Dark Matters Astrophotography:
I think the takeaway isn't that "more people buy them" (while accurate), it's that you can produce award winning images with them. I don't think you'll find too many people arguing that Antlia is better than Chroma or Astrodon, but too many people argue that you need the best or nothing.
Think of it like complaining that a Ferrari isn't as fast as a McLaren... While technically accurate, people driving a Honda Civic will be extremely happy with the Ferrari as an upgrade.
Sure, however I would not consider the IOTD process the be all end all of what is good data and what is not. The over-indexing on IOTD is heavy for some reason, but it should not lead people to make product purchase decisions over it. If the filters provide the quality of data someone is happy with, then that is the ultimate goal. In our experience this has really only happened with Chroma filters consistently. Don't judge anything on IOTD. The selection process is totally biased. I'm not going to mention names but I know someone who shared data with someone who was " known " and their picture was awarded and his was not. Same data and both processed very well! It's not about what you know or what you have. There's certainly groups and clicks within the voters.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
IMHO, at least consider also the camera you will be using with those new filters. I went through several filter brands because I was getting really bad halos on bright stars, mostly in O3. I picked up an Astrodon 5nm O3 and use Baader filters for the rest. No problems since ! One expensive filter will not usually break the bank.
CS
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I will probably be starting with an APSC camera would you recommend going with a 2" filter size even though I can go with a smaller size and save a couple bucks? What would you recommend?
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
If are are thinking 1.25 vs 2 inch filters just go 2 inch. It's worth the difference in my opinion.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Brett Joslin:
I will probably be starting with an APSC camera would you recommend going with a 2" filter size even though I can go with a smaller size and save a couple bucks? What would you recommend? I have seen the question multiple times regarding ASPC and filter size. most of the replies have said that a 36mm size filter is more than sufficient for ASPC. 2 inch would be more if you are considering Full Frame.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
David Russell:
Brett Joslin:
I will probably be starting with an APSC camera would you recommend going with a 2" filter size even though I can go with a smaller size and save a couple bucks? What would you recommend?
I have seen the question multiple times regarding ASPC and filter size. most of the replies have said that a 36mm size filter is more than sufficient for ASPC. 2 inch would be more if you are considering Full Frame. Thank you! I saw the same. I guess I was really asking if there were people who had to do it again would they just get 2", future proof. I have a scope that I could use a full frame camera plus a full frame DSLR.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Brett Joslin:
I guess I was really asking if there were people who had to do it again would they just get 2", future proof. I have a scope that I could use a full frame camera plus a full frame DSLR. I noticed that over time I have always ended up buying bigger and bigger telescopes to capture smaller and smaller targets. as this progression evolved I have also moved from cameras with larger sensors, such as a DSLR , towards cameras with smaller sensors like my 533. therefore as time goes by the need for 2 inch filters becomes less and less. if I was shooting widefield with a full frame camera 2 inch would make sense. but I shoot Galaxies at 1484mm focal length, and smaller sensors work ok. therefore I say NO, dont get 2 inch filters unless you really need them for wide field and full frame. thats just my opinion, and others think about these thing differently.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I'm wondering about availability, I use 1.25" mounted filters and it seems that a lot of them just aren't available in that size and format, usually the ones I want!
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I dont have a good answer for this but will share experience.
I started with only 1.25 filters and said "I will never need anything more", then I upgraded to a larger sensor, and re-purchase some of the same filters again. When I look at the money I could have saved long term , it could have bought some other nice gear.
Flip side is 1.25 might keep you practical and help keep you from buying more gear, which is an endless cycle.
The quality of the filters is the same, I would just say anything bigger than a 1 inch sensor (ie Asi533mc) will likely need a 2 inch filter.
I can say my first filter wheel was for 2 inch, and I bought the cheap 11 dollar adapter, that was a smart move, so I can use both in the drawer.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Clayton Ostler:
I dont have a good answer for this but will share experience.
I started with only 1.25 filters and said "I will never need anything more", then I upgraded to a larger sensor, and re-purchase some of the same filters again. When I look at the money I could have saved long term , it could have bought some other nice gear.
Flip side is 1.25 might keep you practical and help keep you from buying more gear, which is an endless cycle.
The quality of the filters is the same, I would just say anything bigger than a 1 inch sensor (ie Asi533mc) will likely need a 2 inch filter.
I can say my first filter wheel was for 2 inch, and I bought the cheap 11 dollar adapter, that was a smart move, so I can use both in the drawer. That's good advice. For me, I don't see myself going to a larger sensor, at least in the short term. If I really wanted to go wider than 900mm F/6 I think I would just go with a shorter FL OTA. Thing is, I expect pixel size to continue to decrease as it has for some time now, mostly pushed by the needs of the phone industry and the realities of fabrication costs. Right now the smallest practical size is around 0.4 microns. There are already a few highly specialized sensors that have 0.54 micron pixels. I can see a future where the pixels become exceedingly small but with a lot more built in flexibility in how they are grouped/binned. There's also technology on the horizon that allows the Bayer array to be a thing of the past because a single pixel will be able to discriminate wavelength. Come to think of it, if it turns out to be accurate enough, it would do away with filters almost completely.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I have many sets, optolong, zwo and astronomik. A 36mm set was considered small but it came with me from 1600mm to 2600mm and no need to upgrade. A 3nm set of optolong filter is balance point for me. Except at F2.8 B and O channels, my setups from F/2.8 (Sharpstar 15028HNT) to F3.9 (FRA600) and F7 SCTs all perform well without halos. ZWO filter works but shows many artifects in bright stars. My surprise is F/4 skywatcher 8'' with 6200MM and Optolong 2'' 3nm filter, I didn't see any halos in these bright stars (but the spikes can be really long!) So, in my opinin, a set of Astronomik or even Optolong filter will fit most cases and when you find any more specific problem, you can switch that to more expensive one.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
