Are filters necessary these days?

[Moonshed]

I have just taken my first digital shots using my Canon and I am wondering if using filters would be an advantage. So far I have just taken a couple of quick single shots of the Moon through the scope, just to make sure everything was working okay. The images are high contrast, bright and dark with not a lot in between, but trial and error and a bit of processing time will I think resolve this. Anyway, it got me wondering, when I feel ready to take long exposures of galaxies and nebulae will filters help? I own one deep sky filter "for nebulae and galaxies" I have used in the past when taking images using film, but can't help wondering that with the advances in digital cameras and processing software are filters still necessary? What are your views?

[Scott]

short answer yes  .

Depending on soooo many things.  light pollution (means nothing when imaging the moon), camera- if  mono then definately want at least  lrgb and more than likely Ha,oiii and probably sii as well. if you are using a modded dslr then an ir filter. deep sky is a world apart from lunar imaging

 

[Moonshed]

5 minutes ago, Scott said:

short answer yes  .

Depending on soooo many things.  light pollution (means nothing when imaging the moon), camera- if  mono then definately want at least  lrgb and more than likely Ha,oiii and probably sii as well. if you are using a modded dslr then an ir filter. deep sky is a world apart from lunar imaging

 

Yes, I appreciate that deep sky is a world apart from lunar imaging, I learned that when first using a film camera more years ago than I care to admit ?. I live in the countryside where light pollution is not a major concern. I am using an unmodded Cannon 1100D and I will naturally be using colour. The reason I ask if filters are necessary is because:-

1) Filters are not cheap and I have already stretched the budget and my wife is looking at handbags!

2) I have always worked on the basic principle that the less glass you introduce between the telescope and the camera the better. Heavily light polluted areas being an exception.

I just don't want to add gear unless it is a definite advantage.

[Scott]

When I started I was using an unmodded 1100d and was happy as a happy thing on happy day. Use it, you've already got the camera. not sure of your mount but if you don't have a tracking mount just point the thing at the milky way somewhere near cygnus and take about 50X20 sec exposures at around 800-1600 iso and use the shortest lens you have. the standard 18-55 that comes with the 1100d at the 18mm end works a treat . Best of luck, it doesn't have to be expencive..... bahaha, who am I kidding.. It's put me in the poor house

 

[Moonshed]

48 minutes ago, Scott said:

take about 50X20 sec exposures at around 800-1600 iso and use the shortest lens you have.

[Moonshed]

I have no idea what went wrong with my last reply but who cares anyway.

I am using an 8" Celestron mounted on a Bresser Messier Exos 2 EQ5.

I am going to try what you suggest, just sticking the camera on a tripod and taking  50x20 second exposures. I have not taken multiple exposures yet so haven't even used the wonderfully named Intervalometer. I assume that with a low mag lens 20 secs will not produce star trails? I am just itching to use all this new gear, so knowing the luck of us long suffering astronomers, and with tons of previous experience to go by, I am willing to bet it will be at least a month before conditions are favourable. During this time my wife will have purchased yet another desperately needed and totally necessary Louis Vuitton handbag. I could actually buy a second 'scope with that money!

I have always wanted a good picture of the Milky Way and finally I now have all the gear necessary to get it. All that is lacking now is the skill with which to do it. Hopefully that will come with time and practice.

[Stu]

Without wanting to repeat the oft repeated, have you read 'Making every photon count' by Steve Richards? It is the bible for anyone starting out on deep sky imaging and will answer many (all?  ) of your questions.

[Moonshed]

I don't have this book yet but it has been strongly recommended, I will buy it next month after my credit card has cooled down a little.

[kendg]

Start with what you have and push it to the limits. Then you'll know if you need. In my case I was suffering from mild light pollution so got an inexpensive LP filter.

So far I'm happy with it until I push beyond it's limits. By then I'll probably want another scope/mount/camera/toys etc. Isn't that always the case 

[Stu]

9 minutes ago, Moonshed said:

I don't have this book yet but it has been strongly recommended, I will buy it next month after my credit card has cooled down a little.

I'm not an imager but as I understand it it can save you a lot of cash!

[DaveS]

It *will* save you a lot of cash !

 

 

[DaveS]

Here's the link

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/books/making-every-photon-count-steve-richards.html

Read it at least twice before buying anything, as DSO imaging is so counter-intuitive that you can easily waste a lot of money done blind alleys.