9 replies to this topic

[UP4014Fan]

I've come to the conclusion that astrophotography is as bad as owing   owning [EDIT - that had to be a Freudian slip - I didn't see it until I re-read my own post] an airplane - there's always something else to buy.

 

Anyway, since I live in a fairly light polluted area, is a clip-in CLS filter worth it for my Canon 200D?  

 

Thanks as always - 

 

Bob

Edited by UP4014Fan, 12 May 2025 - 06:26 PM.

[Jim Waters]

How "fairly light polluted"?  What Bortle reading?  Has your 200D been Ha modified?

 

https://www.lightpol...2l0eSI6Ijg1In0=

[DeepSky Di]

No. I got one back in my DSLR days and it did no good. Is the DSLR modded?

 

The closest to a dual band for a Canon clip is the L-Pro. I just got one but have not been able to try it yet. There's a 2" adapter for Canon clips that can future proof them a little when you move on to an astro camera.

[UP4014Fan]

How "fairly light polluted"?  What Bortle reading?  Has your 200D been Ha modified?

 

https://www.lightpol...2l0eSI6Ijg1In0=

No, the camera hasn't been modified yet (the XSi, my oldest will be, but haven't pulled that trigger yet).

 

 

And thanks for the link.  Bortle numbers have always seemed a bit subjective to me.  My exact location, according to the map, is Bortle 6.  I thought it was worse.

Edited by UP4014Fan, 12 May 2025 - 07:24 PM.

[UP4014Fan]

Oh, and St. Charles County does maintain an astronomy park nearby which has no lights, electrical outlets, restrooms, and is a Bortle 5.  However, it's a bit lonely at 0100 when the local astronomy club isn't there.  I can tell you that the county park police are stretched a bit thin and I've been uncomfortable with some of the conversations I've overheard among the local kids who've found it's really dark there (note - this isn't a slam at all young people - just the ones who'd use a dark part of the world to get away from parental and other authority).  Also, there's not a whole lot for me to do while sitting there.  At least at home, I can do useful stuff while remoted into the telescope out front.

[rj144]

No.

[UP4014Fan]

No.

OK, that's rather definite.

 

I'll accept your answer at face value, but I'd like to know why.

 

[Edit - I changed this a bit because when I re-read my original version, it seemed unintentionally snarky.]

Edited by UP4014Fan, 12 May 2025 - 08:00 PM.

[rj144]

OK, that's rather definite.

 

I'll accept your answer at face value, but I'd like to know why.

 

[Edit - I changed this a bit because when I re-read my original version, it seemed unintentionally snarky.]

They don't do much.  I've used them and others have said this quite often here.   

[UP4014Fan]

They don't do much.  I've used them and others have said this quite often here.   

OK, thanks.  That's the impression I had, but I wanted to verify.

This all reminds me of when I first started terrestrial photography, back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth.  Polarizing filters were all the rage - "The sky will be bluer, better color definition, fewer problems with water, blah, blah, blah."  Except in a few very specialized cases, such as trying to control reflections off of a plate glass window, all I ever found them doing was steal about half a stop from me.

 

Now, a yellow filter in monochrome work?  That's a different story!

[Ranger Tim]

Emission nebulae will benefit from a dual band filter in light pollution because they mostly emit in Ha and OIII. Most other objects are full bandwidth and require lots of unfiltered exposure time and quality gradient extraction for best results. Some have success with Quad filters but I have no experience with them. The classic CLS filter is a difficult filter to use because of how dark it is and its color cast. I have an Astronomik CLS and dislike it so it is not used. Finding a filter you like can be a gamble. I like my NBZ II dual band a lot but would like to try some others. Buying filters in a format that will be universal to use with other cameras/scopes in the future, such as a 2” mount may be an option to consider.