113 replies to this topic

[REC]

Just read an article by Rod Molise in the July issue of S&T about Lumicon Gen 3 OIII filter. He also had a sketch of M27 made with is 10" scope showing no filter, old filter and the new filter. You can definately see the improvement ove the old. Cost is $100 for the 1.25" and $200 for the 2" version.

 

Hmmm, might start thinking about selling my current OIII filter?  Oh, the OIII is the best for Planetary nebula over the UHC type, right?

 

 

[vdog]

Usually, I take those reviews with a grain of salt, but that filter has gotten a lot of praise here from folks who would know.

 

It's on my wish list, just behind a couple of other things.

Edited by vdog, 15 June 2019 - 10:24 AM.

[REC]

Usually, I take those reviews with a grain of salt, but that filter has gotten a lot of praise here from folks who would know.

 

It's on my wish list, just behind a couple of other things.

Rod Molise is one of us and really knows his astro stuff.

[vdog]

Rod Molise is one of us and really knows his astro stuff.

Oh, I don't doubt his expertise.  I'm just naturally skeptical of anything that resembles a sales pitch.  It's probably one of my least endearing qualities, but it's saved me a lot of money over the years.

 

And I'm already sold on that particular product based on the info I've read here.  I'm just waiting for it to fit into the astro budget.  Lots of great nebulae to see in the summer, so it'll be soon.

[havasman]

I replaced a Thousand Oaks O-III I'd used for years with the Lumicon Gen 3 O-III and that was not a subtle improvement. I think it's very good. The change allowed me to actually see what a narrower band and higher transmission looked like. Though the performance delta was greater between my two O-III's than Uncle Rod's I couldn't disagree with his article when I saw it.

 

For instance, NGC2359 became an instant favorite the 1st time I saw it with the TO filter but Thor's Helmet was more easily seen as sharper and more extended than ever with the new filter. This'll be my 1st time to use it in the Milky Way if we get any clear sky this summer and I'm looking forward to it.

Edited by havasman, 15 June 2019 - 11:31 AM.

[WyattDavis]

When did the Gen3 O-III come out? I have had my Lumicon O-III for about three or four years.

[MikeTahtib]

That review caught my eye, too.  For those who have used it, do you think the improvement is due to a narrower bandwidth cutting out more non-nebula light, or due to better optical clarity of the coatings and glass?

[vdog]

When did the Gen3 O-III come out? I have had my Lumicon O-III for about three or four years.

Looks like about a year ago:

 

https://www.cloudyni...e/#entry9252775

[Miranda2525]

Just read an article by Rod Molise in the July issue of S&T about Lumicon Gen 3 OIII filter. He also had a sketch of M27 made with is 10" scope showing no filter, old filter and the new filter. You can definately see the improvement ove the old. Cost is $100 for the 1.25" and $200 for the 2" version.

 

Hmmm, might start thinking about selling my current OIII filter?  Oh, the OIII is the best for Planetary nebula over the UHC type, right?

Which OIII do you own at the moment?  (I mean EXACTLY which).

 

Yes, the OIII is best for planetary nebula.

[R.Kelley]

...

Yes, the OIII is best for planetary nebula.

Yes, in my experience as well. Almost like how turning on a black light makes US currency's security strip light up, it's the same way with the planetary nebulae against the sky background with O-III filter.

Edited by rkelley8493, 15 June 2019 - 07:15 PM.

[REC]

When did the Gen3 O-III come out? I have had my Lumicon O-III for about three or four years.

Just recently. That's why it was reviews in the July Issue. Pick it up, lot's of good articles in it this month.

[Starman1]

I own several O-III filters, and 3 are about equal as high-end O-III filters: TeleVue, Astronomik, and the new Gen.3 Lumicon.

I have independent test reports that verify what I see in the field as well.

[R.Kelley]

I own several O-III filters, and 3 are about equal as high-end O-III filters: TeleVue, Astronomik, and the new Gen.3 Lumicon.

I have independent test reports that verify what I see in the field as well.

What kind of differences do you see in the premium filters vs standard quality? I'm looking at upgrading mine sometime in the future.

Edited by rkelley8493, 16 June 2019 - 06:52 PM.

[Starman1]

The Veil is a good example.

There is improved contrast and more detail visible with the premium filters.

I see nebulosity almost continuously from one side to the other with the 12.5", for example, with the better filters.

And Thor's Helmet (NGC2359) has not only 4 long lines of nebulosity leading away from the central bubble, but you can see striae in the bubble itself.

Those are features you simply don't see well, if at all, in the broader filters.

The broader O-III filters have reduced contrast, so the fainter features don't show up well.

Or the single line filters.

Certain details show up well in the single line O-III filters (Baader, Celestron, Thousand Oaks), but the overall view and the extent of the nebulosity is better

with the dual-line O-III filters.

[Dave Bush]

Usually, I take those reviews with a grain of salt, but that filter has gotten a lot of praise here from folks who would know.

 

Implication being that Rod doesn't ??

[Starman1]

It does depend on the previous generation of Lumicon filter and how good it was.

My O-III from 2009 had no noticeable difference.

Rod's obviously did.

But I wouldn't argue that for every filter made at that time.

[vdog]

Implication being that Rod doesn't ?

 

I see that my skepticism really is one of my least endearing qualities.

 

As I said before, I'm not questioning the astronomy expertise of Rod Mollise.  Quite frankly, I don't even know who he is, but if he's on the staff of S&T, I'm sure his credentials are impressive.

 

But, I'm a naturally skeptical person, and I don't have a history of getting good advice from Rod.  I don't mean that in a negative way; there's no history of advice there at all, good or bad. On the other hand, by and large, I've gotten nothing but good advice and gleaned tons of useful information here so CN is a trusted source for me.

 

It's not perfect (I have to bail on threads when the shots start going back and forth), but I don't know where I'd be without it, so, yes, I trust it more. 

Edited by vdog, 17 June 2019 - 05:41 PM.

[Peter Besenbruch]

As I said before, I'm not questioning the astronomy expertise of Rod Mollise.  Quite frankly, I don't even know who he is, but if he's on the staff of S&T, I'm sure his credentials are impressive.

Rod has been active on the Cats and Casses forum. I don't know what his credentials are, but he has been viewing for a long time (longer than any of us care to admit).

[csrlice12]

I'm sure he'd sit down and share a bottle of Rebel Yell withya.

[vdog]

Rod has been active on the Cats and Casses forum. I don't know what his credentials are, but he has been viewing for a long time (longer than any of us care to admit).

Oh, that explains it.  I've been on CN almost a year now, and I've become familiar with some of the expert names in various fora, but I think I've been on Cats and Casses maybe once or twice, so that's why I didn't know who he was.

[Sketcher]

I'm not sure what to think of the review.

 

When I saw the depictions of M27 on page 67 of the July S&T (10-inch telescope with light-pollution and a rising full moon) my first thought was to compare those views with my M27 sketch under a dark sky with no filters and a 1-inch aperture -- since the views struck me as being quite similar:

 

 

My biggest take away was the huge impact the bright sky had on the view with a 10-inch telescope -- even when the new O-III filter was used.

 

Under a dark sky, an unfiltered 10-inch telescope can be used at considerably higher magnifications and can reveal significant structure in M27 -- transforming the faint dumbbell into a bright, awesomely beautiful object with internal structure and embedded stars.  (Buried in a stack of old observations, I have a large, detailed M27 sketch from an observation made under a pristine sky using an unfiltered 10-inch telescope).  The M27 in the S&T review (even with the new filter) was a small, faint, "ghost" of what it is under a dark sky.  I was saddened to see a 10-inch telescope effective reduced in aperture to a mere 1-inch by the effects of light-pollution.

 

Again, the new filter might provide improved performance over older O-III filters; but the depictions of M27 distracted me from the entire purpose of the review.

 

I'm not saying the new filter isn't good.  I'm just saying that (under the sky conditions of the review) it doesn't even come close to showing what one can see from a pristine sky using a telescope of equal aperture (10-inch) without any filters.

[Jon Isaacs]

I first "met" Rod Mollise back in the mid 1990's on the old science.astro.amateur newsgroup. Uncle had been around long before that. He was an early adopter of the C-8, swapping his RV-6 for the C-8 sometime in the 1970s. Rod is a prolific author, he wrote two editions of Choosing and Using the Schmidt-Cassegrain Telescope, the Urban Astronomers Guide as well as many articles. 

 

Rod is a no-nonsense guy who " never met a telescope I didn't like" and a skilled and talented observer who is happy to eek out maximum performance from modest equipment.. observing the statements in Plato with an ST-80.. 

 

Uncle Rod has a folksy way about him but underneath he's a teacher and a mentor who'll point you in the right direction. 

 

Jon

[BGazing]

I first "met" Rod Mollise back in the mid 1990's on the old science.astro.amateur newsgroup. Uncle had been around long before that. He was an early adopter of the C-8, swapping his RV-6 for the C-8 sometime in the 1970s. Rod is a prolific author, he wrote two editions of Choosing and Using the Schmidt-Cassegrain Telescope, the Urban Astronomers Guide as well as many articles. 

 

Rod is a no-nonsense guy who " never met a telescope I didn't like" and a skilled and talented observer who is happy to eek out maximum performance from modest equipment.. observing the statements in Plato with an ST-80.. 

 

Uncle Rod has a folksy way about him but underneath he's a teacher and a mentor who'll point you in the right direction. 

 

Jon

Statements? Craterlets?

 

As for premium vs 'normal' OIII filters, my Astronomik OIII represents a considerable improvement over a generic Chinese (branded TS).

Edited by BGazing, 18 June 2019 - 03:09 AM.

[leviathan]

Lumicon had different series over the years. Some were excellent, others not. Mine (2" UHC & O-III) are excellent with high transmission. Uncle Rod's could be worse (like pre- gen-3 with wide transmission).

Also we know that filter coating can degrade over the years. In this case brand new filter will show more details, no surprise here.

[25585]

Implication being that Rod doesn't ??

Any review in any publication should be treated with scepticism. Advertisers, page space, word count, level of detail, editors and publishers may any or all alter what is written originally, and writers are often advised what is wanted before putting pen to paper.