Sensitive to bright light so which filters?

[Merlin999]

Hi,

I have an eye condition which means I need to avoid bright light, have terrible night vision, have large gaps in my Field of Vision and am plagued by constant flashing lights. So what is my favourite hobby? Yip astronomy.

So far I have used binoculars and it hasn't been too bad. But now I am upgrading to a telescope I am thinking I need to get some decent filters so I don't damage my eyes. I will definitely be looking at the moon, so does anyone have any good recommendations for a decent filter?

Do you think I would need a filter for Jupiter etc?

[Doc]

I find it depends on what aperture you are using. In my 16" even Jupiter is blinding I have to use a Neodydium filter. It's very good cuts the glare by at least half.

On my Tal 4" I find I don't need a filter the view is pretty pleasent.

[Merlin999]

Thanks for that Doc. My two short-listed telescopes are the Skymax 127 and the Skyliner 8" dob, I know they are very different scopes(!) and I think in the long run I'll end up getting both;)

Would you be able to recommend the best filters for each of those?

My eye condition is such that my consultant has recommended that when I have my eye test each year I ask the optician not to shine the bright light onto my retina unless absolutley necessary so I would like to invest in a decent set of filters that still allows me to see what I'm looking at but protects my eyes.

[Steve1976]

Sorry to hear about your eyes mate, and there was me feeling sorry for myself for having an eye allergy for the past 3 months (damn ragweed!)

I have the Skymax 127 and always use a moon filter not only on the moon but also on jupiter. For me they're both just too bright otherwise. I wouldn't have thought you would need filters for much else except Venus if you've handled the bino's ok but then again I'm not an optician.

I have a 5 coloured TAL filter set and they work well for me and they were pretty cheap.

[Merlin999]

Thanks Steve. I thought a filter would be useful for Jupiter. I'll have a look at the TAL set.

I wouldn't feel bad about feeling sorry about an eye allergy. That is pretty miserable in its own right! I've had my eye condition for quite a number of years now (lost my driving licence 13 years ago) so I've gotten pretty used to it and I try not to let it stop me doing things I love.

Can I ask, how are your views of Jupiter with the 127 Mak? What sort of detail can you see? And ditto for Saturn.

That is my slight hesitation on buying the 127 Mak whether the 8" dob gives much better detail on the planets. I know the 8" is better for DSOs though, but at the moment I really want it for viewing planets.

I was also wondering if you had the 127 on the Supatrak mount and whether you have found its tracking useful.?I think that would be good for me because with my own FOV being pretty shot, it would be useful to have a telescope which tracks for me.

[coffee_prince]

I have a variable moon filter, you can adjust the brightness, but it can also be used for other planets etc. It costs about £30 and is worth a look. I bought mine from FLO a while back but I haven't used it yet on the telescope, but i can look into the lens and look straight into a lightbulb and it blocks out a lot at its highest setting

[Steve1976]

With regards to the mount I have the GEM so its non tracking. Haven't found the lack of it a problem to be honest and I think its possible to buy motors for this seperately anyway. I just felt that perhaps the GEM would be the more stable mount but I'm no expert on this. I know there are many folks on here with the Supatrack and GOTO versions. I guess each has its own advantages.

For Jupiter I can easily see the northern equatorial band and have seen the GRS a few times. With the lunar filter I can begin to see more subtle banding. I can also see all the moons off course. As for Saturn you can see Titan easily and I'm sure I got another moon in. The rings were not at a very favourable angle earlier this year so I'm told but you can see the cassini division. Not much in terms of detail on the planet itself but never got a chance to use my filters on it. To be honest I'm pretty new to this myself and my observation skills are probably not the best! I guess the more you look the more you see is the general rule with any scope.

Couldn't comment much on the DOB other than yeah its gonna be much better on the DSO's, not sure on the planets - I'll let the more experienced judge that one. I would say however that after 7 months of doing this I'm already craving more aperture!

[Doc]

Go for a Neodydium filter it will work in both scopes and dim the brightness down.

[Merlin999]

coffee: yes I spoke to FLO and they recommended one of their moon filters. I like the idea of the variable brightness which means my kids and husband can change it if they need to.

Steve:wow, I didn't know you could see the GRS with the 127Mak. That would be amazing. It sounds like you are having a great time with it, but that you are already thinking about your next telescope. I think that might be me in a few months time!

Doc: Thanks, I'll have a look at the Neodydium filter. Is that better than the Baader or the Variable Polarising ones you can buy? It is very important I get the filters right both to protect my eyes but also to make it so my husband and children can still get the most out of it too without having to change filters.

[Doc]

I swear by mine, it also acts as a light pollution filter and cuts out a little of the sky glow. I have the Baader 2" one but you can get 1.25" as well.

[Steve1976]

Yeah I love the MAK, am certainly not dissapointed in it. It's really portable, is great on the planets, moon and double stars. I've bagged quite a few DSO's with it too, obviously not with the same detail as the DOB, but I've got some good skies and so there's lots to see. Definitely getting a DOB soon though! Why limit yourself to one scope eh!

[Merlin999]

Thanks for your really helpful advice Doc. Sorry, didn't twig the Baader was a Neodydium filter (my there is a lot to learn). Saw that filter on the FLO website. They seem to come in different densities: 0.6 to 3.0. Do you have any idea which would be best for me for good moon/Jupiter viewing?

Steve: I am so pleased you like the 127 MAK. I think that may be my first buy and then I may look to buy an 8" dob second hand at a later date. As you say, why limit yourself to one!!! (well OK there's the money aspect hence me choosing the second hand route and then there's storage but piffle, these are mere trivialities.) If you do go on to buy the 8" dob I'd be interested to hear how you feel it compares to the MAK.

[MikeWilson]

I just saw your other post after posting my own request for help in choosing a filter too

Ok - I have the Skywatcher 1.25" filter on the Mak 127. I bought it new with the Mak and it's permanently attached to my favourite eyepiece as it's good not just for reducing light pollution from the nearby orange lights but also for improving the contrast of the moon and Jupiter, too.

I don't use the moon filter on Jupiter although I don't see why you wouldn't want to as Jupiter can be bright. But not so bright that it's hard to look at. The moon on the other hand is dazzling. It's closer and bigger and reflects the sun incredibly well. Indeed it even reflects light that was originally reflected from the earth (earthshine!).

There is a variable polarising filter that looks like a good purchase if you plan to view the moon frequently. I have two moon filters - a darker one and a not-so-dark one that came with my eyepiece set. A polarising one would let you set your own comfort level, so could be good for you re: eye condition.

The Skywatcher 1.25" light pollution filter is just as good as the Baader Neodydium filter - so you can save yourself a few quid and just get the Skywatcher one. It's so good that when I got my Newt 2" I picked up the 2" version of the same light pollution filter. It should be standard kit, in my opinion!

RE: the Dob - the dob is basically a Newtonian on a simplified mount. I have a 6" Newtonian and the planets are no way near as good on that as the Mak. However, an 8" might close the gap somewhat but I would not expect it to be better. The disadvantage for the Mak in terms of the field of view becomes an advantage when looking at the planets. Higher magnification, more forgiving on (cheaper) eyepieces and very high contrast.

[Merlin999]

Thanks for that Mike. A variable filter could certainly be a good option. I think it would be useful for me also on Jupiter given its brightness.

[MikeWilson]

Thanks for that Mike. A variable filter could certainly be a good option. I think it would be useful for me also on Jupiter given its brightness.

It's not as bright as you think it might be.

The moon can knock you sideways with brightness but fortunately it's really easy to find You can move the moon into the eyepiece slowly, increasing brightness as you go.

[Merlin999]

Thanks for that Mike

[Ogri]

My eyes are ultra sensitive too (pupil welded wide open). To the point I got arc eye off the Moon, even with a Meade moon filter fitted to dads 130p Heritage 'scope (part of why I was wary of getting a 'scope bigger than 120mm, before I knew I could tame its light grasp).

I don't know what grade of filtering the Meade is, but if going with a Neutral Density (Meade type), I'd go at least a degree darker than the Meade, and maybe more again.

The variable Polarising filter definitely works. I use separates, fit one to the bottom of the 1.25" eyepiece adapter, the other to the bottom of the eyepiece, and just rotate the eyepiece until the view is comfortable.

eta: I find Jupiter is ok with 1 of the polarising filters, or with the UHC filter (though if seeing conditions are pretty bad, the UHC will give all sorts of colours like Chromatic Aberration, but a lot worse). I wouldn't be surprised if the Skywatcher Light Pollution Filter with 1 of the polarising filters, turned out to be rather nice for Jupiter too. I'll have to try that sometime.

eta2: Just to echo Mike's sentiments really, I find the Skywatcher LPF to be so good, it's worth having even if you don't have light pollution. The contrast enhancement it offers is indispensible, to me, not as heavy contrast wise as the UHC - Ultra High Contrast - which is also pretty much indispensible for the contrast benefits. The OIII is heavier again than the UHC, so if you found the UHC wasn't strong enough, the OIII would be a further option (it's also useful for seeing additional things to the UHC and LPF with DSO's).

[Merlin999]

Thanks Ogri, good to hear from someone who is light sensitive too. The variable filter sounds ideal especially as I need it to be dark but my kids and husband probably won't want it so dark.

The LPF is something I am definitely considering and it is interesting to hear you find it so useful.

Thanks again Ogri, some great advice there.