Which nebulas?

[jetstream]

I use dimming either through a larger f ratio (reduced exit pupil at a mag seeing will support) or better yet my f7.5 frac with a binoviewer. Low power, small aperture and or a small exit pupil. Works for me.

[Deadlake]

22 minutes ago, jetstream said:

I use dimming either through a larger f ratio (reduced exit pupil at a mag seeing will support) or better yet my f7.5 frac with a binoviewer. Low power, small aperture and or a small exit pupil. Works for me.

I modify the amount o polarisation of the filter. Allows details to pop out, rather than hidden under glare.

A binoviewer is on my list, not cheap going on these forums...

[jetstream]

1 minute ago, Deadlake said:

I modify the amount o polarisation of the filter. Allows details to pop out, rather than hidden under glare.

A binoviewer is on my list, not cheap going on these forums...

I bought the Binotron 27s for a few reasons including a discussion with Russ. I told him my set up and wanted the binos to work with any of my scopes. He immediately knew what to do- he made an extension for the system to focus in my newts, no charge. This system works in my fracs and newts extremely well.

If I was over there I would look at the new Baaders, research them - but they look good to me. Good EP holders are a must.

[Deadlake]

yes, the Baader are on the list.

[Kon]

14 minutes ago, Deadlake said:

I modify the amount o polarisation of the filter. Allows details to pop out, rather than hidden under glare.

A binoviewer is on my list, not cheap going on these forums...

I have the Astro Essentials Variable Polarising Moon Filter and it does a pretty good job on the moon. I like the fact i can change the amount of light passing.

[Deadlake]

1 minute ago, Kon said:

I have the Astro Essentials Variable Polarising Moon Filter and it does a pretty good job on the moon. I like the fact i can change the amount of light passing.

I have those too, in fact compared with other filters relatively inexpensive. Not had any others to compare with.

[Kon]

@jetstreamI have not heard back from Astronomik but i had a very frustrating night last night on nebulas, so i want to buy a filter soon.

 

Would you go for the:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/televue-filters/tele-vue-bandmate-oiii-filter.html

or

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

(unless there is another OIII from these companies i missed)

The price difference is marginal so happy for either you think it is better; you seemed very happy with your earlier post on TV but @Johnwas happy with his Astronomik.

[jetstream]

1 minute ago, Kon said:

@jetstreamI have not heard back from Astronomik but i had a very frustrating night last night on nebulas, so i want to buy a filter soon.

 

Would you go for the:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/televue-filters/tele-vue-bandmate-oiii-filter.html

or

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

(unless there is another OIII from these companies i missed)

The price difference is marginal so happy for either you think it is better; you seemed very happy with your earlier post on TV but @Johnwas happy with his Astronomik.

@John has an older wider Astronomik, vg btw, I have one too.

Either OIII will be excellent I think, for me now the nod would go to the new TV OIII. I just can't believe it out contrasts my Lumicon-I thought it wouldn't be possible.

[jetstream]

5 minutes ago, Kon said:

i had a very frustrating night last night on nebulas

Please note that filters are not magic... you need dark transparent skies for these objects. I sold my house in town and moved up in the bush for dark skies...

[Kon]

1 hour ago, jetstream said:

Please note that filters are not magic... you need dark transparent skies for these objects. I sold my house in town and moved up in the bush for dark skies...

I fully understand but if it can help with a few targets then i am ok with that. Last night i managed to see the NGC1514 but the nebula looked more like a diffuse haze so if it can pull some more detail that will be great. My skies are bortle 4 so not too bad (I can see part of milky way ok). I also managed to see part of the cone nebula.

[John]

1 hour ago, Kon said:

@jetstreamI have not heard back from Astronomik but i had a very frustrating night last night on nebulas, so i want to buy a filter soon.

 

Would you go for the:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/televue-filters/tele-vue-bandmate-oiii-filter.html

or

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

(unless there is another OIII from these companies i missed)

The price difference is marginal so happy for either you think it is better; you seemed very happy with your earlier post on TV but @Johnwas happy with his Astronomik.

I would go for the Tele Vue. The Astronomik is very good but for that small price difference I would go the Tele Vue. Apart from Gerry, I have read great reports on the Mk II Tele Vue Bandmate filters from a number of other sources as well.

The Mk I Bandmates were very mediocre though - I'm not surprised that they moved to a different manufacturer.

 

Edited February 11, 2021 by John

[jetstream]

1 hour ago, Kon said:

I also managed to see part of the cone nebula.

Are you sure?

[Deadlake]

2 hours ago, jetstream said:

I bought the Binotron 27s for a few reasons including a discussion with Russ. I told him my set up and wanted the binos to work with any of my scopes. He immediately knew what to do- he made an extension for the system to focus in my newts, no charge. This system works in my fracs and newts extremely well.

If I was over there I would look at the new Baaders, research them - but they look good to me. Good EP holders are a must.

Ever tried to see a report on these:

https://www.astronomik.com/en/infrarot-passfilter-infrared-pass-filters/proplanet-807-filter.html

meant to help out with planets when poor seeing, however that could start another thread. 😃

[Deadlake]

2 hours ago, jetstream said:

Please note that filters are not magic... you need dark transparent skies for these objects. I sold my house in town and moved up in the bush for dark skies...

How dark is it where you live, I have just Bortle 4 skies. 

[jetstream]

1 minute ago, Deadlake said:

Ever tried to see a report on these:

https://www.astronomik.com/en/infrarot-passfilter-infrared-pass-filters/proplanet-807-filter.html

meant to help out with planets when poor seeing, however that could start another thread. 😃

Yes the 807 is excellent!

thats the good news!

the bad news is that I cant see this range!!

Im looking at the IR filters for lunar imaging btw.

[jetstream]

1 minute ago, Deadlake said:

How dark is it where you live, I have just Bortle 4 skies. 

Can you define Bortle 4 in your own words from your own observations?

[Kon]

13 minutes ago, jetstream said:

Are you sure?

i saw some tiny patch of nebulosity in that area. unless it is called something else? I think it was part of the Christmas Tree nebula/area? could it have been something else?

 

[jetstream]

I gotta go get birdseed- my little cold red birds out there look hungry! puppy needs some treats too, back soon.

[jetstream]

Just now, Kon said:

i saw some tiny patch of nebulosity in that area. unless it is called something else? I think it was part of the Christmas Tree nebula/area? could it have been something else?

 

Very good!

The Cone nebula is one of the hardest objects there is to see, much harder than the HH by many times.

[Deadlake]

18 minutes ago, jetstream said:

Can you define Bortle 4 in your own words from your own observations?

The Bortle scale is a little losely defined, so I can see why you don't find it precise. A large range of SQM is covered each scale in the Bortle system.

Hence the interest in NV, I'd like to see Nebulae better, only possible using filters. 

Also I find SQM directional, towards London I don't really look as the sky as effected by light pollution. 

Below is close, but also quite a wide description.

• the zodiacal light is still visible, but does not extend halfway to the zenith at dusk or dawn
• light pollution domes visible in several directions
• clouds are illuminated in the directions of the light sources, dark overhead
• surroundings are clearly visible, even at a distance
• the Milky Way well above the horizon is still impressive, but lacks detail
• M33 is a difficult averted vision object, only visible when high in the sky
• limiting magnitude with 12.5" reflector is 15.5

M33 needs a scope where I live.....

Edited February 11, 2021 by Deadlake

[Deadlake]

17 minutes ago, jetstream said:

I gotta go get birdseed- my little cold red birds out there look hungry! puppy needs some treats too, back soon.

What bred of dog have you got?

[Kon]

30 minutes ago, jetstream said:

Can you define Bortle 4 in your own words from your own observations?

last night without the moon the sky was bright from the stars and can make out where the milky way is. i can usually see some of the open clusters as a smudge of bright patch without a telescope. the nebulas and galaxies  i have seen so far are bright withe sky being quite dark around them. i leave in the middle of nowhere with the closest town being over 10 miles away and smaller villages 5miles or so..

 

(sorry i though the question was towards me, but it will be good to see @Deadlakedefinition for comparison)

Edited February 11, 2021 by Kon

[Deadlake]

2 minutes ago, Kon said:

last night without the moon the sky was bright from the stars and can make out where the milky way is. i can usually see some of the open clusters as a smudge of bright patch without a telescope. the nebulas and galaxies  i have seen so far are bright withe sky being quite dark around them. i leave in the middle of nowhere with the closest town being over 10 miles away and smaller villages 5miles or so..

I get surprised thats classified as Bortle 4. family live near Brecon Beacons and thats Bortle 3, say > 21.5 SQM. 

[Kon]

23 minutes ago, jetstream said:

Very good!

The Cone nebula is one of the hardest objects there is to see, much harder than the HH by many times.

no definition by no means; just a smudge the size of a pea.

[scarp15]

1 hour ago, Kon said:

I fully understand but if it can help with a few targets then i am ok with that. Last night i managed to see the NGC1514 but the nebula looked more like a diffuse haze so if it can pull some more detail that will be great. My skies are bortle 4 so not too bad (I can see part of milky way ok). I also managed to see part of the cone nebula.

Nebula associated around S (15) Mon within the Christmas Tree cluster is detectable with moderate sized aperture within dark transparent sky. The larger portion of nebula associated around HD 47887 is a more difficult observation and profiles the Cone. Some more details here. https://observing.skyhound.com/archives/jan/NGC_2264.html