Am I wasting my time and money? - Forums

Hey All,

I am new to the Astronomy world as of this past December, although I have been interested in it from childhood. Finally bought my first scope, Celestron Evolution 8 SCT and smart scope SeeStar S50. I am pleased with the Evolution as its great for Planetary and Lunar but the limiting factor is the alt/az mount. The SeeStar is also great, but got it more for traveling if / when I do. The problem lies in I live in a Bortle 8 zone, not only that but I have a streetlight direclty adjacent to my yard (image below; FYI my yard is not that bright from the streetlight, my yard light is on and I do turn it off during sessions but you get the idea). This is where I would use my scope 90% or more of the time.

I really enjoy the aspect of Planetary imaging and using the software to enhance my pictures. I would love to do the same with DSO's but I would need an EQ mount and from what I understand a refractor would make life much easier. I was looking at something like an AM3 mount and Redcat 51 WIFD. My SeeStar S50 doesn't seem to cut it at home; most of my images fail to stack as the algothrim rejects them. I could likely do more with EAA using SharpCap and then saving / processing the subs.

Am I wasting my time if I save up for the AM3 / Redcat Rig to use at home? Would everything essentially be a mess of noise and gradients? Im not a huge fan of mono and definitely prefer color. Just not sure if I should quite even thinking about it or its something that I can pursue and overcome on that rig using filters / processing to get nice images. Any feedback would be great!

Narrowband (dual-tri band) OSC is certainly possible if you shield the scope from the streetlight (there are various way to do this). Broadband is definitely going to be more challenging. I'd never ever get a tiny scope as the RedCat for the sort of environment you are in and would rather get a 4" refractor in the f/6 - f/7 range. AM3 is fine I guess. Obviously quality gear begets quality results so it isn't going to be on the cheap.

Vinny,

I shoot in Bortle 8 with a couple streetlights directly adjacent to my yard. I find as long as you are shooting targets either well above the light, or at least 15-20 degrees offset, you should be able to process out any gradient to a workable degree. Granted, you're probably not going to get absolutely crisp, beautiful shots you're seeing from people shooting in B3-4 conditions, but you'll get shots you're happy with (just… a LOT more integration time than you'd otherwise think). From what I see in your picture, you also have power lines to contend with down that bearing, anyways, so just shoot anything above them and you should be ok without horrific light gradient (anything you get should be correctable in processing).

I would say that shooting with a filter like the Optolong L-Pro helps a good bit in eliminating a lot of the light pollution (at least in my experience) without losing the colour of background stars. It has been my go-to filter for over two years, and I have nothing bad to say about it.

By the by… this hobby is all about wasting time and money.

andrea tasselli:
Narrowband (dual-tri band) OSC is certainly possible if you shield the scope from the streetlight (there are various way to do this). Broadband is definitely going to be more challenging. I'd never ever get a tiny scope as the RedCat for the sort of environment you are in and would rather get a 4" refractor in the f/6 - f/7 range. AM3 is fine I guess. Obviously quality gear begets quality results so it isn't going to be on the cheap.

Andrea beat me to the punch by two minutes!

Definitely agree with the challenge of broadband imaging in Bortle 8. My solution has been more integration time than I ever thought I'd do on targets (and still haven't reached the amount that is sufficient to be fully content on any of my images to date).

@andrea tasselli , since you're here, what are your thoughts on Newtonians in those conditions?

andrea tasselli:
Narrowband (dual-tri band) OSC is certainly possible if you shield the scope from the streetlight (there are various way to do this). Broadband is definitely going to be more challenging. I'd never ever get a tiny scope as the RedCat for the sort of environment you are in and would rather get a 4" refractor in the f/6 - f/7 range. AM3 is fine I guess. Obviously quality gear begets quality results so it isn't going to be on the cheap.

Thanks Andrea! I have been looking into building a LP Shield / Wall out of 4 mill tarp and PVC pipe. That will likely happen as soon as the weather gets warmer. May I ask why the Redcat. 51 would be a bad choice? I am pretty ignorant so im not questioning the wisdom just not sure of the logic behind it? I have read on Cloudy Nights and WO's actual site that this is a good scope for a beginner and the WIFD eliminates the extra steps of ensuring exact backfocus. In addition, since if I go this route I am guessing I will need to do 3-4x the integration that others not in my environment have to do; so would'nt a f/4.9 scope be better than f/6 or f/7; more photons in less time allowing me to maximize my sessions?

Chris Sulyma - SeaWolf Astrophotography:
Vinny,

I shoot in Bortle 8 with a couple streetlights directly adjacent to my yard. I find as long as you are shooting targets either well above the light, or at least 15-20 degrees offset, you should be able to process out any gradient to a workable degree. Granted, you're probably not going to get absolutely crisp, beautiful shots you're seeing from people shooting in B3-4 conditions, but you'll get shots you're happy with (just... a LOT more integration time than you'd otherwise think). From what I see in your picture, you also have power lines to contend with down that bearing, anyways, so just shoot anything above them and you should be ok without horrific light gradient (anything you get should be correctable in processing).

I would say that shooting with a filter like the Optolong L-Pro helps a good bit in eliminating a lot of the light pollution (at least in my experience) without losing the colour of background stars. It has been my go-to filter for over two years, and I have nothing bad to say about it.

Great advice and much appreciated Chris. It's heartening to know that its not doomsday scenario and others content with that amount of LP and still achieve nice results. I actually have an L-Enhance filter already but no the L-Pro.

Vinny Vent:
Chris Sulyma - SeaWolf Astrophotography:
Vinny,

I shoot in Bortle 8 with a couple streetlights directly adjacent to my yard. I find as long as you are shooting targets either well above the light, or at least 15-20 degrees offset, you should be able to process out any gradient to a workable degree. Granted, you're probably not going to get absolutely crisp, beautiful shots you're seeing from people shooting in B3-4 conditions, but you'll get shots you're happy with (just... a LOT more integration time than you'd otherwise think). From what I see in your picture, you also have power lines to contend with down that bearing, anyways, so just shoot anything above them and you should be ok without horrific light gradient (anything you get should be correctable in processing).

I would say that shooting with a filter like the Optolong L-Pro helps a good bit in eliminating a lot of the light pollution (at least in my experience) without losing the colour of background stars. It has been my go-to filter for over two years, and I have nothing bad to say about it.

Great advice and much appreciated Chris. It's heartening to know that its not doomsday scenario and others content with that amount of LP and still achieve nice results. I actually have an L-Enhance filter already but no the L-Pro.

No problem at all. I actually moved from Bortle 4 to Bortle 8 last year, so I had to learn to contend with the LP all of a sudden. Makes you grateful for the opportunities to shoot in better conditions.

andrea tasselli:
By the by... this hobby is all about wasting time and money.

lol for sure! I found that out just by doing planetary in the short time I have my Evo 8!

Chris Sulyma - SeaWolf Astrophotography:
@andrea tasselli , since you're here, what are your thoughts on Newtonians in those conditions?

They are challenging for a beginner to contend with but not unsurmountable. I think once you get quality gear that doesn't require constant attentions then you're off to a good start and the rewards are potentially great. But if you are a beginner maybe the APO route is the easiest one. BTW, I'm shooting in B6/B7 skies so some hurdles are similar.

Chris Sulyma - SeaWolf Astrophotography:
Vinny Vent:
Chris Sulyma - SeaWolf Astrophotography:
Vinny,

I shoot in Bortle 8 with a couple streetlights directly adjacent to my yard. I find as long as you are shooting targets either well above the light, or at least 15-20 degrees offset, you should be able to process out any gradient to a workable degree. Granted, you're probably not going to get absolutely crisp, beautiful shots you're seeing from people shooting in B3-4 conditions, but you'll get shots you're happy with (just... a LOT more integration time than you'd otherwise think). From what I see in your picture, you also have power lines to contend with down that bearing, anyways, so just shoot anything above them and you should be ok without horrific light gradient (anything you get should be correctable in processing).

I would say that shooting with a filter like the Optolong L-Pro helps a good bit in eliminating a lot of the light pollution (at least in my experience) without losing the colour of background stars. It has been my go-to filter for over two years, and I have nothing bad to say about it.

Great advice and much appreciated Chris. It's heartening to know that its not doomsday scenario and others content with that amount of LP and still achieve nice results. I actually have an L-Enhance filter already but no the L-Pro.

No problem at all. I actually moved from Bortle 4 to Bortle 8 last year, so I had to learn to contend with the LP all of a sudden. Makes you grateful for the opportunities to shoot in better conditions.

My gosh that must stink going from a B4 to a B8, I guess at least in my situation better to never have had then to have had and lost! Good for you though on continuing to push through! When you all say substanial more integration time; I know its contigent on what type target but generally what could I expect?

I was hoping to use my Evolution mount on the CPC 1100 Heavy Duty Tripod that I have and just mount a refractor to it. Thought process was it would be like making a king size version of a SeeStar and then I could just hit the same target for about 20-30 minutes per night for multiplel nights. This would save me money on getting a new mount but the more I read the more it seems like a bad idea.

What kind of objects are you most interested in, Vinny? I think that will be most telling of the viability of your location. If you are ok with emission nebula, either mono with NB flilters or OSC with a dual band NB filter (latter sounds more up your alley) will get the job done nicely. I've done NB imaging from a Bortle 8/9 suburban yard for years, and NB nukes the LP pretty well. With that bright white (I assume LED) streetlight there, you would probably want to find a way to block any direct light from it from reaching your scope…but, NB imaging under heavily light polluted skies is more than viable. This includes giant field-spanning nebula, as well as planetary nebula, and anything else that directly emits light.

Now, if your goal is broadband imaging…dark and dusty stuff reflecting the light of stars and the like, or galaxies… That is still possible, but my honest and humble opinion is OSC is not the best option there. At dark sites, I think either OSC or mono+RGB filters are great. Under light polluted skies for broadband objects, I actually think mono+LRGB actually takes the cake. There are two ways to image under LP…with an LP filter, which will cut out at least half the visible spectrum (and are again mostly useful for emission objects), or just an L filter, which will guzzle down tons of light in short amounts of time, including LP, but…signal grows faster than noise. An L filter won't cut out any light, and while it will pick up LP, it'll pick up everything else as well. I have found it is easier to build up a strong object signal with just an L filter than an LP filter. (Further, you won't have the huge color gaps that an LP filter will have, which can really mess with the color quality of your final results.) Then with the RGB filters, you can find some that have those key LP gaps (less useful these days with LED lighting, but still useful) to add some color.

OSC isn't as flexible as mono here. With OSC, you'll pick up a lot of LP, sometimes double the LP where the OSC CFA bandpasses overlap (which are often right at key LP emission wavelengths). That can really complicate broadband imaging under heavily light polluted skies. It is possible, but…its a lot more work, particularly on the processing side. You will need a LOT of data to get good results, if that is something that matters to you.

Since you mentioned you weren't a fan of mono, OSC+dual band filter is probably the way to go. There are plenty of emission targets up there, and could keep you busy for years.

Hello Vinny,
I have the same problem in my backyard. I tried multiple times through the city hall to remove that particular lamp post, my neighbors didn't had any problems on removing it, and I'm asking since 2020, even made a petition. They never answer me or even gived me any attention on that, and like you I also have a light bucket from Celestron which is a problem for me in broadband targets and when I'm shooting mono with the OIII filter and HBeta filter, since the light is a LED going to the blueish part of the spectrum.
I live in a bortle 4 scratching to 3, so you can imagine the problem. Once not a long time ago, I came across with the mayor who told me that to remove the light from the lamp post and put in another place where is much more needed, it cost to the city hall 300€. I told him, that I can even pay that for taking it off, despite I already pay my home taxes to them every year. The lamp post is still there until a few weeks ago when I decided to take action with my own hands. Like i said: he's still there, but without any light.

But try to solve things out with the city hall.. It's the starting point.

Cheers,

Cesar

Vinny Vent:
Thanks Andrea! I have been looking into building a LP Shield / Wall out of 4 mill tarp and PVC pipe. That will likely happen as soon as the weather gets warmer. May I ask why the Redcat. 51 would be a bad choice? I am pretty ignorant so im not questioning the wisdom just not sure of the logic behind it? I have read on Cloudy Nights and WO's actual site that this is a good scope for a beginner and the WIFD eliminates the extra steps of ensuring exact backfocus. In addition, since if I go this route I am guessing I will need to do 3-4x the integration that others not in my environment have to do; so would'nt a f/4.9 scope be better than f/6 or f/7; more photons in less time allowing me to maximize my sessions?

I have found that short focal length scopes/lens to be gradient magnets for all sort of horrible gradients assuming using a APS-C type of sensor. Plus, they are small in aperture and that is worth something in the end. A 4" refractor is probably you best bet to give depth without risking photon-starved images and the background is less of an issue. Just get the optimum configuration for your circumstances.

Thanks Jon, also lots of good information here so I appreciate it. I am mainly concentrated on imaging Emission Nebula and possibly some spiral galaxies. If I had to break it down I would say 80 Emission Nebula / 20 Spiral Galaxies. I don't mind investing the time in collecting the data; its all part of the process which I understand. I do have to get better at using programs like Pixinsight. I have become decently familiar with Siril from playing with the SeeStar and Autostakkert, Registax and Lightroom for Planetary.

Observatório Astrográfico do Boqueirão:
Hello Vinny,
I have the same problem in my backyard. I tried multiple times through the city hall to remove that particular lamp post, my neighbors didn't had any problems on removing it, and I'm asking since 2020, even made a petition. They never answer me or even gived me any attention on that, and like you I also have a light bucket from Celestron which is a problem for me in broadband targets and when I'm shooting mono with the OIII filter and HBeta filter, since the light is a LED going to the blueish part of the spectrum.
I live in a bortle 4 scratching to 3, so you can imagine the problem. Once not a long time ago, I came across with the mayor who told me that to remove the light from the lamp post and put in another place where is much more needed, it cost to the city hall 300€. I told him, that I can even pay that for taking it off, despite I already pay my home taxes to them every year. The lamp post is still there until a few weeks ago when I decided to take action with my own hands. Like i said: he's still there, but without any light.

But try to solve things out with the city hall.. It's the starting point.

Cheers,

Cesar

Great story! I actually started. I contacted my local congressman who in turn referred me to the local community board. They stated they contacted the Department of Transportation and they agree to change the bulb to a dimmer and softer type. That was 2 months ago, I am writing another email this week, yet again...

andrea tasselli:
Vinny Vent:
Thanks Andrea! I have been looking into building a LP Shield / Wall out of 4 mill tarp and PVC pipe. That will likely happen as soon as the weather gets warmer. May I ask why the Redcat. 51 would be a bad choice? I am pretty ignorant so im not questioning the wisdom just not sure of the logic behind it? I have read on Cloudy Nights and WO's actual site that this is a good scope for a beginner and the WIFD eliminates the extra steps of ensuring exact backfocus. In addition, since if I go this route I am guessing I will need to do 3-4x the integration that others not in my environment have to do; so would'nt a f/4.9 scope be better than f/6 or f/7; more photons in less time allowing me to maximize my sessions?

I have found that short focal length scopes/lens to be gradient magnets for all sort of horrible gradients assuming using a APS-C type of sensor. Plus, they are small in aperture and that is worth something in the end. A 4" refractor is probably you best bet to give depth without risking photon-starved images and the background is less of an issue. Just get the optimum configuration for your circumstances.

Ahh thats good to know! Any favorites or suggestions on which make / model would be a good choice?

Vinny Vent:
Thanks Jon, also lots of good information here so I appreciate it. I am mainly concentrated on imaging Emission Nebula and possibly some spiral galaxies. If I had to break it down I would say 80 Emission Nebula / 20 Spiral Galaxies. I don't mind investing the time in collecting the data; its all part of the process which I understand. I do have to get better at using programs like Pixinsight. I have become decently familiar with Siril from playing with the SeeStar and Autostakkert, Registax and Lightroom for Planetary.

Something else to consider, is that galaxies usually require a different kind of scope...something capable of narrower fields and much greater magnification of the object. A system built for nebula could work for some galaxies, and maybe a few of the large galaxy clusters, but it probably wouldn't be ideal for zeroing in on smaller galaxies.

Since you seem more interested in emission nebula, I would start there, and FOCUS there. I think one of the best ways to get carried away and spend a lot of money quickly, is to scatter, and try to do too many types of imaging at once. With a focus on emission, you can spend a bit less, and learn the ropes, before you get into the more challenging aspects of higher resolution (more magnified) imaging of smaller objects.

Vinny Vent:
Chris Sulyma - SeaWolf Astrophotography:
Vinny Vent:
Chris Sulyma - SeaWolf Astrophotography:
Vinny,

I shoot in Bortle 8 with a couple streetlights directly adjacent to my yard. I find as long as you are shooting targets either well above the light, or at least 15-20 degrees offset, you should be able to process out any gradient to a workable degree. Granted, you're probably not going to get absolutely crisp, beautiful shots you're seeing from people shooting in B3-4 conditions, but you'll get shots you're happy with (just... a LOT more integration time than you'd otherwise think). From what I see in your picture, you also have power lines to contend with down that bearing, anyways, so just shoot anything above them and you should be ok without horrific light gradient (anything you get should be correctable in processing).

I would say that shooting with a filter like the Optolong L-Pro helps a good bit in eliminating a lot of the light pollution (at least in my experience) without losing the colour of background stars. It has been my go-to filter for over two years, and I have nothing bad to say about it.

Great advice and much appreciated Chris. It's heartening to know that its not doomsday scenario and others content with that amount of LP and still achieve nice results. I actually have an L-Enhance filter already but no the L-Pro.

No problem at all. I actually moved from Bortle 4 to Bortle 8 last year, so I had to learn to contend with the LP all of a sudden. Makes you grateful for the opportunities to shoot in better conditions.

My gosh that must stink going from a B4 to a B8, I guess at least in my situation better to never have had then to have had and lost! Good for you though on continuing to push through! When you all say substanial more integration time; I know its contigent on what type target but generally what could I expect?

I was hoping to use my Evolution mount on the CPC 1100 Heavy Duty Tripod that I have and just mount a refractor to it. Thought process was it would be like making a king size version of a SeeStar and then I could just hit the same target for about 20-30 minutes per night for multiplel nights. This would save me money on getting a new mount but the more I read the more it seems like a bad idea.

Depends on the quality of the image you want. I've been chipping away slowly at M81/M82 with over a dozen hours of integration, and I'm still not 100% happy.

I saw a chart on Instagram that shows the rough equivalency from different Bortle zones. On it, it suggests that, to achieve the same quality data of 90 minutes integration in a Bortle 4 zone, we require roughly 27.5 hours in Bortle 8.

Vinny Vent:
Ahh thats good to know! Any favorites or suggestions on which make / model would be a good choice?

That pretty much depends on the depth of your pocket. The lastest release of Askar APOs are cheap/good enough to entertaint buying even if one has to add a flattener for a largish sensors.

Chris Sulyma - SeaWolf Astrophotography:
Vinny Vent:
My gosh that must stink going from a B4 to a B8, I guess at least in my situation better to never have had then to have had and lost! Good for you though on continuing to push through! When you all say substanial more integration time; I know its contigent on what type target but generally what could I expect?

I was hoping to use my Evolution mount on the CPC 1100 Heavy Duty Tripod that I have and just mount a refractor to it. Thought process was it would be like making a king size version of a SeeStar and then I could just hit the same target for about 20-30 minutes per night for multiplel nights. This would save me money on getting a new mount but the more I read the more it seems like a bad idea.

Depends on the quality of the image you want. I've been chipping away slowly at M81/M82 with over a dozen hours of integration, and I'm still not 100% happy.

I saw a chart on Instagram that shows the rough equivalency from different Bortle zones. On it, it suggests that, to achieve the same quality data of 90 minutes integration in a Bortle 4 zone, we require roughly 27.5 hours in Bortle 8.

Sounds about right by my calculation. That would be about an 18x difference, which is definitely in the ballpark for the differences between my back yard (bortle 8/9) and my dark sites (which are around bortle 4, randing from 21-21.6mag/sq".)

Only, I rarely ever just acquired 90 minutes at the dark site. That is a start, but usually I had 4-5 hours, and more like 10 if I was really able to get started lower in the horizon and keep on an object before it hit the Denver LP bubble on the other side. With some objects, even 10, from a dark site, wasn't enough. So then, extrapolate 4 hours and 10 hours into bortle 8 time, and you have 72-180 hours! (And in my experience, even with tens of hours of light polluted broadband data, its still polluted data, even after gradient extraction (an imperfect process, even still today), and never ever actually normalizes with the contrast and color quality you get with pure dark site data.)

Jon Rista:
Chris Sulyma - SeaWolf Astrophotography:
Vinny Vent:
My gosh that must stink going from a B4 to a B8, I guess at least in my situation better to never have had then to have had and lost! Good for you though on continuing to push through! When you all say substanial more integration time; I know its contigent on what type target but generally what could I expect?

I was hoping to use my Evolution mount on the CPC 1100 Heavy Duty Tripod that I have and just mount a refractor to it. Thought process was it would be like making a king size version of a SeeStar and then I could just hit the same target for about 20-30 minutes per night for multiplel nights. This would save me money on getting a new mount but the more I read the more it seems like a bad idea.

Depends on the quality of the image you want. I've been chipping away slowly at M81/M82 with over a dozen hours of integration, and I'm still not 100% happy.

I saw a chart on Instagram that shows the rough equivalency from different Bortle zones. On it, it suggests that, to achieve the same quality data of 90 minutes integration in a Bortle 4 zone, we require roughly 27.5 hours in Bortle 8.

Sounds about right by my calculation. That would be about an 18x difference, which is definitely in the ballpark for the differences between my back yard (bortle 8/9) and my dark sites (which are around bortle 4, randing from 21-21.6mag/sq".)

Only, I rarely ever just acquired 90 minutes at the dark site. That is a start, but usually I had 4-5 hours, and more like 10 if I was really able to get started lower in the horizon and keep on an object before it hit the Denver LP bubble on the other side. With some objects, even 10, from a dark site, wasn't enough. So then, extrapolate 4 hours and 10 hours into bortle 8 time, and you have 72-180 hours! (And in my experience, even with tens of hours of light polluted broadband data, its still polluted data, even after gradient extraction (an imperfect process, even still today), and never ever actually normalizes with the contrast and color quality you get with pure dark site data.)

I'm moving to Bortle 6 in August, and even that change from 8 to 6 has me excited beyond measure for this very reason...

Jon Rista:
Vinny Vent:
Thanks Jon, also lots of good information here so I appreciate it. I am mainly concentrated on imaging Emission Nebula and possibly some spiral galaxies. If I had to break it down I would say 80 Emission Nebula / 20 Spiral Galaxies. I don't mind investing the time in collecting the data; its all part of the process which I understand. I do have to get better at using programs like Pixinsight. I have become decently familiar with Siril from playing with the SeeStar and Autostakkert, Registax and Lightroom for Planetary.

Something else to consider, is that galaxies usually require a different kind of scope...something capable of narrower fields and much greater magnification of the object. A system built for nebula could work for some galaxies, and maybe a few of the large galaxy clusters, but it probably wouldn't be ideal for zeroing in on smaller galaxies.

Since you seem more interested in emission nebula, I would start there, and FOCUS there. I think one of the best ways to get carried away and spend a lot of money quickly, is to scatter, and try to do too many types of imaging at once. With a focus on emission, you can spend a bit less, and learn the ropes, before you get into the more challenging aspects of higher resolution (more magnified) imaging of smaller objects.

Thanks Jon - good advice and I have no issue just zeroing in totally on Nebula. If I can get nice images there I would be more than content for a good long while.

andrea tasselli:
Vinny Vent:
Ahh thats good to know! Any favorites or suggestions on which make / model would be a good choice?

That pretty much depends on the depth of your pocket. The lastest release of Askar APOs are cheap/good enough to entertaint buying even if one has to add a flattener for a largish sensors.

I would my price point on just the telescope itself is up to $1,200 dollar mark. Not sure if that is good enough for a good 4inch APO?

Chris Sulyma - SeaWolf Astrophotography:
Vinny Vent:
Chris Sulyma - SeaWolf Astrophotography:
Vinny Vent:
Chris Sulyma - SeaWolf Astrophotography:
Vinny,

I shoot in Bortle 8 with a couple streetlights directly adjacent to my yard. I find as long as you are shooting targets either well above the light, or at least 15-20 degrees offset, you should be able to process out any gradient to a workable degree. Granted, you're probably not going to get absolutely crisp, beautiful shots you're seeing from people shooting in B3-4 conditions, but you'll get shots you're happy with (just... a LOT more integration time than you'd otherwise think). From what I see in your picture, you also have power lines to contend with down that bearing, anyways, so just shoot anything above them and you should be ok without horrific light gradient (anything you get should be correctable in processing).

I would say that shooting with a filter like the Optolong L-Pro helps a good bit in eliminating a lot of the light pollution (at least in my experience) without losing the colour of background stars. It has been my go-to filter for over two years, and I have nothing bad to say about it.

Great advice and much appreciated Chris. It's heartening to know that its not doomsday scenario and others content with that amount of LP and still achieve nice results. I actually have an L-Enhance filter already but no the L-Pro.

No problem at all. I actually moved from Bortle 4 to Bortle 8 last year, so I had to learn to contend with the LP all of a sudden. Makes you grateful for the opportunities to shoot in better conditions.

My gosh that must stink going from a B4 to a B8, I guess at least in my situation better to never have had then to have had and lost! Good for you though on continuing to push through! When you all say substanial more integration time; I know its contigent on what type target but generally what could I expect?

I was hoping to use my Evolution mount on the CPC 1100 Heavy Duty Tripod that I have and just mount a refractor to it. Thought process was it would be like making a king size version of a SeeStar and then I could just hit the same target for about 20-30 minutes per night for multiplel nights. This would save me money on getting a new mount but the more I read the more it seems like a bad idea.

Depends on the quality of the image you want. I've been chipping away slowly at M81/M82 with over a dozen hours of integration, and I'm still not 100% happy.

I saw a chart on Instagram that shows the rough equivalency from different Bortle zones. On it, it suggests that, to achieve the same quality data of 90 minutes integration in a Bortle 4 zone, we require roughly 27.5 hours in Bortle 8.

Wow! That’s a massive difference but also not surprising at all and makes sense