Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

Astronomik UHC or Lumicon UHC ?


N3ptune

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 153
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 hour ago, Dave In Vermont said:

It does work fine for me. You're in Serbia? I'm in the US. Interesting.....

And thank you for the link, N3ptune.

'Ta,

Dave

Yeah that's interesting, I didn't noticed he was in Serbia...

This is quite unfair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no opinion as I've not had one about to test-pilot. If it actually is a re-branded Baader OIII, then it has a good reputation. Some seem to prefer the Astronomik OIII, which has a wider range of transmission, while others prefer the more narrow-range of the Baader. I have a Baader OIII and it's very good indeed.

I'd be quite interested to hear a report on the Celestron one.

So many filters, and so little time.....:p

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Dave In Vermont said:

I have no opinion as I've not had one about to test-pilot. If it actually is a re-branded Baader OIII, then it has a good reputation. Some seem to prefer the Astronomik OIII, which has a wider range of transmission, while others prefer the more narrow-range of the Baader. I have a Baader OIII and it's very good indeed.

I'd be quite interested to hear a report on the Celestron one.

So many filters, and so little time.....:p

Dave

Doesn't Baader actually clip the first OIII line significantly? I mean, it is not only narrow, but also hacks of a good part of the desired light, albeit not the line to which we are more sensitive (500)...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those who can't read in the dark, the above states:

 Perdu sur l'Internet ?
Pas de panique, on va vous aider

    * <----- vous êtes ici

 

Stranger still,

Dave

PS - To my knowledge, the Baader OIII does cut a large portion of the spectrum off. But the OIII lines are within the visual-range and it is these, alone, it allows through. So yes - it's dimmer than would otherwise be, but that's what it should be. If you wanted a wider-range, use a UHC instead. I use both and then sift out which works best on the object-in-question.

 

 

 

 

 

    
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Dave In Vermont said:

I have no opinion as I've not had one about to test-pilot. If it actually is a re-branded Baader OIII, then it has a good reputation. Some seem to prefer the Astronomik OIII, which has a wider range of transmission, while others prefer the more narrow-range of the Baader. I have a Baader OIII and it's very good indeed.

I'd be quite interested to hear a report on the Celestron one.

So many filters, and so little time.....:p

Dave

I might buy this filter because of the price primarily. OIII are great performers, maybe less then the UHB but still they could provide a lot of enhancement. In that case, for half the price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, N3ptune said:

It's too narrow ?

It misses 86% of 496nm line....We want to allow those 2 emission lines in and as little else as possible for maximum effect. Its not only dimmer because its FWHM is smaller...this filter cuts out 86% of a contributing visual emission line...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, N3ptune said:

It's too narrow ?

As Gerry says, it lets only one line through, the one most important for astrophotographers.  For visual, you generally want both.  I've never actually read a side by side visual comparison of the Baader vs the Lumicon (for instance), so this is mostly theoretical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is Vogels comments on these,from his website
 

"The OIII filter shown above (Baader) with a bandwidth of only 9 nm is narrower than the Lumicon and should therefore be better in blocking unwanted continuum light. This filter has, however, a transmission of only 86% at the OIII emission line at 501 nm and of only 21% at the (fainter) OIII emission line at 496 nm. It therefore severely cuts transmission of the specified OIII lines. Nevertheless, this filter can do a good job on bright OIII objects, such as for instance the veil nebula or on bright planetary nebula, or under heavy light pollution. Under good conditions, however, the detection of faint OIII objects is noticeably hampered as compared with the Lumicon filter. "

This graph shows a very similar one that he is talking about. I personally wouldn't buy this filter- to each his own however.

 

Baader_OIII_2_vogel2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jetstream said:

Here is Vogels comments on these,from his website
 

"The OIII filter shown above (Baader) with a bandwidth of only 9 nm is narrower than the Lumicon and should therefore be better in blocking unwanted continuum light. This filter has, however, a transmission of only 86% at the OIII emission line at 501 nm and of only 21% at the (fainter) OIII emission line at 496 nm. It therefore severely cuts transmission of the specified OIII lines. Nevertheless, this filter can do a good job on bright OIII objects, such as for instance the veil nebula or on bright planetary nebula, or under heavy light pollution. Under good conditions, however, the detection of faint OIII objects is noticeably hampered as compared with the Lumicon filter. "

This graph shows a very similar one that he is talking about. I personally wouldn't buy this filter- to each his own however.

 

Baader_OIII_2_vogel2.jpg

the blueshift would have to be rather extreme to compensate for that curve...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Astronomik now record their newest filter specs and I've heard the newest ones feature a tighter bandpass. A friend called them and his were of nice spec. I contacted them about this but mine were older and they had no individual specs on them, just a batch spec.I would not hesitate to buy a new Astronomik.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, jetstream said:

Nevertheless, this filter can do a good job on bright OIII objects, such as for instance the veil nebula or on bright planetary nebula, or under heavy light pollution. Under good conditions, however, the detection of faint OIII objects is noticeably hampered as compared with the Lumicon filter. 

That's a good point.. I don't understand why they did that it's obvious. Are we 100% certain the Celestron 93624 is really a re-badged Baader? And the graph is 2004, they had a lot of time to fix the error if the filter was really bad. (To try it would also be a good thing)

http://www.celestron.com/browse-shop/astronomy/visual-accessories/visual-filters/oxygen-iii-narrowband-filter-2-in

I wrote to Celestron and Baader to see if they have the up to date wavelength graph, we have the right to know

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • 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.