Jump to content

Narrowband

OIII filter - Baader or Skywatcher?


dobserver

Recommended Posts

I was wondering if anyone has any advice on the OIII filters above?

I would prefer the Baader, but can just about afford the Skywatcher! Will I be disappointed with the cheaper filter? Would I notice much difference if I tried them both?

As the Baader is almost twice the £ is the result worth twice the money?

Any thoughts?

Steph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 25
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I think with filters you tend to get what you pay for...

although there is for sure a 'curve of diminishing returns' at the higher and lower ends of the price spectrum...

I would think the Baader filter is probably worth its double price tag in terms of returns in image quality and re-sale value which is always worth thinking about.

Baader are noted for their non-reflective properties....

Astronomik may be a 'middle-ground' alternative.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Steve - thanks for responding. I do believe you get what you pay for and I did really set my heart on the Baader. I'm not bothered about resale value as the filter should be with me for years to come. It is the image quality that is important to me, as I only want to have to buy this item once! If I buy the cheaper one and am not happy with it I'll have a long time to regret it. Thing is, I've got the money to buy the Skywatcher now, but I'll have to be patient for longer if I get the Baader. I have checked out the Astronomik and it would be more expensive than the Baader due to the pants exchange rate of the pound to the Euro at the moment.

The question is - can I stop myself being impulsive and wait to get the filter of choice?

Hmmmm......

Steph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have an Astonomik OIII (visual) in the 2" size. It was not cheap (I got it used) but it's superb - the best narrowband filter I've used.. I've tried the Baader OIII and I found that too severe for my taste (virtually no background stars in smaller apertures). I've also owned Baader UHC-S, Orion Ultrablock and the Telescope Services UHC all of which worked pretty well but the Astronomik is the only filter that I've tried that maintains pinpoint star images - all the others introduce some slight distortions in stella images I found. In terms of band pass I reckon the Astronomik is a "wide" OIII - it has a substantial impact on planetary and nebulae, again more so that any of the other filters I've tried, plus you can still see your DSO's in the context of their star fields, even with my 4" ED refractor.

As you might gather from this, I'm a great fan of the Astronomik :D

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you might gather from this, I'm a great fan of the Astronomik :)

John

Sounds like you are loving that filter! Sadly the Astronomik puts another £40 on top of the Baader, so it's a non-starter for me. The filter will only be used with my 12" Lightbridge. Do you think there is enough light-gathering in this scope to overcome the star blocking effect? :D

Steph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like you are loving that filter! Sadly the Astronomik puts another £40 on top of the Baader, so it's a non-starter for me. The filter will only be used with my 12" Lightbridge. Do you think there is enough light-gathering in this scope to overcome the star blocking effect? :D

Steph

Yes Steph - I think the Baader would be fine with 12" aperture :)

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you know Steph I use the Baader in a 16" dob so I would say it should work really well in a 12".

Bare in mind it takes some getting used to. I found in my Hyperions it made the view very green, but in my new Uwan's most of that green has dissappeared. Don't get me wrong it's not completely gone just toned down so you do not recognise it as much.

As John has said the Baader is pretty severe in what oxygen lines it lets through and hence alot of the background stars are removed but it does show the veil and various nebulas really well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK so from what I've learned so far....

You get what you pay for - the Skywatcher filter may do the job OK at first but if I ever need to clean it the surfaces will quickly degrade and I'll have to replace the filter - so that's false economy and a non-starter.

The Astronomik is a great filter but the exchange rate is making it uncompetetive to buy new at the moment.

So I'm going to save up for the Baader as it should last a long time and work well with my scope. In the meantime I can look around for a second hand one which would save me some dosh, although by the looks of things they are like hen's teeth in the 2" version, which is what I need.

So I'll have to learn patience - not my strongest suit but there you go! *sniff*

Steph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, I used Skywatcher's UHC filter, and directly compared it to the well-respected Orion Ultrablock filter. For all intents and purposes, I could not tell the slightest bit of difference!!

For this reason, I personally would have no prejudices about trying out Skywatcher's OIII filter. I'm also looking out for a 2" OIII filter, I'm also having a difficult time locating one second hand, and I also have the Baader vs. Astronomik vs. Skywatcher quandary going on in my head.

While you're right that Baader use very strong coatings, that doesn't mean that other manufacturers use degradable coatings. Generally, careful cleaning WILL NOT degrade optical coatings.

Andrew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK thanks for your input, Andrew.

I've just had a chat with James at FLO and he thinks I won't notice any difference visually between the Baader and the Skywatcher. Also so long as it is not maltreated it will last a long time. So I'm going to try the Skywatcher out and see how I go on....

Told you patience isn't one of my virtues! :D Nor is making decisions! lol

Steph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steph

I believe the Skywatcher is worth a try - I am certainly going to buy one over the next month or so. Over the years I have found that most amateur astronomers look after their equipment with kid gloves. Therefore the coating in the main will be ok for many years use. If you buy a Skywatcher in the next couple of weeks give an opinion on your views of the Veil, M57 Ring, or the M27 Dumbbell that would be the immediate best test.

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ooohh - I'm drooling just thinking about seeing the Veil properly!

It was the Veil in a 20" Dob that made we want to take up astronomy :D

I can just make it out using my 12" Dob without the OIII filter, but it is such an anti-climax when you know what is really lurking there, ready to jump out at me and knock my socks off when I attach that precious little sliver of glass....

Mark I'll certainly post a first light report once it arrives :)

Steph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I looked at the Veil last Monday through my 12" dob and Skywatcher 32mm Panaview with oiii fitted and the view was rubbish. A total anti climax. After all the great things I have read regarding the oii filters I was really disappointed. True, without the filter I couldn't see the Veil at all so it obviously made some difference, just not a 'stunning' as I had heard and was hoping for. It was like a very faint, long silver/grey cloud. A small Milky Way if you will. I'll try again next time I get the chance and maybe I'll be a touch luckier. Maybe it was the seeing conditions, but it looked clear and the view of Jupiter on the same night was the best I have seen it.

Regards

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strange John, through my 16" dob using a 28 UWAN and Baader O111 it's pretty damn good.

Maybe it's how people have different expectations.

Whats it like through your 13E. That should be pretty good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I looked at the Veil last Monday through my 12" dob and Skywatcher 32mm Panaview with oiii fitted and the view was rubbish. A total anti climax. After all the great things I have read regarding the oii filters I was really disappointed. True, without the filter I couldn't see the Veil at all so it obviously made some difference, just not a 'stunning' as I had heard and was hoping for. It was like a very faint, long silver/grey cloud. A small Milky Way if you will. I'll try again next time I get the chance and maybe I'll be a touch luckier. Maybe it was the seeing conditions, but it looked clear and the view of Jupiter on the same night was the best I have seen it.

Regards

John

There are a number of componants to the Veil that won't fit into the field of view of a 12" f/5 scope even with the lowest, widest power. I think you have seen just one portion - probably NGC6960 AKA "The Witches Broom" by the sound of it.

Like everything else in visual astronomy, the more you examine these objects, the more you will see - these are faint objects that are significantly affected by just the slightest adverse seeing, a little light pollution, poor tranparency etc.

Keep looking at these objects, train your eye to pick out the faint contrast features and fine details and you will find you will get more and more impressed. "the universe does not give up it's secrets easily" - can't recall who said that but it's true I find :)

With my 4" F/6.5 refractor, my Nagler 31mm and the Astronomik OIII filter I can see both sides of the Veil and parts of the central areas such as Pickering's Triangular Wisp on a really good night and it's a wonderful sight IMHO ;)

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With my 4" F/6.5 refractor, my Nagler 31mm and the Astronomik OIII filter I can see both sides of the Veil and parts of the central areas such as Pickering's Triangular Wisp on a really good night and it's a wonderful sight IMHO ;)

Oh the joy of a widefield refractor. One day I must own one of these beauties. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a number of componants to the Veil that won't fit into the field of view of a 12" f/5 scope even with the lowest, widest power. I think you have seen just one portion - probably NGC6960 AKA "The Witches Broom" by the sound of it.

Like everything else in visual astronomy, the more you examine these objects, the more you will see - these are faint objects that are significantly affected by just the slightest adverse seeing, a little light pollution, poor tranparency etc.

Keep looking at these objects, train your eye to pick out the faint contrast features and fine details and you will find you will get more and more impressed. "the universe does not give up it's secrets easily" - can't recall who said that but it's true I find :)

With my 4" F/6.5 refractor, my Nagler 31mm and the Astronomik OIII filter I can see both sides of the Veil and parts of the central areas such as Pickering's Triangular Wisp on a really good night and it's a wonderful sight IMHO :)

John

Hi John,

It was The Witches Broom, I think as it was so long. The next time I get chance I'll try scanning around to find more. Yours and Micks replies have whetted my appetite to have another go....;)

Regards

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi John,

It was The Witches Broom, I think as it was so long. The next time I get chance I'll try scanning around to find more. Yours and Micks replies have whetted my appetite to have another go....;)

Regards

John

The other "bright" (relatively speaking !) section is NGC 6992 (aka "the Bridal Veil" ) which is slightly brighter than "the broom" and is a delicately curving thread of misty fillaments which almost fills the whole field of view in my 12" F/5 dob with the Nagler 31mm (49x). This was the segment that I spotted 1st when I found the Veil for the first time with my 100mm ED refractor on an excclent night a few years ago.

Without the OIII though the Veil is very hard to pick out from my backyard skies, even with the 12".

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see both sides of the Veil and parts of the central areas such as Pickering's Triangular Wisp

John

What a wonderful name! ;) I like it.

I'm not expecting it to be like the photos you see, but I'm hoping the filter will help it to stand out more. I can make out the Witches Broom without the filter, but only in a barely there, snaky, smoky, smudgy kind of way.

Let's hope the postal strikes haven't kicked in yet so I can get going with it *fingers crossed*

Steph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strange John, through my 16" dob using a 28 UWAN and Baader O111 it's pretty damn good.

Maybe it's how people have different expectations.

Whats it like through your 13E. That should be pretty good.

Hi ,

The view through the 13E was just the same (only closer). I wasn't expecting to see the Veil as grand as the images we see in books etc., but a lot of the advertising blurb states that the OIII filters are capable of 'near photographic views'. What I was seeing was just a long, silvery, barely visible smudge. Hopefully it was just the seeing conditions, so I'll keep trying and hope for the best!

Best wishes

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

..... a lot of the advertising blurb states that the OIII filters are capable of 'near photographic views'.

What the blurb fails to mention (as ever !) is that there are many other factors that will affect the views of these faint deep sky objects. Each night, even from hour to hour, will vary. There have been nights when I've struggled to see even the brighter DSO's with my 12" dob and then others when they jump right out at you. It's a funny old business ;)

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the blurb fails to mention (as ever !) is that there are many other factors that will affect the views of these faint deep sky objects. Each night, even from hour to hour, will vary. There have been nights when I've struggled to see even the brighter DSO's with my 12" dob and then others when they jump right out at you. It's a funny old business :)

John

That's very true. I was forgetting about the first time I viewed the Owl nebula with the OIII. It was a great sight, (one eye easily visible and a hint of the other), but all subsequent times have not been quite so good. I guess the 'near photographic views' statement means under very dark and still skies rather than light polluted back gardens. I must admit I was a little despondent with my first view of the Veil but I will certainly try looking at it again with the OIII. Maybe next time will be great. Your messages have been most helpful and deeply appreciated and helped to spur me on. ;)

Cheers!

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...

Hi ,

The view through the 13E was just the same (only closer). I wasn't expecting to see the Veil as grand as the images we see in books etc., but a lot of the advertising blurb states that the OIII filters are capable of 'near photographic views'. What I was seeing was just a long, silvery, barely visible smudge. Hopefully it was just the seeing conditions, so I'll keep trying and hope for the best!

Best wishes

John

Near photographic views (apart from the colour) if you have your 12" scope under extremely dark skies with perfect transparency - if you're lucky. To me filters are the difference between not being able to see something and just making it out with averted vision (under light polluted skies)

Just realised I was doing a google search when I brought up the thread - didn't notice how old it was!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.