Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_lunar_landings.thumb.jpg.b50378d0845690d8a03305a49923eb40.jpg

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Heyyyyy its me againnn . I am trying to find a good UHC (Open to OIII ones aswell) filter to use for nebula observation. I ve stumbled upon these 2

1 Explore Scientific UHC Nebula Filter 

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/uhc-oiii-visual-filters/explore-scientific-uhc-nebula-filter-1-25-2-inch.html

2 UHC FILTER

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/uhc-oiii-visual-filters/uhc-filter.html

Can somebody tell me which is better? Or  if somebody has one themselves , can tell me if they are worth buying or just saving for a better one.

If you want to you can recommend me a good UHC OR OIII filter for viewing Nebulas thanks.

-Kronos

 

Edited by Kronos831
i missplelled UHC im a retard lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't about the latter make, but I have a couple of Explore Scientific and Baader filters, and the threads are a lot better on the Baader filters, plus they have knurled casings making them easier to screw in and out .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks Do you think i should go with the Explore scientific or the Baader one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Kronos831 said:

thanks Do you think i should go with the Explore scientific or the Baader one?

I don't know whether there is much to chose between them optically, probably not, although you could ask the team at FLO.

Although the Baader filters are more expensive, I think that you will find them easier to screw in and out with cold fingers in the dark, if you look at the images of the filters on FLO's website you will see what I mean.

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hi Kronos, I have tried both the Baader UHC-S filter and the 'Optics' one, which is a Sky Watcher product and they both do 'what it says on the tin', however, as a first time user of filters, I would say the Baader has the edge as it has a broader waveband and as a consequence, easier to use.  

Edited by rwilkey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, rwilkey said:

Hi Kronos, I have tried both the Baader UHC-S filter and the 'Optics' one, which is a Sky Watcher product and they both do 'what it says on the tin', however, as a first time user of filters, I would say the Baader has the edge as it has a broader waveband and as a consequence, easier to use.  

That sounds like good advice. The Baader UHC-S is different from the Baader UHC??

I’d consider the OIII first as the UHC enhances what is visible whereas the OIII reveals some wonders which are otherwise invisible (such as the Veil complex in Cygnus). However, if you have much light light pollution, the UHC might still be the best bet.

Paul

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Paul73 said:

The Baader UHC-S is different from the Baader UHC??

Yes, it has a slightly broader waveband, not that it is very significant though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a general rule of thumb:

Smaller scope (say <12”); go for Larger Bandwidth. A narrow bandwidth cuts out too much background and leads to an unacceptably dim image.

Larger scope (>12”); go for Smaller Bandwidth. A big scope has enough light grasp to compensate for the dimmer image. Personally, I like to see loads of context, so often go with the wider dandwidth even in a bigger scope.

Paul

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The brightness of extended objects like nebulae depends on the exit pupil of the telescope-eyepiece combination. So long as you use the correct exit pupil you can use any filter in any size telescope, you will just have a smaller magnification in a small telescope than a large one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically correct. But, my comments are based on ‘real world’ observations.

By the time you have equalised the apparent brightness, the mag on the small scope is usually too low to make out the detail. Narrow bandwidth filters seem exacerbate the effect.

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got the Baader OIII 10nm filter, even thought it was not the cheapest, to be sure I got a quality filter.

It works well on suitable nebulae with my 203mm SCT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By UKAstroBill
      The weather has been so bad I have had the time to finish a video on using astro filters with the Nikon Z bodies and Nikon camera lenses. There is a manual alternative to the FTZ allowing 1.25 inch filters to be fitted between camera and F-mount lenses, and for some lenses and end of lens solution make sense. FAstroTZ is described here:
       
       
       
    • By jjosefsen
      Hi,
      I'm working with some recent data of a new(ish) camera, and my Ha data is pretty good, but the oiii has these strange artifacts around the borders.
      If I use any kind of local normalization then it pretty much ruins most of the image, as you can see below..
      First the Ha:

       
      Oiii with local normalization:

       
      oiii local normalization map, see how it fits with the artifacts:

       
      Oiii without any local normalization:

       
      These edge artifacts, could they be related to a bad filter or is it a processing artifact, has anyone seen anything similar?
       
      I am using Astro Pixel Processor for calibration and stacking.. Im kind of stumped on this one, and I am going to yank out the Oiii filter this weekend to have a looksie.
    • By Anne S
      Following a filter size upgrade I have an Astronomik LRGB set of filters, 1 1/4 inch. Probably around 12 years old. Kept in a filterwheel when in use but they have also been stored for a couple of years in their original box when I acquired some Baader ones to match my Baader narrowband filters. No scratches or coating issues. I have tried to show this in the images attached. 
      Looking for £80 posted given their age. 
      Anne



    • By Serg10
      I joined the forum to learn more about risks and success of filter removal for UV and IR photography.

      Back in 2011, one of the group's members, was trying to do just that:

      Unfortunately Stephen hasn't been active in the group since 2014, but the filter removal appears to have gone well (at least the S3 wasn't killed in the process).
      I have the same exact camera and I'm looking forward to try the same exact procedure. Does anyone has any tips on how to do this successfully/safely?

       
    • By Kronos831
      Hi guys, its me kronos, and i am about to purchase a new a new filter for my 5” and 8” scopes. I cant decide wether to buy a UHC or an oiii filter.
      my budget it 70euros max
      And i have settled between the uhc explore scientific
      or the oiii explore scientific.
      i am open to other suggestions in this price range
      i am keen to observing more deep sky objects with better detail
      Whichever filter i wont buy now, i will buy a better one in the future(for example if i dont buy the uhc , i will buy an astronomic uhc in the future)
      So far i have loved the views of m42 (i have observed many more objects)and now thats its fading into the suns glare, i m starting to find  more and more objects.Hoping to observe the veil and the lagoon  nebula as long as some planetaries and definetly globulars(which i ve heard that they dont take filters(am i correct?). I ve heard that the oiii enhances contrast and dims the object, but is the dimming worth the additional contrast from the uhc?
      i havent yet observed my first planetary , but i am planning to soon.I m really excited to see one!
      I will make another thread similar to this then,asking questions that may arise and reach a conclusion.
      I wrote this thread to ask about your preferences with filters(oiii or uhc) and for advice on what i should buy according to the objects i want to view)
      thanks, any advice will be useful.
      kronos
      Clear skies.
       
       
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.