Back to forums

Going mono. how narrow to go?

ZWO ASI533MC Filters Acquisition SHO Deep Sky
11 replies•419 views
Mike Tettenborn avatar
Mike Tettenborn avatar
I image mostly in a Bortle 4 zone and will be upgrading to a 2600mm camera.  Right now I image with an ASI533mc-pro.  Need to determine best SHO filters to get and am considering the Antlia 3nm or 4.5nm filters.  I have read that the H and S 4.5nm filters are just about as good as the 3nm ones but the 3nm O filter is better to help against moon glow.  Can someone confirm this?  I am on a budget and want to save where ever I can.

 Many thanks!
Engaging
Jan Erik Vallestad avatar
Jan Erik Vallestad avatar
I used to have the 4.5nm edge Ha filter from Antlia, paired with the 3nm Sii and Oiii filters for my 533MM. They worked very well, I now use the 2" version but swapped to all 3nm. Initial reasoning for getting the 3nm over the 4.5nm in 2" was that I got it cheaper. But I'm very happy with them so far.

In my experience you can't go wrong with Antlia either way, the 4.5nm will probably have some more H-beta transmission, maybe more red continuum as well. But how noticeable? Not sure. I can look through my files and see if I can find some comparative data.



Btw: The words "budget" and "mono setup" don't really correlate that well
Helpful Engaging Supportive
David Moore avatar
David Moore avatar
I have the three 3nM Antlia narrowbands and noticed a marked difference in sharpness in Ha compared to Baader 7nM in particular.  Contrast is also improved. I had to return 1 Ha and 1 O3 Antlia as faulty. I now have a complete set I am very pleased with.
Jan Erik Vallestad avatar
Jan Erik Vallestad avatar
Here are two single frames shot with different cameras, but same pixel size, scope and settings (although at different times). Of course this is in no way empirical and not 100% apples to apples due to several factors, so with that in mind take it for what it is.


To the left is a frame from the 2600MM with 3nm and to the right is the 533MM with 4.5nm, both 1:1 as you can see.

Edit: Unfortunately I don't have a single frame with anything broader than this, I have lost some of the old data I had on this particular object along the way.
Paolo avatar
Paolo avatar
I live in a B6.5 area and I'm very happy with my Astrokomik 6.5nm SHO filters.

For OIII, I don't shoot when (moon>30% or moon distance<60*)
Brian Puhl avatar
Brian Puhl avatar
I shoot from my bortle 4 backyard with the full antlia 3nm / LRGB set and couldn't be happier with the setup.   Ha and Sii are barely affected by the moon unless you're staring at it (within 15 degrees).   Of course, you will have less signal, but there are still hardly ever gradients in Ha, and rarely gradients in Sii.   Oiii will always be affected by the moon, even at 3nm.    For that reason I generally only do Oiii when the moon is not present.

Here are a couple raw, unedited stacks from my Espirit 100s, IMX571s (dual scope), and Antlia 3nm filters.    Most of this data was taken under 50% moon or better, and a couple nights were within 20 degrees of the moon.    No visible gradients. 


These are all 10 minute subs, 10 to 15 hours per stack.   These are full resolution (converted to JPG)

Ha:





Sii:




Oiii:









The Oiii may not be the greatest example because I did have some mild reflection issues that I have since taken care of.   Those are evidenced by the bottom two corners, one is caused by out of frame Propus, reflecting off the edge of the filter mask.  Same story for the other corner.      Oiii was also taken with no moon.


Hope this helps a little bit in your decision.   Antlia 3nm are the way to go.  Everyone I know who runs them has zero complaints, and I highly recommend them to others.
Helpful Engaging Supportive
Brian Puhl avatar
Brian Puhl avatar
Here's a better example of the 3nm Oiii filter at work....  

Jan Erik Vallestad avatar
Jan Erik Vallestad avatar
I don't think OP is questioning the Antlia filters, merely wondering which to get due to the fact that the Edge is a bit cheaper than the 3nm and isn't really any worse. The question is whether to go 3nm or 4.5nm. To be fair the 4.5nm will do just as well as the 3nm, it will however include a slightly broader spectrum, including H-beta. 

But I agree, Antlia is the way to go IMO. Very good quality and a reasonable price, whether it be 4.5nm or 3nm. 

We can showcase stacks and finished images but it won't really help, plenty of filters will produce good images. The difference between 3nm and 4.5nm though seems to be neglible - So if budget is an issue, get the 4.5nm. Having used both for some time I have nothing but good things to say about any of them.
Helpful Insightful Respectful
Brian Diaz avatar
Brian Diaz avatar
Mike Tettenborn:
I image mostly in a Bortle 4 zone and will be upgrading to a 2600mm camera.  Right now I image with an ASI533mc-pro.  Need to determine best SHO filters to get and am considering the Antlia 3nm or 4.5nm filters.  I have read that the H and S 4.5nm filters are just about as good as the 3nm ones but the 3nm O filter is better to help against moon glow.  Can someone confirm this?  I am on a budget and want to save where ever I can.

 Many thanks!

hi

im in SQM 16.84 ( bortle 9 or more) , i image with 6200mm  and 3nm 50mm chroma SHO
bortle 4  ( good SNR) LRGB ( above 50 degrees ) and SHO  only for details( 3nm  or around  4 nm ). or full  SHO and LRGB for stars
Mike Tettenborn avatar
Mike Tettenborn avatar
I don't think OP is questioning the Antlia filters, merely wondering which to get due to the fact that the Edge is a bit cheaper than the 3nm and isn't really any worse. The question is whether to go 3nm or 4.5nm. To be fair the 4.5nm will do just as well as the 3nm, it will however include a slightly broader spectrum, including H-beta. 

But I agree, Antlia is the way to go IMO. Very good quality and a reasonable price, whether it be 4.5nm or 3nm. 

We can showcase stacks and finished images but it won't really help, plenty of filters will produce good images. The difference between 3nm and 4.5nm though seems to be neglible - So if budget is an issue, get the 4.5nm. Having used both for some time I have nothing but good things to say about any of them.

Many Thanks!  That is what I was hoping to hear.  I will go with the 4.5 Antlia filters to save some cash and help pay for the camera and filter wheel too.  This forum is a great help.
Well Written Respectful Supportive
Mike Tettenborn avatar
Mike Tettenborn avatar
Brian Puhl:
I shoot from my bortle 4 backyard with the full antlia 3nm / LRGB set and couldn't be happier with the setup.   Ha and Sii are barely affected by the moon unless you're staring at it (within 15 degrees).   Of course, you will have less signal, but there are still hardly ever gradients in Ha, and rarely gradients in Sii.   Oiii will always be affected by the moon, even at 3nm.    For that reason I generally only do Oiii when the moon is not present.

Here are a couple raw, unedited stacks from my Espirit 100s, IMX571s (dual scope), and Antlia 3nm filters.    Most of this data was taken under 50% moon or better, and a couple nights were within 20 degrees of the moon.    No visible gradients. 


These are all 10 minute subs, 10 to 15 hours per stack.   These are full resolution (converted to JPG)

Ha:





Sii:




Oiii:









The Oiii may not be the greatest example because I did have some mild reflection issues that I have since taken care of.   Those are evidenced by the bottom two corners, one is caused by out of frame Propus, reflecting off the edge of the filter mask.  Same story for the other corner.      Oiii was also taken with no moon.


Hope this helps a little bit in your decision.   Antlia 3nm are the way to go.  Everyone I know who runs them has zero complaints, and I highly recommend them to others.

Thanks for taking the time to share the images.  A great help.
Well Written Respectful
Werner Stumpferl avatar
Werner Stumpferl avatar
Hi
I'm also in Bortle 4 and I'm using 2" Antlia O with 3nm and S/H with 4.5nm together with a QHY294M. And I'm very satisfied with this combination. 
With O I need longer exposure times because of less signal. 
CS
Werner