Galaxies, Cygnus and Sagittarius (night vision)

[GavStar]

This new moon period seems to me to be the last opportunity to have a good DSO observing session before the nights become too light. And as the forecast was suggesting clear all night, I decided to have a bit of a bumper session. My plan was to start with a few galaxies then move onto Cygnus which would start appearing after midnight. I thought I may even get a shot at the lovely nebula in Sagittarius despite being a bit low. I also wanted to target some smaller objects I haven’t seen with night vision before, so I needed to get a bit of aperture and therefore decided to use my Celestron c11 sct with a 0.75x focal readucer.

It actually turned out to be one of the best observing sessions I’ve ever had. 

I’ve observed a lot of galaxies recently. I think my favourites are the whirlpool and the needle. So I started with these...

It was clear immediately that transparency was rather good since the eyepiece views of these two objects were the best I’ve seen.

I then went for the black eye galaxy which showed the central eye well.

By now Cygnus was beginning to appear in the east. I switched to an Ha filter and went  smallish nebulae hunting.

First up, another favourite of mine, the Crescent. I hadn’t seen this at a darkish site before and it was very impressive...

Next up other small nebulae in Cygnus that I haven’t seen very often before. So in order Tulip, cocoon, bubble, wizard and the cave nebulae.

 With extra image scale and aperture, I thought it would then be fun to go for some familiar objects to see what extra detail I could get compared with a smaller scope - quite a bit as it turned out..

So here are some alternative higher magnification views of the Veil, the North American nebula and the elephants trunk.

It’s been a looooong time since I’ve looked at the Dumbbell - too long, it was lovely last night...

I now noticed the Milky Way was arching nicely overhead and had a nice scan with the NV monoculars at 1x. This was fantastic with the good transparency and it also showed me that the Sagittarius nebulae were visible to the south just high enough to see through two houses...

So I switched back to the C11 and wrapped up on the lagoon, triffid, eagle (with pillars of creation clearly visible) and swan.

I think that’s given me a good setup for August when these objects are available at more accessible times...

Edited May 5, 2019 by GavStar

[tooth_dr]

Wow! What a session. 

[Piero]

? superb session! That's a great set of images!

[Stu]

Really cracking shots Gavin, if the visual views were anything like that it must have been amazing. Love the Veil close ups.

Your C11 has been a bit of an NV revelation really hasn't it? Quite surprising.

[David Levi]

Yep, stunning shots. Good enough for a sky guide book. Beautiful detail.

[jetstream]

Excellent thread Gavin!

The C11 is really working and it is showing many objects as I see them with the 15" dob, very similar. Can I ask how dark your sky was during this session? just for my own reference.

Your NV is showing some better, one a bit more subdued and many extremely similar to my traditional views. Under my best skies, fully dark adapted, M51 is better in the eyepiece with the arms showing more definition, extent and the bridge is more complete. The Needle is very similar with the dust lane showing more extensive and the Binotrons in particular will bring more out.

The object in your superb image that I must really comment on is Pickerings Wisp- you depict this object as I see it- different light used but so very similar it is staggering. It is truly a showpiece object, with the fine tendrils and all. And then there is the Veil...

In the latter nebula, at a larger image scale your setup starts to see beyond my scope, in different light of course and while some of the views are similar some are not.

Here is how I see the Wisp and the Witches Broom is starting to show the "3rd split" in the Broom, which I see a bit better.

PS- I focused my reply on objects I see very well in the scope Great report Gavin!

[Scott]

Interesting that the only reason I saw this is that it was reported for being in the wrong section.

[GavStar]

7 hours ago, Stu said:

Really cracking shots Gavin, if the visual views were anything like that it must have been amazing. Love the Veil close ups.

Your C11 has been a bit of an NV revelation really hasn't it? Quite surprising.

The c11 has been a surprise - due to the slow focal ratio its not an obvious NV scope but with the reducer and 55mm plossl it gets down to a respectable f3.3 and still has around 40x magnification. Typically with my 4 inch scopes I’m running at around 10x mag so the jump from 10 to 40x in terms of detail on say the Veil is very large I think. I also find the c11 reasonably easy to setup and portable compared to my 16 inch dob.

Regarding the actual visual views I got versus the images shown in my post, as we’ve discussed I try to make the phone  images as representative as possible. I find galaxies harder to image and in fact the visual views were better than shown in the images. I could only do 6 second exposures before the sky background got too light. For the nebulae shots, the exposures were 30 secs (50 iso) and can be longer due to the aggressive filtering used. The low iso and longer exposure time do bring out the small detail well in the images but at the eyepiece the details (eg the elephant trunk and the pillars of creation) are still clear but maybe not quite as sharp. At the eyepiece the Veil close ups were really cool, something I haven’t experienced before. 

[JeremyS]

Great report @GavStar

2 minutes ago, GavStar said:

I also find the c11 reasonably easy to setup and portable

What do you have the C11 mounted on as a matter of interest?

[GavStar]

5 hours ago, jetstream said:

Excellent thread Gavin!

The C11 is really working and it is showing many objects as I see them with the 15" dob, very similar. Can I ask how dark your sky was during this session? just for my own reference.

Your NV is showing some better, one a bit more subdued and many extremely similar to my traditional views. Under my best skies, fully dark adapted, M51 is better in the eyepiece with the arms showing more definition, extent and the bridge is more complete. The Needle is very similar with the dust lane showing more extensive and the Binotrons in particular will bring more out.

The object in your superb image that I must really comment on is Pickerings Wisp- you depict this object as I see it- different light used but so very similar it is staggering. It is truly a showpiece object, with the fine tendrils and all. And then there is the Veil...

In the latter nebula, at a larger image scale your setup starts to see beyond my scope, in different light of course and while some of the views are similar some are not.

Here is how I see the Wisp and the Witches Broom is starting to show the "3rd split" in the Broom, which I see a bit better.

 

PS- I focused my reply on objects I see very well in the scope Great report Gavin!

Thanks Gerry. It was at an sqm 21.0 site so dark but with some light pollution.

The galaxies were taken earlier in the evening when it wasn’t fully dark and as mentioned in my reply to Stu, the exposures were much less than the nebulae - at the eyepiece the views were better - m51 was definitely in form last night - my personal favourite ever observation of any galaxy.

Ive found NV can struggle on the Veil at lower magnifications but last night at 40x it was just immense. The western side is never as good as the eastern with NV but even so there was just so much to look at. It has transformed my approach to observing this object.

Its great that the views are very similar even though I’m looking at ha and (I’m guessing) you’re using an oiii filter. Thank you for giving details about the comparison.

Edited May 5, 2019 by GavStar

[GavStar]

1 hour ago, JeremyS said:

Great report @GavStar

What do you have the C11 mounted on as a matter of interest?

Panther TTS-160 - great mount, takes the c11 with ease when using 8kg weights.

Edited May 5, 2019 by GavStar

[Piero]

Out of curiosity, do you prefer night vision observing with the refractors or with the C11?

More specifically, do you think a bit more focal length helps?

[GavStar]

7 hours ago, Piero said:

Out of curiosity, do you prefer night vision observing with the refractors or with the C11?

More specifically, do you think a bit more focal length helps?

It really depends on what objects you want to view. For smaller objects such as galaxies aperture is king since you can get higher mag (all of 40x ?) and still run at the fast (sub f4) speeds that NV thrives on.

For larger objects (eg North American, heart and Soul, California) then the smaller refractors are better since you can frame the object much better. For the largest objects (eg Barnard’s Loop) using the monoculars on their own at 1x is the best and really breathtaking. On Saturday night scanning Cygnus at 1x with the Ha filter attached was amazing. The NV monoculars on their own run at a super fast f1.2 so really bring out faint nebulae. Cygnus was just a mass of fluffy nebulae hound out all other the place. I just scanned from one end of the Milky Way to the other watching the nebulae pop out as I moved the monocular.

So in summary, the c11 and refractors are complementary for NV, I need both. But at the moment I’m preferring the c11 since I can view more objects (more smaller objects to see than larger ones) ?

Edited May 6, 2019 by GavStar

[RobertI]

Excellent report, NV continues to impress, and some great results on the C11. I am assuming the darker sky and higher contrast resulting from the higher mags provided by the C11 are part of the reason some of the objects were so much better than the smaller scopes? I have found visually that the Veil gets better as the magnification increases. From @jetstream's comment, sounds like I should be getting a 15" dob if I can't afford NV! 

[GavStar]

11 minutes ago, RobertI said:

Excellent report, NV continues to impress, and some great results on the C11. I am assuming the darker sky and higher contrast resulting from the higher mags provided by the C11 are part of the reason some of the objects were so much better than the smaller scopes? I have found visually that the Veil gets better as the magnification increases. From @jetstream's comment, sounds like I should be getting a 15" dob if I can't afford NV! 

I haven’t thought about higher mags with NV giving darker skies and higher contrast - not sure but maybe... The bigger image scale is the key factor but thinking about it the contrast did seem better as well.

I think you’d need to take your 15 inch dob to Canada as well Robert ? I think jetstream’s skies are rather special!

[Piero]

3 hours ago, GavStar said:

It really depends on what objects you want to view. For smaller objects such as galaxies aperture is king since you can get higher mag (all of 40x ?) and still run at the fast (sub f4) speeds that NV thrives on.

For larger objects (eg North American, heart and Soul, California) then the smaller refractors are better since you can frame the object much better. For the largest objects (eg Barnard’s Loop) using the monoculars on their own at 1x is the best and really breathtaking. On Saturday night scanning Cygnus at 1x with the Ha filter attached was amazing. The NV monoculars on their own run at a super fast f1.2 so really bring out faint nebulae. Cygnus was just a mass of fluffy nebulae hound out all other the place. I just scanned from one end of the Milky Way to the other watching the nebulae pop out as I moved the monocular.

So in summary, the c11 and refractors are complementary for NV, I need both. But at the moment I’m preferring the c11 since I can view more objects (more smaller objects to see than larger ones) ?

Thanks for your reply, Gavin. 

[scarp15]

2 hours ago, GavStar said:

I think you’d need to take your 15 inch dob to Canada as well Robert ? I think jetstream’s skies are rather special!

Yes they in no doubt will be, but even Gerry, as far as I understand, has come through a rough winter with few observing opportunities. Please though do not demean users in the UK and Ireland who on occasion will take their 15" or similar size dobsonian to, as far as possible a good dark sky location where this to is rewarding, if as said occasional.

[GavStar]

2 hours ago, scarp15 said:

Yes they in no doubt will be, but even Gerry, as far as I understand, has come through a rough winter with few observing opportunities. Please though do not demean users in the UK and Ireland who on occasion will take their 15" or similar size dobsonian to, as far as possible a good dark sky location where this to is rewarding, if as said occasional.

Iain, I was genuinely not meaning to demean UK based astronomers, I apologise if my comment gave this impression. I was rather complimenting Gerry’s skies (and observing skills) which I understand give excellent seeing and transparency.

Edited May 6, 2019 by GavStar

[scarp15]

I accept that it was taken out of context, it just implied differently but quite agree referencing Gerry's skies. I enjoyed reading the report / phone pictures.

Edited May 6, 2019 by scarp15

[Mike JW]

Hi, I am amazed and impressed as to what can be achieved using NV. (equally amazed by the cost of the equipment). In my experience (here in GB) the views you are getting are easily at and beyond my 20" Dob (no longer have it) under SQM 21 - ish skies. On one of those rare nights I chanced to use a friend's 22" driven Dob - views of the Veil where superb but your views out do my recollections of what I saw. I have looked at the Crescent with a 24" on average nights and once again your views are beyond it. I note there has been discussions about where NV might fit. Thank you for posting them in this forum.  Mike

[G-Star]

Just for the record, so that everyone understands the comparisons being made all the time about NV vs 20,22,24" Dobs etc.

A 14" Dob with say a Gen 3 2200 fom NV Device is comparable to a 48-56" Dob

It usually amplifies aperture by about 3.5-4x

 

[jetstream]

1 hour ago, G-Star said:

Just for the record, so that everyone understands the comparisons being made all the time about NV vs 20,22,24" Dobs etc.

A 14" Dob with say a Gen 3 2200 fom NV Device is comparable to a 48-56" Dob

It usually amplifies aperture by about 3.5-4x

 

Interesting, what do you base this on?

With regard to the 14"/NV equivalence to a 48"+ newt- will the 14"/NV with its smaller image scale pull faint galaxies out comparable to the 48"+ newt, as seen in the eyepiece?

Will threshold targets be the same (ish)?

[alan potts]

Stunning images as always.

[Highburymark]

Incredible pics Gavin. A new high for night vision - never seen better. For anyone who's stumbled upon this thread and wants to know more, there's an article in this month's Astronomy Now magazine (UK) which gives a pretty comprehensive introduction to night vision astronomy - only on sale for another week or so.

 

[RobertI]

Just read the Astronomy Now article, and a cracking read it is too, and a very clear summary of how NV works. 

One question, why is it that NV does not help on reflection nebs, I would have thought it should work on any faint object?

One thing that was interesting from the article, was that if the  cost of the NV tube wasnt enough, it seems that even eyepieces need to be premium (due to limited number of manufacturers offering the right connectors), then the focusser has to be premium to hold all that weight safely, and presumably the tripod, mount and saddle need to be very solid to stop all that equipment crashing to the ground. As with imaging, it was probably a financially painful learning experience for you both!? Thanks for going through that pain for us! Ironically it seems that the scope doesn't need to be premium for best NV results, kind of the opposte of imaging, and also visual to an extent?

Anyway thanks again for a great article.

Edited May 9, 2019 by RobertI