galaxies and how they manage to tease out the extra detail of dust lnes etc.

I am asking now in reflection of my recent galloway visit and remembering the amazing view I got of M33, however that night was spent almost exclusively viewing through my 22mm SWA eyepiece and just wondering did I miss an opportunity to get a little bit more out of my session.

I realise what works for one might not work for anotjher and so this is a very subjective but should hopefully lead to some very interesting answers.

I should add I am not asking about the size of the ep but the magnification it produces, so what power do you use to get that little bit more? (altered after MHW made his post below)

Steve

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Much depends on the speed of the scope. I find my Nagler 22T4 and 17T4 perform really well in my C8. A 2mm exit pupil works best on galaxies in many cases.

[John]

It's one of these "it all depends" questions I think Steve.

With my 12" dob I generally find that using enough magnfication to frame the galaxy so that it fills a decent chunk of the field of view is the most effective but the eyepiece that achieves this will vary as the angiular size of galaxies varies a lot. For M31 I find the 21mm Ethos (76x) delivers more contrast than the 31mm Ethos (51x) although the latter shows more of the galaxy. For galaxies such as M82 and M51 I find the 8mm Ethos (199x) very effective - it was great for observing the recent supernovae in those galaxies. I have used the 6mm Ethos on smaller galactic targets from time to time too and the 13mm Ethos is great for the intermediate sized targets. 

This is not really helping I guess other than demonstrating that you need a number of "tools" in your toolbox !

[bingevader]

Like John, I don't think there's a definitive answer.

I too, tend to try to frame the galaxy as best as possible, so the EP will vary from galaxy to galaxy.

However, I do try higher magnifications, not always successfully.

I did put the 6mm EP in when the SN was in M82, made the SN clearer, but the galaxy was pants.

[paul mc c]

Would an eyepiece with less glass ie,an ortho,would show more detail  than one with more glass.

[John]

Would an eyepiece with less glass ie,an ortho,would show more detail  than one with more glass.

I couple of years back I'd say that the lower glass eyepiece would definitely do better but modern glass and coating technologies seem to have worked minor miracles in levelling the playing field between the simple and complex designs.

Nevertheless I feel that the 18mm and 10mm Baader Classic orthos are exceptional deep sky eyepieces. I've found they do go just a tiny bit "deeper" than anything else I've used even the marvellous Ethos I mentioned earlier.

While they lack the wide fields and long eye relief of the more complex designs it's good to know that sub £50 eyepieces can deliver such results.

[jetstream]

For really faint galaxies a 2mm exit pupil works for me- much more and they disappear. M31 likes less mag in my scope-17mm,21mm, but M33 shows its spirals best with the 10mm @ 120x (2mm exit). Light transmission of the EP makes a difference too- the Leica zoom is not my galaxy choice for this reason and my 10mm Luminos is better in this regard.

With my manual dob the extra TFOV the 10mm Ethos provides is very useful and this helps huge objects like M33. I hear your 10mm Delos may best the Ethos in the transmission dept- I would try it on M33 next time out for sure.

[Qualia]

In the 10" f5, Shaun, I find myself typically working at 90x and 125x, 2.8mm and 2mm exit pupil respectively. Now, of course, this could be due to the simple fact that my two classy eyepieces are at this power. No doubt there is some truth in this. However, I do have a run of BGOs and TV plossls (5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 15mm) which can offer me higher powers and a couple of lower power Panoptics (19, 24mm) whenever I need to drop the magnification, but even so, I still find myself working with the Delos 90% of the time. They give a performance to my eye equal to the BGOs, the power seems about right for relaxing with the galaxy and tweaking from it what experience, eyesight and skies allow and also offer that 72º field of view to which the galaxy can be framed and when it comes to sketching, this is important to me.

[bomberbaz]

Thanks guys, I think some off you hit on where I was coming from but I didnt go into detail of to avoid getting technical but the light transmission of your ep, framing up and exit pupil is the other.

As suspected by your answer there are some variations in oreferences but there looks like there are also simalarities in some of them also.

I seem to remember that M31 still looked alittle washed out at low mags even at a dark site last year.

Next time i get to a dark site i will be doing some experimentation along the lines of all this and recording my results.

One thing you got to love about this hobby is that around wvery corner there is anorher learning curve for you to have a go at.

Steve

[mdstuart]

Many small faint galaxies do not show at low power say 50x and only appear visually as you up the power to say 150x..

A few large low surface brightness galaxies like ngc 891 are the reverse and are hard to see at high power but easier to see at low power.

I agree with John that transparency does seem as good with a modern 7 element lens as an ortho.

Only a relatively small number of galaxies show details such as spiral arms....see Ted Armardas book for details.....and only then when you have a dark sky.

Mark

[scarp15]

My favourite galaxy eyepiece has been my 10mm Delos, which in my F4.6 scope provides 160X with a perfect 2mm exit pupil, a little tighter since I started to use a paracorr.

[bingevader]

I don't routinely observe from a very dark site, but from the back garden, depending on conditions and the galaxy to be observed, I use anything from an 11mm to a 32mm EP.

That's with an exit pupil from 1.86mm to 5.35mm.

I've no idea if that helps at all, but I can't really pin it down to a definitive EP or perfect exit pupil with my gear from my site on a variety of galaxies.

[bomberbaz]

The trend that seems to be appearing here is around x150 mag seems to be a good region to try to tease out that little bit extra which also seems to be giving 2mm exit pupils. This is very interesting because coincidentally my 10mm delos gives in my dob. 

Of course I realise as some of you have mentioned, there is no hard and fast rule to anything in astronomy (other than dont forget to take the covers off) but it has given me somewhere to start next time I get somewhere dark.

Thanks all for the responses

Steve

[Mr Spock]

For my C925 I use the 22mm and 17mm T4 Naglers, so, x107 and x138. Looks like we are all on the same track.

[RikM]

Very similar answer from me as well. For my 10" f/4.7 I generally use 14mm XW 86x and 10mm XW 120x but following a chat with Mark a little while ago my 7mm XW 171x gets a good bit of use on galaxies as well.

[Paul73]

Depends on the seeing......

Not a helpfull answer, but for me it is about getting the right contrast. The 24mm MV is generally great for spotting the faint ones, the 20mm brings out some good detail on the big ones, but the 8mm Delos seems to uncover reasonable detail for the brighter mid sized targets. Amazingly, my cheapo 8mm BST gives the best M81/82 detail! I'm assuming that your bigger scope will be similar to my 10" dob.

Sorry, in my limited experience, one size doesn't fit all.

Paul

[bomberbaz]

Depends on the seeing......

Not a helpfull answer, but for me it is about getting the right contrast. The 24mm MV is generally great for spotting the faint ones, the 20mm brings out some good detail on the big ones, but the 8mm Delos seems to uncover reasonable detail for the brighter mid sized targets. Amazingly, my cheapo 8mm BST gives the best M81/82 detail! I'm assuming that your bigger scope will be similar to my 10" dob.

Sorry, in my limited experience, one size doesn't fit all.

Paul

Dont think anyone is saying one size fits all, if you read through thats not what this is about, its about trying to guage if there is a pattern of any sorts that can be followed and it would seem that 100-150 seems a popular magnification to use when trying to eek out that little bit more.

In the OP I said I thought I might be missing out on something and following the replies on here I am sure of it. All i am really looking for as i said is a pattern to try to give me a start point.

Steve

[Chris]

ES100 20mm with my C8 works very well on galaxies I'm finding.

[denis0007dl]

I like more orthos like Fujis, BGOs, ZAO IIs for DSOs!

[jetstream]

I thought my 12.5mm Tak ortho would be best for a lot of DSO-but it is behind some other more complex EP's I have in the contrast dept. No difference between the 18mm BCO and the 12.5mm Tak on galaxies, which should be there because of the higher mag.

I would love to view through a Zeiss ZAO II however, its too bad they still don't make them.

[bingevader]

In an 8" 'scope, still from the back garden, I don't get anywhere near 150x. 

From 38x to 86x reliably, 109x if I'm lucky.

[bomberbaz]

I manage up to about 188 (8mm) often for good views nearly always in the 12" and the 10mm gets plenty of use too. The 5 doesnt get enough views and was thinking of selling very recently but changed my mind, so glad i did. 

Anyway, on topic the 10mm to the 17.3 gives me 150 through to 87 so next time out at a dark site these will be getting some light to see what I can hopefully tease out.

Steve

[denis0007dl]

I thought my 12.5mm Tak ortho would be best for a lot of DSO-but it is behind some other more complex EP's I have in the contrast dept. No difference between the 18mm BCO and the 12.5mm Tak on galaxies, which should be there because of the higher mag.

I would love to view through a Zeiss ZAO II however, its too bad they still don't make them.

I have some infos that Baader will make new run of them, but when, this is not yet specified!

I actually prefeer clean image, with natural-neutral colour of pbjects, and nonoe of Wide angle eyepieces cant do job in this regards like ZAO IIs and monocentrics!

....Pentax XW series provide most "cleanest" picts, but still not in class of orthos and monos.

Fujiyama orthos and simillar are incredible, almost identical views comparing them to ZAO IIs, but much less costs! I like them a LOT!

All Naglers for example provide little coffie tone to image, and I do not like this!

...also, pict in Naglers comparing to orthos are somewhat softer, little less details than orthos.

[John]

I've been comparing the 10mm and 18mm Baader Classic Orthos to a wide range of similar focal length eyepieces over many months now. The competition included Baader GO, Fujiyama orthos, Astro Hutech orthos, Pentax XW's, TV Delos, TV Ethos, TV Plossls and quite a few more.

In my early comparisons I suspected that the 18mm Classic Ortho was showing just a little more contrast and brightness in a range of deep sky objects including galaxies and that has been confirmed a number of times now against all the eyepieces I've compared them too.

One of the comparisons I did involved the starfield in Orion where the Horsehead Nebula is located. It's my ambition to visually detect this object this Winter so I've been getting to know the starfield as well as I can in preparation for the "right night". Comparing the view with both just the eyepiece and with the Lumicon H-Befa filter fitted (which I'll use to hopefully tease the Horsehead out) the Baader Classic 18mm and 10mm orthos consistently show the faintest visible field stars more easily than other eyepieces and actually showed a couple of stars that had not been hitherto visible. These comparisons were made with my 12" dobsonian on a number of nights where the conditions varied from moderate to good. 

I found the same thing earlier this year when observing the long lasting supernova in the galaxy M82. The Baader Classic 10 and 18 showed both the faintest stars and the dark rifts and brighter knots in the galaxy just that bit better than other eyepieces did. Not that the others were particuarly poor in any way, the Baader CO's were just a tad better.

The Baader CO's are not perfect eyepieces of course and their field of view is on the narrow side for manual tracking and I feel that the Baader GO's, Fujiyama and Astro Hutech orthos are better for viewing the Moon and planets because they control light scatter around bright objects just a little better than the Baader CO's do.

If someone can lend me a couple of Zeiss ZAO's I'll happily compare them with the Baader CO's and report back

Alvin Huey and friends in the USA have done something similar and found the Baader CO 10 somewhere in between the Delos 10mm and the Zeiss ZAO on faint galaxies with some very large aperture scopes. Here is another short comparison from last year, this time between the Baader CO 10mm and the superb Pentax XW 10mm:

http://jaysastronomyobservingblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/david-vs-goliath-in-eyepieces10mm.html

[denis0007dl]

I had BCOs, and did not like them. Some FC was seen on end of FOV.