OIII verses UHC

[Halcyon]

300mm Dob, looking to buy a filter for nebulae. Does anyone have any experience/suggestions as to which would be best for my scope? And...which manufacturer?

Thanks

[kalasinman]

Take a look at this filter comparison for nebulae. Best I've seen. Based on this a UHC is the first I'd buy. 

http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org/resources/by-dave-knisely/filter-performance-comparisons-for-some-common-nebulae/

[Piero]

I would also go for a UHC first, but your telescope could cope with a OIII very well too.

Although manufacturers call their filters UHC, OIII etc, please note that they can be quite different between manufacturers (there is not real standard..). Therefore, a Baader UHC is quite well different from an Astronomik UHC, in terms of filtered light frequencies. 

Excellent brands are Astronomik and Lumicon, but they are also pricey, particularly if 2". 

[Moonshane]

Personally I'd buy a filter first that allows me to see things all but invisible without it. On this basis I'd always go for a Oiii over a UHC first. Both is good though.

**edit - I did of course mean invisible!!**

[Piero]

If you have the possibility to see through them before buying one, it would be better (as always)

[John]

I agree with Shane. For a long time I've just had one very good O-III filter (Astronomik) and this has provided excellent results with all my scopes from 4" to 12" in aperture.

[niallk]

+1: I got O-III then UHC and would do so again if I had to choose. I could not believe how effective the O-III was on the Veil. Worth every penny on 1st view... BTW both of my filters are Astronomiks

[swamp thing]

For the larger image scale afforded by a 12" scope I would also recommend an O-III filter. You'll be able to get more use out of the larger exit pupils where it excels.

For me the the extra contrast afforded by line filters makes them winners as long as one can get properly dark adapted

[Piero]

btw you can find other comments here : http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/126708-uhc-or-oiii-filter/ 

(same question)

[gooseholla]

I have both filters. On a lot of targets, they perform about the same. But for me the OIII is the one I use most often. I saw the Veil for the first time this summer with one and it was worth the money.

John

[LukeSkywatcher]

I also have both filters. I prefer the OIII because its more of a thrill when you see objects that are invisible to the naked eye. Mine are both Skywatcher filters and as such, didnt cost a fortune. I have to say that they work well though.

[Halcyon]

Thanks all - ordered an OIII from FLO yesterday - arriving tomorrow.

Great advice guys!

[Reeny]

Have a look at the core of the Orion nebula at around 200x magnification with the OIII.

It gives a 3D image of the dust cloud, with structure, showing light and shadow.

I was amazed the first time I saw it on a moonless night at high mag.

[Halcyon]

Reedy

Sounds a great steer! It arrived today....as expected it is cloudy and will be all week. The Orion Nebula will be my first hit.

Thanks

[oldfruit]

=1 for the OIII filter. I have both for use with my dob but the OIII is used most of the time.

[John]

When you get round to it try it on M97, the Owl Nebula in Ursa Major and, later in the year, on the Veil Nebula in Cygnus. The latter needs a really low power eyepiece as it's a large object but the O-II makes a huge difference with these objects - like "night and day"

[Halcyon]

Thanks John. Was looking at the Owl on Monday but without the filter then.

Wil do as you suggest.

Thank