Meade Infinity 102

[Ray of LIght]

Is it the kind of filter (s) that can be stacked with my other filters? Or should it be used alone if it needs to be used? Not familiar with Emmission Nebula filters. I know the Orion Nebula is one. I will check out the Explore Scientific UHC. Thanks Mak!

[Ray of LIght]

Can I stack the UHC filter with my Fringe Killer and Neodymium filters, or should I use it by itself if I am looking at say, the Orion Nebula, which I believe is an Emmission Nebula? Thanks Mak, and I wil check out the ES UHC filter. 

[Ray of LIght]

Didn't mean to kind of repeat my question, sorry Mak!

[Mak the Night]

I personally wouldn't stack it with the neodymium, although it wouldn't hurt to try. I don't know about the fringe killer, again I would just experiment with it. The Baader UHC-S does tend to impart a blue tinge to whatever you're viewing. It gives M42 a blue hue, but it also makes more of the nebula cloud visible.

[Ray of LIght]

Great! I will experiment with them and see what works best. Right now, for planetary, I will keep the FK and Neodymium on and see how they work together. I have read they complement each other, but who knows, I will find out for myself. 

[Ray of LIght]

You are right about the ES UHC filter, Agena Astro has it for 69 US. I guess they are comparable to the Baader? Probably be fine for me. By the time I get done, my little Meade 102 will be worth $2000, lol ??! Oh well, I love it. Kind of like my guitars and guns and Harley. Hopefully after the TV 3x, the 18 or 20mm eyepiece and the UHC filter, I will be done for awhile. I have a feeling I will never be done though!

[Mak the Night]

Yeah, it's difficult to be 'done' with astro gear. I have around £2000 worth of eyepieces alone ($2900?) probably more. I don't know about the ES filter. Telescope House do them for 38 quid. I tend to prefer Baader because of compatibility, but the odds are there's very little difference between them. I know they have incredibly similar wavelength transmission curves.

[Dave In Vermont]

So it's a Fringe-Killer now, is it? Then, no doubt, you'll be looking at the Baader Semi-APO-Filter (which are supposed to turn the view into that of an Apo from an Achromat). Either will do about the same - pulling out the blue and add more yellow. Here's a lightbulb with a Fringe-Killer in front of the camera - a simple, but these little cameras:

And this is through a Baader Semi-Apo Filter:

I just about never use either of these. Other people have been known to mount them permenantly in their achromats.

Perhaps this will serve you to know beforehand that they're about the same.

Dave

[Ray of LIght]

Thanks Dave, I will test them for myself.

[Mak the Night]

Could be GRS time (22.15 BST) if the weather holds ...

 

[Ray of LIght]

I may be stupid, being an engineer for 30 years, but I am not sure I appreciate my friends, or people I thought were my friends, talking down to me like that. I guess I took you the wrong way, but I doubt it.

[Mak the Night]

I couldn't see the GRS until around 22:50, transparency wasn't good, but I did finally manage to see it. It was possibly too near the edge of the planet. After viewing Mars and Saturn I went back to a low Jupiter and saw the GRS about here:

CDC claims this is at midnight, but this is where I could see it at approx 00:30 BST.

 

I seem to keep catching Mars near the same area, possibly as the Martian sidereal day isn't too different to ours. I honestly think I saw a flash of white at the pole.

Saturn didn't look too bad, but I was really losing the transparency by this time, plus it was low. I could make out the Cassini Division and still see Titan though.

[Dave In Vermont]

5 hours ago, Ray of LIght said:

I may be stupid, being an engineer for 30 years, but I am not sure I appreciate my friends, or people I thought were my friends, talking down to me like that. I guess I took you the wrong way, but I doubt it.

If you're talking about my post on filters, I meant no ill will. I only meant to point out the similarity between the Baader Fringe-Killer and the Semi-APO Filter. If you saw any animosity in that post, I'm sorry you read that into it. It was most certainly unintended! I'm just a humble Filter-Nut who has just about every type of filter there is. And I thought you might be tempted to do what I did: Try the entire range of filters available to try to turn an achromat into an apo! So it cost me about $80 to find out the two of 'em were almost identical.

That's all I was implying. My apologies for any unintended feelings.

Sincerely,

Dave

[Ray of LIght]

Forget it. The only decent filters I will have will be the FK, the Neodymium and, when I get it,  a UHC-S filter. The Semi-Apo was never on my wish list becsuse I knew it would be redundant. I'm not sure I ever mentioned the Semi-Apo in my postings. So time to move on Dave and will talk later. Oh, and by the way, I know a sow's ear can't be turned into a silk purse, but I can do what I can to upgrade my scope as well as i can. 

 

[Mak the Night]

So, Ray, are you going Baader UHC-S or Explore Scientific? I reckon there is very little difference between them. It was being discussed in another thread that Baader products are a little more expensive Stateside than here, even if you take VAT and other things into account. FLO sell the Baader at £55, which I think is a decent price. It is 17 quid more than the ES though. It's not like ES stuff is cheap particularly either, some of their eyepieces can be over a £1000 ($1400).

[Ray of LIght]

I was kind of leaning towards the Explore Scientific because the price is right, but I already know that the Baader filters thread onto my diagonal so that is a consideration. Of course the ES filter probably will too but something to think about. Plus, might be nice to keep my filters all Baader, not that it matters as far as that. Do I sound confused? That's because I am, lol!

[Mak the Night]

13 minutes ago, Ray of LIght said:

I was kind of leaning towards the Explore Scientific because the price is right, but I already know that the Baader filters thread onto my diagonal so that is a consideration. Of course the ES filter probably will too but something to think about. Plus, might be nice to keep my filters all Baader, not that it matters as far as that. Do I sound confused? That's because I am, lol!

It's pretty easy to get confused about filters lol. I was very tempted by the ES to be honest, they seem to be individually tested, which is always good. But in the end I went with the Baader. They both should work well on scopes under 150mm. From what I've read the Baader responds well even with a bit of magnification (lower exit pupil). I sholud think that would work particularly well on a refractor as they are more efficient with light than reflectors. I don't know if you've seen this attachment about Baader filters.

Baader_filter_overview.pdf

[Ray of LIght]

Yep, the Baader UHC-S sounds like very nice filter indeed. If I'm only going to have three select filters they might as well be the best. That's not to say the ES isn't a fine filter. Even my decision about which eyepiece FL and brand, 18 or 20mm, to get is giving me fits, lol! The only easy decision is the TV 3x Barlow. Kind of fun in a way though, choosing gear you will use and enjoy. My X-Cel LX is coming today, I think I will like it. I was thinking that if I bought the 18mm X-Cel it would be parfocal with the 9mm, but then again the 20mm TV would be parfocal with the big 25, right? Same with the Luminos? I think the 60 degree AFOV of the X-Cels would be nice though. I wouldn't mind having two eyepieces of the same series, ?! Right now I have one of everything!

[Mak the Night]

It's an interesting quandary. The 20mm TV Plossl is probably the best 20mm Plossl on the market.  When used in combination with the TV 3x you really have some of the finest optics available. OTOH the 18mm Celestron X-Cel is a very competitively priced EP in its class. My 9mm X-Cel was roughly a quarter of the price I paid for an 18.2mm TV DeLite. It's unfair to directly compare the DeLite, which is probably the finest in its class, with the Celestron X-Cel. But the X-Cel feels and performs very favourably compared to it. Admittedly the Celestron doesn't have the orthoscopic-like contrast of the TeleVue, but I've had very good results with the X-Cel combined with the Baader Neodymium filter. You can't really go wrong with either the TV 20mm or the Celestron X-Cel 18mm to be honest. Mind you, that is if the 18mm X-Cel is as good as the 9mm. Often in an eyepiece range some focal lengths will perform better than others. As an example, the 15mm Luminos was always considered the best out of the 1.25" series. I think the 10mm Luminos was often considered the turkey! Although I think the 10mm is pretty decent for planetary viewing. That 82° FOV can give a decent amount of time to keep a fast moving object in frame.

I guess it's time to flip a coin Ray. See what you think of the 9mm X-Cel.

[Ray of LIght]

Yep, great advice as always. The Luminos is out because the 15mm is the longest FL in the series. So it's either the X-Cel, the TV or the Meade 5000 (which I believe comes in 18mm). Since you have already given the X-Cel a clean bill of health, and if I also like the view, it seems it would be between the former two. Like you pointed out though, the TV 3x/20mm combo sounds really good! IDK, I will ponder for awhile more, lol!

[Mak the Night]

I'm also fairly certain that the Meade 5000 series and the X-Cel series have optics that are made by the same OEM. In other words; same engine under the bonnet, but a different body shell, to use a car analogy.

[Ray of LIght]

So, probably can't go wrong with either one. But it's weird because the Meade 5000 costs more than the X-Cel, for some reason. I would have thought the reverse would be true. I will compare the outer build quality when I un-box it later. I'm not crazy about the fold up eye cup on the Meade but otherwise it is a very nice eyepiece IMO. Do you have any?

[Ray of LIght]

Then again I wear my glasses when observing so the eye cup won't matter much I guess. Still a little hazy about that though, lol!

[Mak the Night]

1 hour ago, Ray of LIght said:

So, probably can't go wrong with either one. But it's weird because the Meade 5000 costs more than the X-Cel, for some reason. I would have thought the reverse would be true. I will compare the outer build quality when I un-box it later. I'm not crazy about the fold up eye cup on the Meade but otherwise it is a very nice eyepiece IMO. Do you have any?

I've ceased trying to make sense of different distributor/manufacturer costing lol. TeleVue are pretty much consistent with pricing. It's difficult to say why the Meade's more expensive, it's probably just in the construction process. I think the X-Cel is aluminium, whereas the Meade looks like it has a more traditional metal casing. It could be that Celestron can have X-Cel EP's made more efficiently and thus keeping the unit cost down. Or Celestron can undercut the market slightly and by selling them more cheaply actually sell more of them, so are taking sales off Meade anyway. I'm not normally a fan of eyecups, I like some of the Baader ones. TeleVue range from odd rubber cups to incredibly well engineered mechanisms. I do quite like the X-Cel one though. I don't have any Meade EP's. I've seen a couple of the old Japanese made Meade Masuyama clones knocking about second-hand. They were very highly rated. I'm pretty sure a lot of Baader, WO, Meade and Celestron optics all come from the same sources.

[Dave In Vermont]

I have both the Baader UHC-S and the Astronomik UHC. On top of these, toss in the Orion Ultrablock, which is also a UHC-filter. I personaly would say the Orion Ultrablock is a bit better - to my eyes at least. Another coin-toss moment! LOL. On that note, here's the Baader:

And the Orion:

I'd toss in the Astronomic, but it's virtually identical to the Baader offering.

Either way the coin lands, these filters can really make details jump out on suitable DSO's.

Have fun -

Dave