L-extreme and Canon 600D First Light

[smashing]

Seen a few questions on this so thought as I managed to get mine delivered a few weeks ago I would write something up.

I managed to nab a couple of clear nights this week to try the filter I ordered back in January from Flo (which came with the normal spell of miserable weather).

I needed a target and as I hadn't managed to get anything on it this season I went for M42, now this may not seem like much of a test but I was up against the following

•  B6 skies (at the best of times) 
• Almost full moon (no head torch needed to read a book)
• Target low on the horizon over the worst of my light pollution
• Friendly neighbors that like to leave their floodlights on even when they've asked me how it's going when I was setting up
• Seeing was pretty poor

It was honestly in the worst position to image from my location but it was bright and I wanted to try and I had a few clear nights where I could grab a couple of hours before the house blocked the view. 

Managed to get everything fired up and talking to each other (small wins ) and then pointcraft to a bright star and learned my first lesson...you need a BRIGHT star to focus on when you have the Bahtinov mask on...like really bright! After much internal debate I decided that yes, the focus was good enough and off we went...I even managed to get PHD2 to behave (makes a change!). 

Second lesson was, you need longer subs than you think to bring the histogram off of the left hand side (much more than the IDAS D2 I normally use).

This is a single 300 second sub, no stretch from my second night with next doors light shining pretty much straight onto the rig

Now I managed to grab just shy of 5 hours worth of data (300 sec subs, bias and flats with an equinox 80, modded Canon 600D, HEQ5) over two nights and with a very quick and dirty process managed to get the following

It needs a LOT of work but I just wanted to see what was in there and I am quite impressed.

Anyway I'll post something properly when I have had another few attempts at processing it properly  If anyone wants the stacked image to play with let me know and I'll post it up.

Thanks for reading.

 

[scitmon]

Some lovely detail there.  I have been umming and arrring over the optolong dual band filters for my 700d so i'll be watching this thread with interest.

[geeklee]

The extended detail outside M42 and the depth to the clouds within M42 are stunning.  Sounds like a lot of challenges to overcome, so no wonder you're impressed - you should be!

[smashing]

And with a bit more time I get the following...soooo difficult not to completely blow out the core chasing the out dust...need to get my masking hat back on again.

[geeklee]

51 minutes ago, smashing said:

And with a bit more time I get the following...soooo difficult not to completely blow out the core chasing the out dust...need to get my masking hat back on again.

If you don't have separate shorter exposures for the core, perhaps blending in a less stretched core with a mask?  I'm guessing the core will still be well blown out @ 300s but a less stretched version might give you something back.

[smashing]

20 minutes ago, geeklee said:

If you don't have separate shorter exposures for the core, perhaps blending in a less stretched core with a mask?  I'm guessing the core will still be well blown out @ 300s but a less stretched version might give you something back.

That's indeed the plan 🙂 not sure how much I'll get out of it but will give it a go...always next year hahaha

[Rustang]

Lovely images 😊 but I personally don't see what the extreme has added even in those conditions, for its cost I feel it hasn't appeared to do anymore than what the L enhance can do. 

Below-600D and L-enhance 

Edited February 28, 2021 by Rustang

[Stuf1978]

That's a great result considering the conditions. I'll be moving to an L-extreme when I eventually get my OSC camera later in the year (from dslr and L-enhance) so it's good to see what it can do

FWIW I'm convinced that M42 isn't the best of targets for these dual band filters as they seem to kill a lot of the detail, especially the more reflective parts of it. 

Edited March 1, 2021 by Stuf1978

[rnobleeddy]

On 28/02/2021 at 22:39, Rustang said:

Lovely images 😊 but I personally don't see what the extreme has added even in those conditions, for its cost I feel it hasn't appeared to do anymore than what the L enhance can do. 

Below-600D and L-enhance 

 

The extreme has to be better - with a narrower band pass you get more of the signal you want. Of course, that may not make a noticeable difference to the final image, but it's bound to be measurable if you compared them side by side with the same sky/equipment.

[Rustang]

7 hours ago, rnobleeddy said:

 

The extreme has to be better - with a narrower band pass you get more of the signal you want. Of course, that may not make a noticeable difference to the final image, but it's bound to be measurable if you compared them side by side with the same sky/equipment.

On paper from a technical point of view yes it probably should perform better, my argument is that I've not seen a single example (I've seen loads) with the same or simular camera and filter (I also have the 600D, and live in Bortel 6) that proves its better in terms of the data it collects against the L enhance. There are many things in life that on paper are better but I go off real life examples before spending out. At the end of the day it's only my personal point of view, people can use what they like and if they are happy with its results then that's all that counts, the above is a lovely image but I personally would not spend the money on that filter thats all. 😊

 

 

Edited March 2, 2021 by Rustang

[smashing]

46 minutes ago, Rustang said:

On paper from a technical point of view yes it probably should perform better, my argument is that I've not seen a single example (I've seen loads) with the same or simular camera and filter (I also have the 600D, and live in Bortel 6) that proves its better in terms of the data it collects against the L enhance. There are many things in life that on paper are better but I go off real life examples before spending out. At the end of the day it's only my personal point of view, people can use what they like and if they are happy with its results then that's all that counts, the above is a lovely image but I personally would not spend the money on that filter thats all. 😊

 

 

It was certainly cheaper than the mono camera and filters that I put in my basket first hahahahaha

I get what you're saying don't worry

 

 

[Rustang]

15 minutes ago, smashing said:

It was certainly cheaper than the mono camera and filters that I put in my basket first hahahahaha

I get what you're saying don't worry

 

 

Yeah going mono is certainly not a cheap option! 😊

Edited March 2, 2021 by Rustang

[SteveNickolls]

Hi thanks for posting. I will be very interested to see your final result using the filter with the modified 600D in the light polluted environment that is Nottingham 'Queen of the Midlands'.

Quite understand your wish to try out the filter and we have had a terribly long wait for any clear sky since the beginning of November 2020, pity it coincides with a waxing and full Moon but there you go. M42's brightness will try to break through some of the light pollution.

Interested on a side note-how you are faring with the IDAS (LPS) D2 filter under your conditions?

Cheers,
Steve

Edited March 2, 2021 by SteveNickolls

[smashing]

15 minutes ago, SteveNickolls said:

Hi thanks for posting. I will be very interested to see your final result using the filter with the modified 600D in the light polluted environment that is Nottingham 'Queen of the Midlands'.

Quite understand your wish to try out the filter and we have had a terribly long wait for any clear sky since the beginning of November 2020, pity it coincides with a waxing and full Moon but there you go. M42's brightness will try to break through some of the light pollution.

Interested on a side note-how you are faring with the IDAS (LPS) D2 filter under your conditions?

Cheers,
Steve

Hi Steve,

Will be having another bash at processing this at the weekend so will post something up if I get any better than the above haha with regards to the IDAS filter it did make quite a bit of difference for me. 

The below was taken with it.

At some point, when I'm not scared to do it outside in the dark I'll try and take some comparison shots with the two.

 

[SteveNickolls]

8 hours ago, smashing said:

At some point, when I'm not scared to do it outside in the dark I'll try and take some comparison shots with the two.

👍👍👍

[alacant]

On 28/02/2021 at 23:39, Rustang said:

anymore than what the L enhance can do

Taking this the other way, I'm not sure what advantage the €150 L-enhance is supposed to have over a €30 UHC. Same effect. Different price. DSLR.

Still thinking, although not many targets left to test until May/June time.

Cheers

Edited March 2, 2021 by alacant

[Neko]

11 hours ago, Rustang said:

On paper from a technical point of view yes it probably should perform better, my argument is that I've not seen a single example (I've seen loads) with the same or simular camera and filter (I also have the 600D, and live in Bortel 6) that proves its better in terms of the data it collects against the L enhance. There are many things in life that on paper are better but I go off real life examples before spending out. At the end of the day it's only my personal point of view, people can use what they like and if they are happy with its results then that's all that counts, the above is a lovely image but I personally would not spend the money on that filter thats all. 😊

 

 

Well.... here you have one  
L-enhance vs L-extreme, same equipment, same exposure time and...very different results. 
It depends on what do you want to achieve. I personally own only the L-pro for now, But eventually will get one of this two to combine with the more broad signal of the L-pro. 
But yeah, there's a difference... 

 

[Rustang]

1 hour ago, alacant said:

Taking this the other way, I'm not sure what advantage the €150 L-enhance is supposed to have over a €30 UHC. Same effect. Different price. DSLR.

Still thinking, although not many targets left to test until May/June time.

Cheers

That's a fair comment 😊 I've never compared the two but was happy using the L enhance. 

[Rustang]

1 hour ago, Neko said:

Well.... here you have one  
L-enhance vs L-extreme, same equipment, same exposure time and...very different results. 
It depends on what do you want to achieve. I personally own only the L-pro for now, But eventually will get one of this two to combine with the more broad signal of the L-pro. 
But yeah, there's a difference... 

 

What camera was he using, I doubt it was a DSLR, which is where I feel it has little or no advantage. It has been mentioned online from  well known guy in this hobby that the extreme isant really suited to older DSLR's which is where I feel the lack of noticeable difference is coming from. I don't know everything and I'm just going on real life examples with DSLR's that I've seen around that's all. 

Edited March 2, 2021 by Rustang

[Neko]

1 minute ago, Rustang said:

What camera was he using, I doubt it was a DSLR, which is where I feel it has little or no advantage. It has been mentioned online from  well known guy in this hobby that the extreme isant really suited to older DSLR's which is where I feel the lack of noticeable difference is coming from. I don't know everything and I'm just going on what I've seen around  that's all. 

I see, well, if is specifically on DSLR then I don't know.. would depends also if it is modified or not. But to what point would it be that different ?  The fact is that it cuts out more "unnecessary " light, so it contrasts more those specific bands. 
as I understand anyway... I can't tell either. I have L-pro, and a friend of mine has the L-enhance , I had a chance to process some of his files to see what comes out.  but then again he uses a asi294Mc , not DSLR. 
Did you check Astrobin for examples on DLSR + L-extreme? 

will have a look too ^^ 

 

[Rustang]

15 minutes ago, Neko said:

I see, well, if is specifically on DSLR then I don't know.. would depends also if it is modified or not. But to what point would it be that different ?  The fact is that it cuts out more "unnecessary " light, so it contrasts more those specific bands. 
as I understand anyway... I can't tell either. I have L-pro, and a friend of mine has the L-enhance , I had a chance to process some of his files to see what comes out.  but then again he uses a asi294Mc , not DSLR. 
Did you check Astrobin for examples on DLSR + L-extreme? 

will have a look too ^^ 

 

I haven't to be honest, would be interesting to have a look. True in regards to modified or not. It's just what I've seen on here and other sites. 

[Gerr]

Hi, I have an astro modded 650D Canon DSLR and I used the Optolong Pro filter in imaging M42 night before last.

My skies are Bortle 6 and I was able to take 64x40 sec subs (ISO 800) of this Nebula using SW200P Reflector.

I am not experienced enough in commenting about filters yet but maybe my image can help in your discussions?

I do have the L-eNhance filter too and would anyone recommend using this in combination with my clip in L Pro on an astro modded DSLR???? I'm thinking probably not as the L-eNhance is essentially a dual broadband filter and this would  limit the usefulness of the L Pro in the same imaging train?.

[rnobleeddy]

3 hours ago, alacant said:

Taking this the other way, I'm not sure what advantage the €150 L-enhance is supposed to have over a €30 UHC. Same effect. Different price. DSLR.

Still thinking, although not many targets left to test until May/June time.

Cheers

I'd guess it'd depend on the UHC. The easiest way to compare filters is to ignore the name and look at the chart of wavelength vs transmission %!

[rnobleeddy]

1 hour ago, Neko said:

I see, well, if is specifically on DSLR then I don't know.. would depends also if it is modified or not. But to what point would it be that different ?  The fact is that it cuts out more "unnecessary " light, so it contrasts more those specific bands. 
as I understand anyway... I can't tell either. I have L-pro, and a friend of mine has the L-enhance , I had a chance to process some of his files to see what comes out.  but then again he uses a asi294Mc , not DSLR. 
Did you check Astrobin for examples on DLSR + L-extreme? 

will have a look too ^^ 

 

The problem with comparisons on the internet is there's too much variability. It'd need to be a side by side comparison, and I doubt many people buy both just to do that!

 

[alacant]

44 minutes ago, rnobleeddy said:

too much variability

 

45 minutes ago, rnobleeddy said:

chart of wavelength

Taken on consecutive nights at the same site: eos700d.

To look at and through, the filters seem almost identical.

Here is the L-enhance.

Here is the UHC:

Here is the maths:

Both with sub €300 telescopes. Unfortunately still anecdotal as not a true side by side. Sufficient however to convince me...

Cheers

 

Edited March 2, 2021 by alacant