Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

PVS-7 Night Vision goggle filter candidates

  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#26 The Ardent

The Ardent

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4467
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Virginia

Posted 08 October 2015 - 01:55 AM

Reading Cloudy Nights is like taking a college science class. The forum is the classroom part. You can lecture me but I'm thinking of other things. Going outside observing is the lab part. I'm running experiments as part of my education. It's one thing to read about the principles involved, it's another too see them in action.  :graduate:


Edited by The Ardent, 08 October 2015 - 01:56 AM.


#27 Eddgie

Eddgie

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 24408
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2006

Posted 08 October 2015 - 07:02 AM

Are these mostly objects that you would have not tried for in the past from you location without using night vision?

 

That was what I found.   There were many targets that just seemed slightly out of reach, or that were so dim as to be disappointing from my back yard.

 

I had a whole list of objects I would go after on nights of excellent transparency, but often they would be at best poorly seen.

 

One of the great benefits (maybe the greatest benefit) is that many of those targets are now within reach on an average night.  I saw the Pac Man nebula from my back yard for the first time ever using my Micro on a night that was not at all special.  Light haze with maybe a suburban level of light pollution.   Would not have had a chance of seeing it with normal glass, and while it was not fantastic in night vision under those conditions, I could see it almost as well as when viewed directly from my old dark sky location (which go so light polluted in the last 15 years that it is no longer dark, hence my waning interest in traveling to dark sky since it is now so much further).

 

And Globulars that were only faint glows with glass, while maybe lacking magnification, always show more resolution with NV than was possible with higher power in the dob.

 

Anyway, guess what I am asking is if you are feeling that it has been successful in terms of letting you observe many objects that were beyond your reach using traditional eyepieces.



#28 Vondragonnoggin

Vondragonnoggin

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8619
  • Joined: 21 Feb 2010
  • Loc: Southern CA, USA

Posted 08 October 2015 - 07:18 AM

Interesting results

 

I can see the Eastern and Western Veil pretty good using a 7nm Ha and my AT72ED @ F/6. Surprises me that it was faint in your 4", even at F/7.4

 

It was mentioned the Horsehead able to be made out in the 3" F/6.6. Horsehead much harder than Veil sections. Was there haze in the sky when viewing the Veil remnants?

 

Were any specs on tube performance given with PVS-7 purchase? 



#29 Eddgie

Eddgie

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 24408
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2006

Posted 08 October 2015 - 03:05 PM

Yes, I was curious about his tube specs.

 

I sent him a link to the Australian night vision site where they have scads of tube specs and contract numbers so he can determine the Omni level, but a the price point, I would not be surprised if he got OMNI 3 Plus, but hoping he got OMNI 5 or OMNI 6 or something.

 

My doubt is based on the fact that I asked the guy at NAIT to let me know if he ran across a good 10130 D/UV in the OMNI-5 or 7 range and he gave me the impression that he does not encounter them often.  My bet is it is a mid range tube.  

 

I am compelled to upgrade my tube to OMNI 6 or 7, or just buy a new NVD Micro PVS-7 with ULT tube and sell the entire PVS-7 I currently have.

 

I do like the idea of having a 10 year warranty. 

 

I love love love my ULT Micro, but I also love using two eyes.  Will use the PVS-7 as a telescope binoviewer, and the Micro as my mono-view/camera lens platform so I can run both at the same time.  For some reason, the NVD Micro seems more ergonomic too me for low power 3x or camera lens use.


  • bsavoie likes this

#30 PEterW

PEterW

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1807
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2006
  • Loc: SW London, UK

Posted 08 October 2015 - 04:15 PM

Some specs (EBI) can be worse on the newer omni levels... Go for the best spec regardless of the omni...

 

peter



#31 The Ardent

The Ardent

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4467
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Virginia

Posted 09 October 2015 - 05:56 PM

 I had the best night so far. What so nice about the PVS7:

 

1. the correct view in the dob. Matches my RACI Finder. 

2. Dark adaptation not critical. I need a bright red light to read my charts. This affects my adaptation for visual observing. With the PVS7 not a problem. I have more trouble using the 60mm finder after consulting the chart. 

3. Two eyes view. Would not be interested in monoviewing. 

4. The H-a clouds if nothing else

 

I dont know know the specs of my tube. I'm very satisfied with it. I told NAIT I wanted it for astronomy. I don't know how this affected the tube selection. They did good regardless.

 

Oct 8 2015
Observing at home. 

Clear and cool conditions. Mag 4 skies, Milky Way invisible. Lots of glow from the city and shopping centers. Trees limit my scope view to overhead. 

 

PVS7 with Canon FD 85mm f/1.8 lens and Olympus red filter. 30+ year old camera equipment. 

 

Able to view Milky Way clouds in Aquila and Scutum. Able to make out very faint Gamma Cygni nebula and North American. Lots of stars. Lyra constellation shape distorted by brightness of XY and 13 Lyr. In Cepheus, VV is just as bright as Delta.

 

With 18" Dob 

 

I was able to use the .5x focal reducer by moving the mirror up a little. Lots of coma except in the center 1/4 FOV. Nice widefield views of H-a clouds. The filter works at f/1.2 with the stock PVS7 lens, and works fine at f/1.75.

Conclusion: The focal reducer gives a wider field, but too much detail lost due to coma smearing. This is verified by examining the "leopard spotting" of the Crescent Nebula. It's good for the larger tenuous clouds.

 

Egg Nebula - nice view with LNS (Lumicon Night Sky filter) Improved view with 2x Barlow . No improvement with H-a.

 

NGC 7048 - Invisible with no filter, barely seen with LNS (Would not be seen if I didn't know where to look) Nice round transparent disk obvious with H-a

 

Open Clusters Basel 12 and 13 - Very weak, looks like background (LNS)

 

Open Cluster NGC 7039 - Nice thick concentration. Large. Not well detached from rich Milky Way background.

 

PN NGC 7026 - nice little hamburger with LNS. A little more definition on outer envelope with H-a. Good with 2x Barlow.

 

PN 7027 - nice unfiltered view with 2x Barlow. Has 3 slightly unequal lobes.

 

PN Sharpless 1-89  Invisible with LNS. Faintly visible with H-a. Difficult round ghostly disk.

 

PN NGC 7008 - very faint with superimposed stars without filter. Some improvement in visibility with LNS. Nice oblong ghost, irregular brightness with H-a

 

IC 63 Gamma Cass nebula - fainly seen with H-a. IC 59 not seen

 

Sharpless 2-88 Nice fat crescent as drawn by a coarse brush with H-a. Invisible with LNS.

 

Stephens Quintet - couple of tiny smudges unfiltered. All 5 seen with 2x Barlow.

 

NGC 7331 - Lovely!!! like a tiny M31, or M104. NGC 7327 and 7340 in FOV.

 

PN NGC 7662 - bright unfiltered view, nice detail within spherical outline. 2x Barlow - bright figure-8 in elliptical envelope. With LNS - dimmed, but increased detail. H-a : no difference, but detail lost to dimming.

 

PN IC 2149 - Unfiltered view: star with faint oval envelope. LNS: envelope lost but still non-stellar with soft appearance. H-a : solid tiny oval. Best view: 2x unfiltered.


  • pwang99 likes this

#32 Eddgie

Eddgie

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 24408
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2006

Posted 09 October 2015 - 06:54 PM

I agree with all of your points.   

 

And yes, it sounds like a little deal but I love not having to worry about dark adaptation.

 

And the correct orientation is actually a great benefit as well.   I love it when I am hand holding the Comet Catcher. Much more intuitive driving around the sky with correct orientation.

 

Wonderful to hear that you are getting good observing from your home.   I know that when you were asking me about NV earlier one of the reasons you were interested was that I was reporting my result from my own light polluted skies, so I hope that your experience is living up to the hype in my own observations.

It sure sounds like you are feeling justified in the purchase.

 

I know I have been.   Everywhere I look, I am seeing things better than I have ever seen them before.   I know it isn't going to be to everyone's liking but I have been amazed at how incredible the sky is..

 

And low power observing is nothing short of spectacular.  Who would have known how glorious the sky would be at 1x to 10x....  You really miss the majesty of the Milky Way at powers higher than 1x.   


  • bsavoie likes this

#33 PEterW

PEterW

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1807
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2006
  • Loc: SW London, UK

Posted 10 October 2015 - 02:04 AM

Good night chasing some unfamiliar sharpless objects from a dark sky site. The 80mm Finder has a good balance of scale and brightness. Used a 10" dob a bit, but the image scale was much bigger... Only good for occaisional smaller objects. Have to see if I can bring my 8" next time for an I between scale. North America and Sadr region on top form, loads more though.

Peter

#34 The Ardent

The Ardent

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4467
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Virginia

Posted 12 October 2015 - 03:55 PM

First night out at the star party. Naked eye the Milky Way has intense structure. The entire sky is filled with thousands of stars. I don't have good internet here so keep it short.

With 18" f/3.5 dob:
I used the Agena c-mount to 1.25" adapter with focal reducer with excellent results. No aberrations like with the 2" reducer. Coma on the 1/3" outer but not objectionable. Add 13nm H-a and sweep the Cygnus Clouds and North Amereican. The Cygnus clouds are extensive, they seem to go on forever. Saw the Cone in 2264, easy! Horsehead- easy! Flaming Star Nebula, the Seagull Complex, Rosette, M42 was amazing. Photographic detail, no exaggeration. M43 has lots of dark dust tracery like cracks on an eggshell.

NGC 2261 Hubbles Variable Nebula a lot better unfiltered.
NGC 1999's dark spot very visible unfiltered

The best unfiltered view was NGC 253, lots of dust tendrils around the nucleus.

NGC 281 responded very well, prominent dust lane.

M81 and 82 didn't look any different from a large aperture visual view, but much easier to see. No straining to glimpse faint details. It's either there or it isn't.

NGC 2392 responded very well unfiltered. With H-a it was the weirdest thing I ever saw.

Having a ball with the night vision!
  • Vondragonnoggin likes this

#35 Eddgie

Eddgie

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 24408
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2006

Posted 12 October 2015 - 07:36 PM

I was so worried when you kind of rushed into buying a PVS-7. I know I had posted some pretty extravagant claims, and I would have felt horrible if you had bought the PVS-7 and been disappointed.

 

I just came back from a 2.5 week trip and I only used the NVD Micro, the PVS-7, and the 3x afocal lens.  Did not use a telescope (though I brought the Comet Catcher). 

 

The views I got at 1x and 3x were so compelling that I simply chose not to mess with the scope, even though it is so small.

 

I would never have thought I would have enjoyed 1x observing so much.  I can't get enough.

 

So happy that you are enjoying your gear.  Again, I would have felt horrible after making such a big deal about it if you would not have gotten a worthwhile result, but it sounds like you are enjoying the stuff, so I am very relieved.


Edited by Eddgie, 13 October 2015 - 07:34 AM.

  • bsavoie likes this

#36 Vondragonnoggin

Vondragonnoggin

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8619
  • Joined: 21 Feb 2010
  • Loc: Southern CA, USA

Posted 12 October 2015 - 08:37 PM

Glad its working out!

 

you mentioned the filter working fine with stock pvs7 lens at F/1.2 and F/1.75. Which stock lens?

 

I also wanted to be sure people reading understood that center wavelength shift is a very real thing unless the special highspeed filters are purchased. Its not the the filter will not work, it is expressly stated by manufacturer that performance will not be as good. It very likely would not affect a 13nm filter as much as a 3nm or 5nm filter where the center wavelength notch is so narrow to be very critical

 

This only applies to fast optics before the filter, not filter before fast optic.

 

It could be that the hyperstar owners that probably noticed this photographically may see the effects in the photos and using Ha narrowband live visually with intensifiers was never anticipated. I don't know. May be not as noticeable, may be that 13nm not affected as much. I don't have optics that fast to compare and do not have a 13nm filter. Just 7nm and 3nm. 


Edited by Vondragonnoggin, 12 October 2015 - 09:21 PM.

  • bsavoie likes this

#37 Vondragonnoggin

Vondragonnoggin

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8619
  • Joined: 21 Feb 2010
  • Loc: Southern CA, USA

Posted 13 October 2015 - 06:40 AM

You mentioned coma being really bad also with the 2" reducer. Are you still using a coma corrector with the PVS-7?

 

Curious because I want an 8" F/4 imaging newt someday and wondered how it worked with a CC.

 

Unless I go with a mak-newt, but really want to start with F/4, then reduce to around F/2.8. Could do F/5.3 mak-newt and reduce to F/3 also. I think my 3nm will still handle F/2.8 and higher. It works with my F/2.8 300mm lens with 112mm objective.


Edited by Vondragonnoggin, 13 October 2015 - 06:43 AM.


#38 cnoct

cnoct

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 752
  • Joined: 02 Sep 2010
  • Loc: Hawai'i

Posted 13 October 2015 - 10:30 AM

The Baader f/2 Highspeed Hydrogen Alpha filter is not a filter I would recommend for use with image intensifiers. It might work fine for those imaging or doing short exposure imaging but for actual real time EAA viewing it was almost worse than not using an H-a filter at all. 

 

When compared with an Astronomik 12nm, the Baader f/2 was an epic failure. The Astronomik 12nm actually   revealed much more nebulosity than the Baader f/2.

 

The Baader f/2 literally blinded the image intensifier to H-a.  If there is a pre shift it sure didn't work, the Astronomik 12nm absolutely smokes the Baader f/2. 



#39 Vondragonnoggin

Vondragonnoggin

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8619
  • Joined: 21 Feb 2010
  • Loc: Southern CA, USA

Posted 13 October 2015 - 10:36 AM

The Baader f/2 Highspeed Hydrogen Alpha filter is not a filter I would recommend for use with image intensifiers. It might work fine for those imaging or doing short exposure imaging but for actual real time EAA viewing it was almost worse than not using an H-a filter at all. 

 

When compared with an Astronomik 12nm, the Baader f/2 was an epic failure. The Astronomik 12nm actually   revealed much more nebulosity than the Baader f/2.

 

The Baader f/2 literally blinded the image intensifier to H-a.  If there is a pre shift it sure didn't work, the Astronomik 12nm absolutely smokes the Baader f/2. 

Maybe it was the scope used. I have no experience with the highspeed Ha, but do have experience with 3nm and 7nm viewing and the 3nm pulls out more detail than the 7nm albeit with more background noise if using a smaller aperture. Noise differences are less in a 6" scope vs my 2.8" scope. It is very effective in front of a 50mm or 135mm lens.

 

Just to be clear also, I was not recommending the highspeed Ha. Since this thread was about filters, I just wanted people to be aware of the center wavelength shift with Ha and optics faster than F/2. I can't confirm a performance hit because I don't have a way to use a filter behind an optic that fast, only in front of camera lenses. My scopes only reduce to around F/3


Edited by Vondragonnoggin, 13 October 2015 - 10:51 AM.


#40 Vondragonnoggin

Vondragonnoggin

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8619
  • Joined: 21 Feb 2010
  • Loc: Southern CA, USA

Posted 13 October 2015 - 10:46 AM

Well, no sense in me guessing differences in 12nm vs narrower notches. I might as well compare myself. Just bought a 12nm Astronomik and should receive it within a week or so. I'll report back my findings in a new thread.

 

Glad current setup is working out with F/1.2 and F/1.75. Must be an incredibly detailed, bright view in an 18" scope!


Edited by Vondragonnoggin, 13 October 2015 - 10:54 AM.


#41 Eddgie

Eddgie

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 24408
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2006

Posted 13 October 2015 - 11:23 AM

Well, no sense in me guessing differences in 12nm vs narrower notches. I might as well compare myself. Just bought a 12nm Astronomik and should receive it within a week or so. I'll report back my findings in a new thread.

 

Glad current setup is working out with F/1.2 and F/1.75. Must be an incredibly detailed, bright view in an 18" scope!

 

I have been using the Astronomic 12nm.

 

Even the very large and diffuse IC 1396 really pops with this filter when viewed under darkish skies.  

 

I think the narrower notch filters may be better under light polluted skies but I love the 12nm filter.



#42 cnoct

cnoct

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 752
  • Joined: 02 Sep 2010
  • Loc: Hawai'i

Posted 13 October 2015 - 11:33 AM

VDN,

 

Your good, not for a second did I assume you where pushing the Baader f/2, the mere mention of it inspired my post.

 

I myself was curious about the claimed potential of the Baader f/2 which is why I purchased one this past summer. My post on the Baader f/2 was only to present my take on it. I tried the f/2 Highspeed with optics running at  f/1.4, f/1.5, f/1.7, f/1.8, f/2.8 and f/5 10" reflector. 

 

When used in front of the optical train, the filter acted more like a mid band H-a filter, much wider bandpass than my Astronomik 12nm H-a, but when using the f/2 as intended, it performed worse than a filter never designed for such. 

 

The Astronomik 12nm is great if your trying to punch through relatively mild light pollution but your 3 and 7nm will probably get you through the heavier stuff much better than the 12nm. The 12nm is a good all around filter especially for those who aren't having to view through heavily light polluted skies. 

 

ETA: I also have an Astrodon 5nm but prefer the Astronomik 12nm, mainly due to the lack of heavy light pollution at my viewing sites. 


Edited by cnoct, 13 October 2015 - 12:05 PM.


#43 Vondragonnoggin

Vondragonnoggin

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8619
  • Joined: 21 Feb 2010
  • Loc: Southern CA, USA

Posted 13 October 2015 - 12:52 PM

Thanks for clarification. :)

 

I use my 7nm more than 3nm unless still trying under heavy moonlight then the 3nm comes out, and also prefer the 3nm in front of my camera lenses if surrounding neighbors have porch lights on. It will be a fun comparison for 12nm though. That one might do better in my MCT at the longer focal ratio to reduce noise.

 

I was thinking about getting a .33x reducer to use in my MCT. If I get it, I think I can still test my F/5 refractor with it, in which case I would be close to F/2 and can see if the shift is visible in my scope with 3nm or 7nm

 

The 12nm has been on my "to get" list for awhile anyway.

 

Supposed to be the difference in coatings which allow faster optic.



#44 The Ardent

The Ardent

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4467
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Virginia

Posted 13 October 2015 - 02:06 PM

Internet is real slowwww here....

I don't use the Paracorr. I'll give it a try with the PVS7 (no reducer)

I tried Paracorr with the 1.25" focal reducer and was unable to reach focus.

I tried a cheap generic 12nm H-a (all the vendor had) and the views were blah compared to the Astronomik. Nebulae were visible but not very crisp.

Tried the Baader 685 IR pass. Should be named the "Nebula Remover" Good as general attenuating filter but that's about it. Removed some parts of M42 but did not reveal anything in clusters, planetaries, and galaxies. Some slight improvement with dark nebulae, but just from field darkening. It's hard to see dark nebulae when the intensifier brings out all the faint stars in them.

Tried a Baader Sulfur II. Not really good on anything.

So far the Astronomik 13nm is king. I think it's an older filter since they sell 12nm now.

I found an H-a nebula in Auriga that's not plotted in Uranometria or Sky Safari.

#45 PEterW

PEterW

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1807
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2006
  • Loc: SW London, UK

Posted 13 October 2015 - 02:06 PM

I have used the 8" f4 imaging newt with a 1.25" reducer screwed into the 2" cmount adapted. The halpha filter goes in front of the reducer so sees f4. Not used it often enough, but gives you some extra zoom for examining things over my 80mm. Tried a 10" f4.7 recently, too much zoom and a bit dim, not enought in focus to add a reducer. I always leave my rg620 in the system to help nuke the light pollution. Got an omega 7nm halpha that I use sometimes too.

Peter

#46 The Ardent

The Ardent

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4467
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Virginia

Posted 13 October 2015 - 02:10 PM

The Flame Nebula is like "whatever"

It doesn't change whether filtered or not. Looks the same. He doesn't care what you do, he ain't changing. He's like " What are you? A wise guy with your fancy filters?"

#47 Vondragonnoggin

Vondragonnoggin

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8619
  • Joined: 21 Feb 2010
  • Loc: Southern CA, USA

Posted 13 October 2015 - 02:13 PM

My 3nm is an Omega. Good prices.

 

Ray, the 685 IR pass - was really curious as IR pass is showing the colder objects. Supposed to pick up brown dwarf stars and colder particulates around planets and stars. I would guess you need really big aperture to pick that stuff up though. Galaxies with colder stars, etc.

 

If the 18" doesn't see that stuff more, the little scopes sure won't. Maybe try it on Trapezium area of orion. Supposed to be a few brown dwarf stars there.

 

Yes, 685nm is past gases and into particulates or colder stars.

 

Check out the different stuff at different wavelengths - http://www.chromoscope.net/



#48 The Ardent

The Ardent

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4467
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Virginia

Posted 05 November 2015 - 12:49 AM

Here is an update. Last night was clear and moonless. Observing from my city backyard with streetlight glare. PVS7 + 85mm SLR lens (about 3x magnification)

2" Filters threaded in front of lens with 55-48mm adapter ring

Astronomik 12nm H-alpha
Large bright M8, M20, M17, M16. Above the last was Sharpless 2-54, a large but faint cloud almost 2 degrees across. There is a main road and large shopping center two miles in that direction. Nothing visible to eye in that part of the sky. 
Cygnus h-alpha clouds, about 25 square degrees of clouds visible. Gamma Cygni and North American appear to be parts of same network.
In Cepheus, IC 1396, Sh 2-132, 2-155.
Cass: Pac-man, Heart and Soul, Cederblad 214 nebulas easy
In Perseus: California neb: easy
Auriga: IC 405 and 410, 2 large separate nebulas
Orion: NGC 2174 Flame, IC 434, and M42+43. Not enough magnification to make out Horsehead. M42 is gigantic in H-a. All of these were distinctly visible. Northern part Barnard's loop faintly visible. Lambda Orion's nebula, Sh2-264, very faint and indistinct.

Conclusion:

Pro: this is my best filter for H-alpha, and h-alpha is the most exciting part of night vision observing. 

Con: Attenuates a lot of stars from visibility. 

 

Baader 35nm H-alpha

Similar to the 12nm h-a, but to a lesser degree. Makes h-alpha clouds visible, but less distinct. 

M8, M20, M17, M16 all appear smaller. Sh 2-54 is still visible, but very faint. 

In  Cygnus, only the 3 brightest regions of Gamma are visible, and the "connection" to North American is lost. 

Most of the  other h-alpha targets are visible, but much fainter than with the 12nm. 

Conclusion: this filter allows viewing of h-alpha targets otherwise  invisible with unfiltered Night Vision. Much better filter than the Lumicon Night Sky H-alpha, which is just a good red filter. This may be a better choice for small aperture scopes. 

Pro: Much less attenuation so more stars visible. A more "natural" view

Con: less nebulosity than with the 12nm.

 

Rokinon 720nm Infrared pass filter, 55mm dia for camera

This was a cheap eBay find. Surprisingly good for blocking light pollution. Unfiltered night vision in the city gives a green sky. Add bloated stars bloated from a cold front. This filter makes the background black and reduced seeing effects. The bright and dark parts of the Milky Way are more distinct, or even visible, compared to unfiltered. Globulars and open clusters really stand out. By "blinking" this filter in front of the camera lens, many of the streetlights were removed completely. Interesting effect on stars. Red and infrared stars are bright, distorting the constellations. 

Pro: cheap ($15) and works good

Con: not good for nebulas. 


  • Vondragonnoggin likes this

#49 Eddgie

Eddgie

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 24408
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2006

Posted 05 November 2015 - 09:29 AM

Very nice report.

 

It is amazing how much I can see using the night vision on nights that would keep most people inside and I know that one of the things that got you interested in the idea of night vision were my reports on the success I was having in my own light polluted skies.

 

I have been using the Astronimik 12mn and have been really happy with it.

 

I have been using it between the 3x magnifier and the Objective.   I had read that these filters may not be as effective in very fast light cones, and perhaps that is true, but I still get a far better result on nebula using the very fast lenses than I do when using the H-alpha on a telescope with a slower camera lens.

 

I think for the most difficult nebula, a narrower pass might be better, but for bigger, brighter stuff, I love the Astronomik 12nm.

 

Like you, my first long view of Oroin with the 12nm was quite amazing.   The nebula is huge!  Even at 3x using the magnfier, there was a lot of detail simply because the nebula is so large!

 

Do yourself a favor though.   As good as the result is under light polluted skies, because it is so painless to do, take a drive one night to get to darker skies.  I would never do this anymore with my big telescopes because it was such a gigantic pain in the posterior to pack, unpack, set up, pack and unpack again.   The night vision makes it so easy. 

 

So very happy that you are enjoying your PVS-7!    And yes, the Astronomik 12nm is a great nebula fitler!  Very pleased with it.  If I were doing more with slower scopes, I would look into narrower pass, but these days, I seem to be doing 100% with just low power lenses, and most of that with the 1x and 3x afocal....



#50 TOMDEY

TOMDEY

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4437
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014
  • Loc: Springwater, NY

Posted 06 November 2015 - 09:50 PM

Woo Hoo! I just discovered all this timely chatter and thank you all for the wisdom. Just got TWO Gen 3s with the fast 1x lenses and the 1.25 adapters. Put the 12nm Astronomiks (on the objet-space side of the objective lenses) held one up to each eye and looked up. YIKES! At 1X just hand-holding one in each fist gives perfect binocular view like looking thru a window to H-alpha. I'm glad to see observations using camera lenses so I'll try that next. And I have JMI RB16 (true 16-inch f/4.5 binos) that should be awesome with these "eyepieces." The only thing I can add is that going true bino DOES indeed help greatly. The scint is far less distraction because L R are uncorrelated and everything just looks more real, brighter and better contrast, limiting mag etc. So the same wisdom that favors true binos also holds for NV.  Tom Dey


  • outofsight likes this


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics