Planet brightness

[crazeefiend]

Hey guys,

I was wondering about the best filters, eyepieces to see jupiters details, I have a Celestron LCM 114 and this kit http://www.celestron.com/browse-shop/astronomy/visual-accessories/eyepieces/125in-eyepiece-and-filter-kit But No matter what filter/eyepiece combo I use.. It's too bright for me to see. I am a newbie at this though. 

cheers

[Peter Drew]

Welcome to this forum. A 114mm telescope shouldn't present too bright an image to see unless you are using too low a magnification, this would give too small an image which will be swamped by the brightness. I would have thought a magnification around 100x-150x would be ideal. Rather than try colour filters try a polarising filter, this will allow you to "dial up" the brightness that suits you.  

[CraigT82]

I think it may be too bright for you to see any detail because you're not using enough magnification? In any telescope, more magnification = dimmer images. Try the shortest focal length eyepieces in that kit (6mm maybe).  I think your'e scope is 1000mm Focal lenght so that 6mm eyepiece should give you 166x magnification which is more than enough to dim the image and see detail on the planets disk

 

EDIT: just beaten to it!

 

[crazeefiend]

Awesome thank you both very much. I'll try it out when the clouds disappear

[John]

I agree with the above posts plus I'd add that you need to observe planets for some time to get the most detail from them. You eye will adjust to the image and gradually you will be able to see more detail than was visible initially.

 

[ronl]

If upping the magnification doesn't work, then get a Baader Neodymium filter, they are

not cheap, but it will add contrast and bring out the detail, I think they are worth every

penny, works on the Moon and Mars too.

 https://www.firstlightoptics.com/light-pollution-reduction-imaging/baader-neodymium-filter.html 

[ronin]

What scope have you got?

For Jupiter try to get about 60x to 80x, if the scope delivers it well then 100x. But you generally do not need more. I have seen bands and all 4 moons (as coloured points) at 40x in a small scope. So 60x should be reaonable, bit more mnaybe more reasonable if the image is good.

Saturn my best view was at 125x in a 4" (100mm) refractor, I think it was a Tal 100 (not too sure) and the eyepiece was an 8mm.

In a set of 8x42 binoculars there is no detail as like you have found it is too bright and whatever detail is appears swamped. If there is any detail.

Ask about the scope as if you have a 16" reflector that makes a difference.

[Ruud]

Just to make sure:

If your planets look like uniform circles of light, they may be out of focus. Have you adjusted the focus properly? The images of stars should be pinpoints of light, and the images of planets should be small disks.

Right now, the brightest points of light in the sky are stars. Mars and Uranus are above the horizon in the evening, but they are rather tiny in the eyepiece.

 

[Charic]

On 11/14/2016 at 16:32, crazeefiend said:

Hey guys,

I was wondering............. No matter what filter/eyepiece combo I use.. It's too bright for me to see. I am a newbie at this though. 

I too was a newbie when I bought my first scope, the  Celestron 127EQ.
For similar reasons that you have discovered, and others, I found the scope capable  only on the Moon, but for anything else, I was disappointed with the results, and even now with a much  better understanding and better eyepieces, still dismayed with the performance of the scope, the reason for my almost immediate upgrade to my present scope. That's not to say, don't keep trying? it could have just been my eyes alone that perceived a poor performing scope!  but from my experience, my 127EQ was a bad choice for me, but still  a learning curve, so after trying the tips suggested above, if your still not satisfied, do consider a replacement? Do this by looking through another scope at an astronomy club! Their often free to attend your first meeting ( you only need to visit once to get the bug, and join if you feel the need?)
I also see that your scope is a 'short' scope, probably shorter in physical length than the focal length dictates, making for whats known as a Jones-Bird designed scope! a cost cutting design for the masses? Again fine for the Moon, nothing special,  and that perceived image of Jupiter on page 27 of the user manual, not sure if I should laugh or cry, but I wish you luck with that one!

Patience is the name of the game when viewing the Planets. I have seen Jupiter  only once (with my present scope -  yet many times overall )  with  startling clarity and a sharp image,  with a shadow  on the Planets face, cast by one of the Moons ( Moon transit ) a simply a stunning and memorable image,   but this  requires perfect seeing conditions  ( which may only last a few seconds) and  having everything setup  correctly.  Overcome  these conditions for the best results,  but  if  your still not satisfied, an upgrade is on the cards.

[Timebandit]

10 hours ago, Charic said:

I too was a newbie when I bought my first scope, the  Celestron 127EQ.
For similar reasons that you have discovered, and others, I found the scope capable  only on the Moon, but for anything else, I was disappointed with the results, and even now with a much  better understanding and better eyepieces, still dismayed with the performance of the scope, the reason for my almost immediate upgrade to my present scope. That's not to say, don't keep trying? it could have just been my eyes alone that perceived a poor performing scope!  but from my experience, my 127EQ was a bad choice for me, but still  a learning curve, so after trying the tips suggested above, if your still not satisfied, do consider a replacement? Do this by looking through another scope at an astronomy club! Their often free to attend your first meeting ( you only need to visit once to get the bug, and join if you feel the need?)
I also see that your scope is a 'short' scope, probably shorter in physical length than the focal length dictates, making for whats known as a Jones-Bird designed scope! a cost cutting design for the masses? Again fine for the Moon, nothing special,  and that perceived image of Jupiter on page 27 of the user manual, not sure if I should laugh or cry, but I wish you luck with that one!

Patience is the name of the game when viewing the Planets. I have seen Jupiter  only once (with my present scope -  yet many times overall )  with  startling clarity and a sharp image,  with a shadow  on the Planets face, cast by one of the Moons ( Moon transit ) a simply a stunning and memorable image,   but this  requires perfect seeing conditions  ( which may only last a few seconds) and  having everything setup  correctly.  Overcome  these conditions for the best results,  but  if  your still not satisfied, an upgrade is on the cards.

 

Don't hold back on your feelings for this scope Charic, I take it if I am reading between the lines correctly that you where are not impressed by this scope.

I have not used one of these scopes so cannot comment particularly on this model. But I have said it before, sometime because of the scope you have purchased it just is not feasible to get the results you are expecting from your newly acquired telescope. I think this is especially true with beginner's who see the fancy packaging of the scope showing great images sometimes on the boxes, and the claimed magnifications and that the scope will allow you to explore the universe ect ect. And when the scope is unpackaged and used the user just does not get the images, or the ability to explore the universe and it's targets in the details and image scale that they were expecting. This is not usually the beginner's fault as they have sometimes gone along with the advertising shiney pretty boxes with all the hype (this is especially true at this time of the year with Christmas approaching) . And with some of these department type scopes you can collimate to within an inch of their lives, you can buy quality eyepieces and put these in ,you can have great seeing conditions. But at the end of the day if the scope is not up to the job, then it does not matter what improvements or adjustments you make you will still not get quality views.

Therefore to any person looking to purchase a telescope for themselves or a relative or friend for a  Christmas present . Then please do read sites like this and get an idea what works and is recommended by persons on this site and what does not. As you can possibly save yourself a lot of money or wasted time in purchasing a piece of equipment that will not, or possibly not deliver the results you are expecting. You are better off sometimes saving up that little bit extra and getting a good quality beginner's scope that will give you years of enjoyment. Rather than jumping in and getting something that bit cheaper with all the bells and whistles pretty advertising boxes ect and then be disappointed. And then possibly having to re buy, so in the long run costing you more than purchasing a decent quality scope in the first place.  ,

I hope the above is some help☺

[Charic]

1 hour ago, Timebandit said:

Don't hold back on your feelings for this scope Charic,

...I won't 

I think I bought the scope just before joining SGL, otherwise, the good folk here may have advised me different, but that said, as a newbie, with money in pocket,  fuel in the tank, and a trip of nearly four hours, I still may of bought the the Celestron,  just to see for my self, after all, its only give advice here, take it or leave it?

As soon as I started using the 127EQ I knew needed something different, so the next  decision was  choosing between the TAL100 or Skyliner 200P,  this time taking advice  from the good folk here at SGL.  I think I made the right choice .

The Skyliner suits me, and if the images produced were just, well, just a bit bigger, this would be the ultimate scope for my needs, job done! This scope works works well from my site, and so much better from a darker site, believe me, the difference is stunning, its the time and effort attending these darker sites, so now,  quite possibly, this scope is a keeper ( unless fate  allows me to compare, as previously stated ).

As for the 127EQ , I  paid £70  cash, and £40 of that covered the value of the new books that came with the scope, so effectively I paid £30 for the Celestron 127EQ. Not bad for a beginners scope, it wowed me on the Moon, and taught me the basics of EQ alignment and collimation, so for those reasons alone, it was a good deal, I had learnt something, and  started  my astronomy book collection. 

I  agree with your comments, how new folk admire the advertising  and are  often persuaded by the packaging, promising the new user  great  things ahead?
A lot of the reviews and comments on this site are based on experience, mine is limited, only two scopes, so with that in mind, and my feelings between the two scopes,  right or wrong, I find it hard to comprehend sometimes,  that a smaller Newtonian scope can be any better in performance than what I own now. That said, there ARE better scopes than the 127EQ  by design, and they do give/offer better results if you read the advice and rely on the advice of others, so all is not lost, but testing yourself will dictate.

 

[Davesellars]

I have the TV Planetary Filter which works well but I didn't get on well with it on my 8" SCT as it seemed to cause some weird and annoying reflections (perhaps from the diagonal or the eyepieces I was using...).  I'm hoping to give it much more use this winter on Jupiter though with the 120ED and the 12" dob and have different eyepieces so perhaps won't see the same issue...  Otherwise to be honest I've never found Jupiter too bright but I always view it at the maximum for that night's seeing capability.  Another thing that helps is observing these bright objects without being dark adapted.

[Charic]

crazeefiend..........Sorry for steering a new course, it was not my intention, this happens from time to time, so in addition to the help and comments from above, getting back to the original question, here are two very similar guides as to what, when and why you could/should use filters.

http://sas-sky.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/SAS-The-Use-of-Astronomical-Filters1.pdf

http://project-nightflight.net/color_planetary_filters_small_telescopes.pdf