Meade Infinity 102

[Mak the Night]

Do you think the Orion Ultrablock and Astronomik filters work well with scopes 130mm and under Dave?

[Stu]

Just now, Mak the Night said:

Do you think the Orion Ultrablock and Astronomik filters work well with scopes 130mm and under Dave?

I think it's more a case of the conditions you are using them under rather than aperture. I've successfully used a Lumicon OIII filter (which has a much narrower band pass than those you mention) in scopes as small as 76mm. The key is having good dark adaptation and dark skies. They obviously cut out a fair bit of light, but if you are well adapted the contrast increase is sufficient to give a useful result. The UltraBlock is a very nice filter, I sold one a while back and still regret it.

[Mak the Night]

17 minutes ago, Stu said:

I think it's more a case of the conditions you are using them under rather than aperture. I've successfully used a Lumicon OIII filter (which has a much narrower band pass than those you mention) in scopes as small as 76mm. The key is having good dark adaptation and dark skies. They obviously cut out a fair bit of light, but if you are well adapted the contrast increase is sufficient to give a useful result. The UltraBlock is a very nice filter, I sold one a while back and still regret it.

That's interesting thanks. Lumicon don't recommend using their OIII with anything under 150mm, although I guess they're referring to reflectors.

[Stu]

46 minutes ago, Mak the Night said:

That's interesting thanks. Lumicon don't recommend using their OIII with anything under 150mm, although I guess they're referring to reflectors.

I don't think the advice is specific to reflector or refractor (although it may be). I do know that the recommendations seem to be around the 6 to 8" mark, and I also know that I've had the most wonderful views of the entire Veil nebula and North America Nebula in an 85mm and 100mm scope from a dark site. I think there is often a perception that these filters are a fix it all for light polluted sites, but the reality is they come into their own under darker skies with good dark adaptation. Even in these circumstances they can make the difference between an object being invisible and visible.

[Ray of LIght]

The only UHC filters I am considering are, as we discussed Mak, sre the Baader UHC-S broadband or the equivalent ES version. I am leaning towards the Baader but haven't ruled out the ES. Talk later. 

[Stu]

1 hour ago, Ray of LIght said:

The only UHC filters I am considering are, as we discussed Mak, sre the Baader UHC-S broadband or the equivalent ES version. I am leaning towards the Baader but haven't ruled out the ES. Talk later. 

What are your skies like Ray, and which sort of targets will you be going after with it?

[Ray of LIght]

Suburban Long Island, pollution depends on either the front or back of my condo. I am the guy with the, very upgraded, Meade 102. I'll take whatever DSO's I can get so I figure a broadband UHC may be good for me, but I may be wrong.

[Mak the Night]

3 hours ago, Stu said:

I don't think the advice is specific to reflector or refractor (although it may be). I do know that the recommendations seem to be around the 6 to 8" mark, and I also know that I've had the most wonderful views of the entire Veil nebula and North America Nebula in an 85mm and 100mm scope from a dark site. I think there is often a perception that these filters are a fix it all for light polluted sites, but the reality is they come into their own under darker skies with good dark adaptation. Even in these circumstances they can make the difference between an object being invisible and visible.

It's lucky I live in the greenbelt then I guess lol. I didn't think UHC filters were ever originally intended as LP filters though, I believe that the UHC filters hybridised with CLS transmission curves were a later development. I always thought narrowband filters were tuned to specific wavelengths to make certain nebula cloud phenomena more apparent.

[Mak the Night]

4 hours ago, Ray of LIght said:

The only UHC filters I am considering are, as we discussed Mak, sre the Baader UHC-S broadband or the equivalent ES version. I am leaning towards the Baader but haven't ruled out the ES. Talk later. 

I think either would work well to be honest Ray. The Baader has some similarities with the ES CLS filter but I think it is predominantly more of a UHC filter, just less aggressive and more suited to scopes under 150mm.

[Stu]

23 minutes ago, Mak the Night said:

It's lucky I live in the greenbelt then I guess lol. I didn't think UHC filters were ever originally intended as LP filters though, I believe that the UHC filters hybridised with CLS transmission curves were a later development. I always thought narrowband filters were tuned to specific wavelengths to make certain nebula cloud phenomena more apparent.

I was not indicating that they were, simply that there is a perception that they are. Ultimately though I guess any filter is designed to remove the unwanted and pass as much of the wanted light as possible so could be viewed as LP filters. As far as I'm aware, the UHC-S filter is a more aggressive version of the CLS, more suited to nebulae than as a general light pollution filter suited to galaxies.

Narrowband filters are indeed designed to pass specific frequencies of light, rejecting others and thus increasing the contrast available. Overall they do dim the image as well which is why good dark adaptation helps bring the best out of them.

Some relevant info here regarding filters in small scopes.

http://washedoutastronomy.com/washedoutastronomy.com/content/ultrablock-and-small-scopes/index.html

[Mak the Night]

40 minutes ago, Stu said:

I was not indicating that they were, simply that there is a perception that they are. Ultimately though I guess any filter is designed to remove the unwanted and pass as much of the wanted light as possible so could be viewed as LP filters. As far as I'm aware, the UHC-S filter is a more aggressive version of the CLS, more suited to nebulae than as a general light pollution filter suited to galaxies.

Narrowband filters are indeed designed to pass specific frequencies of light, rejecting others and thus increasing the contrast available. Overall they do dim the image as well which is why good dark adaptation helps bring the best out of them.

Some relevant info here regarding filters in small scopes.

http://washedoutastronomy.com/washedoutastronomy.com/content/ultrablock-and-small-scopes/index.html

Yeah, filters certainly block some of the available light to varying degrees. I personally find the Baader Neodymium very useful for planetary observing for example, but it does cut the amount of light.

I think you're right about the UHC-S, I believe its filter curve does indeed resemble the Explore Scientific CLS filter in many ways. I think it is essentially a less aggressive ultra high contrast filter merged a bit with a city light suppression filter.

Explore Scientific CLS Nebula Filter

This is why I thought the UHC-S would be good for Ray's 102mm refractor, I don't know what Long Island LP levels are like, but if they are average, the UHC-S should work really well on a 4" scope. I found it effective on a 102mm Mak, although I have lower than average LP as I live in a village in the greenbelt.

Although I truly believe the efficacy of a filter of any kind is related to the magnification/exit pupil achieved.

Thanks for the link Stu.

[Stu]

Totally agree about the Neodymium, I use mine a lot on Jupiter and Mars in particular. For some reason I find it not of any benefit on Saturn, no idea why really.

Also agreed regarding exit pupils and choosing the right one with filters. When using an OIII in smaller scopes it was always a case of minimum mag/widest FOV and largest exit pupil to keep the brightness up. Exit pupils were/are often up around 5 or 6mm with these combinations. It's amazing what you amazing what you can see with a small scope under the right conditions.

I think the UHC-S (or similar) will suit Ray just fine under less than pristine skies.

[Mak the Night]

2 minutes ago, Stu said:

Totally agree about the Neodymium, I use mine a lot on Jupiter and Mars in particular. For some reason I find it not of any benefit on Saturn, no idea why really.

Also agreed regarding exit pupils and choosing the right one with filters. When using an OIII in smaller scopes it was always a case of minimum mag/widest FOV and largest exit pupil to keep the brightness up. Exit pupils were/are often up around 5 or 6mm with these combinations. It's amazing what you amazing what you can see with a small scope under the right conditions.

I think the UHC-S (or similar) will suit Ray just fine under less than pristine skies.

Yes, I find the Neodymium works great on Jupiter and Mars but is less effective on Saturn. There must be an explanation lol. Getting a wide exit pupil is the problem on slower scopes. I think the largest I can get with my 235mm SCT is 4mm (40mm eyepiece,f/10). I struggled to get 3.1mm on my 102mm (f/12.7) Mak.

[Ray of LIght]

Mak, that is a NICE eyepiece! If it works as good as it looks I may be getting the 18mm! It is as new even though it was an Amazon Wharehouse item. Back in a bit.

[Mak the Night]

Yes, I was unsure about it aesthetically at first, but it is surprisingly easy to physically manipulate, especially if you have a disability. I've even begun to use the twist-up eyecup regularly, which is rare for me with any eyepiece. Personally, I think the optics are quite high quality and the eyepiece just kind of feels right to use. I can't detect any real vignetting or blackout even when used in conjunction with a 2.5x shorty apochromatic Barlow. They are certainly worth 59 quid. Everyone seems to love them.

[Ray of LIght]

It seems to be a little larger than the Meade and much smaller than the Luminos. Should be great with my HPS 2.5x. And just because I get the 18mm X-Cel does'nt mean I can't get another  TV of different FL down the road. I should be good with eyepieces for now though, after the 18mm, lol! I like the twist up eye cup too, except wearing glasses I won't have much use for it?

[Mak the Night]

I think the reason why the Luminos are so big is the mechanism for the eyecup is in the outside shroud to the eyepiece body. Some people have been known to de-shroud a pair of Luminos EP's and fit rubber eyecups on for use in a binoviewer. When they are de-shrouded they look similar in size to the X-Cel.

[Ray of LIght]

As an eyeglass wearer I am a little confused about the use of eye cups, of any type. I read somewhere that eyeglass wearers should not use them. Do you think they are of any use to me 

[Stu]

Generally the eye guards are more use to people who don't wear glasses as they help you position your eye on the correct place relative to the exit pupil.  Using a barlow pushes out the eye relief further than the specification for the eyepiece, so it may be the eye guard is occasionally of use to you when barlowing. Just experiment to see which is most comfortable.

[Ray of LIght]

Will do, thanks Stu!

[Ray of LIght]

Best price I have seen on the 18mm X-Cell LX, Mak, is new, on Amazon, for 64.95 US. I may jump on it to complete my interum kit and worry about the TV 3x and Baader filter next week or so. Pondering... Weather better clear becsuse I'm going broke, lol!

[Mak the Night]

I'd probably prioritise the TV x3, but if you think you can get a deal on the 18mm X-Cel it might be worth jumping on it. I have a feeling Celestron are selling quite a few X-Cels.

The 'Bazooka' set up to cool down in twilight and aimed at where Jupiter will emerge in the south west. I can reach both slo mo controls from a seated position like this.

Business end of the Bazooka. You can see the TS Optics 2.5x shorty Barlow already in the focuser. Note the 2kg counterweight on the EQ2 mount.

[Ray of LIght]

Yes, two things: I feel now is the time to strike with the X-Cel LX at that price for the reason you stated. Price may go up. At least I have a decent Barlow I can use for a week or two. I will probably order the TV 3x with the Baader UHC-S at the same time. The other thing is: those are great pictures! The Bazooka looks great, I like it! So glad I got the alt-az refractor though! I wouldn't know what to do with the Bazooka! My next scope will be the lightest go to I can afford, way down the road! Thanks for sending those, a picture is worth a thousand words it is said. I like refractors though, so maybe I would get an Apo. Nowhere near where I will make that decision. Talk in a bit.

[Mak the Night]

Those X-Cels have impressed me anyway. Mine will almost certainly be used in the Big Cat as well for 261x. The Bazooka is pretty good for what it is. I stopped using it just over a year ago. I could set it up and actually used it, but my right arm was pretty much totally paralysed then and finding targets near the zenith was near impossible with a partially paralysed right leg as well. Viewing in the plane of the ecliptic is much easier though and I can do it seated predominantly. Now, as my right arm has progressed so much over the last year I can even rotate the OTA in the mount rings while it's set up. In the top picture, if the scope was pointing east and I could observe seated, If I slackened both clutches (RA & declination) and then pointed it west, the eyepiece/focuser would be sticking almost vertically upright! In fact, swapping between a rising Saturn and a setting Jupiter, if I don't rotate the OTA I have to stand to observe Jupiter. I'm so glad the Big Cat has an alt-az. ROTFL

[Ray of LIght]

Great to have options Mak! I guess I have put rescources into the one telescope I have and tried to make some good choices, with your help, and I think it will serve me well for awhile, I hope! So after the 18mm X-Cel I may have to go for, instead of a TV Plossl, a DeLite or Radian or, well you know more than me about TV stuff. We can discuss that some time soon!