Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

Filters

Steve55

Recommended Posts

Steve55

Steve55

Posted
Posted

Decided some time ago not to do astrophotography for the foreseeable future , very interested in Deep Sky observing. Baring that in mind I decided to buy a 14" f4.5 Skywatcher. Added to that I have purchased a UWA 82 Deg Nirvana 28mm EP . So having sorted that out I have come to Filters. Looked at many reviews looking at OIII or UHC. Most reviews I read have been done on medium sized scopes. On the larger apperture is one more favourable over the other, at the present am leaning towards OIII, any information opinions on these would be greatly appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John

John

Posted
Posted

I used to manage with just an O-III filter with my largest aperture scope being 12". I've recently moved to having an O-III and a UHC type filter which gives a bit more versatility. If I went back to just one it would be an O-III again because it's impact is really significant on some objects amongst which are some some of the highlights of the sky :smiley:

I think it's fair to say that the UHC and O-III type filters complement rather than compete with each other.

I also have an H-Beta filter for the few objects that respond well to that, the principle one of interest being the Horsehead Nebula of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John

John

Posted
Posted

The two must get filters I recommend for deep sky observing are UHC & OIII... for planetary observing, in my book, noting beats the baader neodymium and contrast booster filters.

I agree with the 1st part and (cheekily) I do find that "nothing" does beat a filter on the planets :smiley:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RikM

RikM

Posted
Posted

I agree with John. The combination of UHC and Oiii covers all my deep sky needs. I used to feel the UHC was better of the two for my observing preferences, but now I rate them both equally. It depends on what you prefer. The UHC tends to extend the area of nebulousity you can see, while the Oiii gives more contrast and detail in the darker structure. It's nice to have both available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
YKSE

YKSE

Posted
Posted

I agree that both UHC and OIII are very useful filters.

The UHC makes the already visible,more visible while the OIII makes the invisible,visible.

A little too simplified description IHMO, e.g. Cave nebula (Caldwell 9) and Cocoon nebula (Caldwell 19), both are invisible without filter, while UHC brings them out, especially Cocoon nebula, which is invisible with OIII.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LukeSkywatcher

LukeSkywatcher

Posted
Posted

I agree that both UHC and OIII are very useful filters.

A little too simplified description IHMO, e.g. Cave nebula (Caldwell 9) and Cocoon nebula (Caldwell 19), both are invisible without filter, while UHC brings them out, especially Cocoon nebula, which is invisible with OIII.

I'm just relaying what i was told by those in the know when i was thinking about which filter to buy. It is a simplified explaination, but essentially what both filters do........

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve55

Steve55

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thank you for the replies . Have read a quiet few reports on the filters one of which was quiet thorough. Overall I felt it was the OIII that produced a little more than UHC over a wider range of objects , but not by very much to be honest and of course it is always down to the person viewing. I have opted for the Skywatcher OIII, Price was a one thing , but even at the higher end of the market price wise I was informed that twice the price did not get me double the results so as a first it is good start I think to be going on with. What I need now is the moon to disappear :-) and of course clear dark skies :-) . Ty once again all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John

John

Posted
Posted

.... of course it is always down to the person viewing. I have opted for the Skywatcher OIII, Price was a one thing ....

Up to a point but, on the objects which it majors in, an O-III filter really does have a lot more impact than a UHC. The point is that a UHC has some effect on a slightly wider range of objects than an O-III

Spending 2x or 3x as much never gives you 2x or 3x the performance on any astro item :wink:

Doesn't seem to put lots of folks off upgrading in due course though ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LukeSkywatcher

LukeSkywatcher

Posted
Posted

I bought both the Skywatcher UHC and OIII filters because i couldnt decide. I do love my nebulae and there are lots out there that benefit from a UHC and there are some that i just couldnt see with my scope such as the Veil and the Rosette (the OIII filter quickly sorted that problem). The skywatchers for me were a good price and i have to say that i find they work very well indeed.

To be honest, most people if they had to pick one or the other to buy.......they would go for the UHC because there are more objects to observe with it that benefit from it. The OIII filter is a bit more exclusive to the number of objects. The OIII though is a bit more exciting because it unlocks the detail and beauty of some of the most spectacular celestial nebs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.