I purchased the camera from Astrohutech website, you should be able to find it there.

You can, but there's a far better product out now for use with a DSLR, Daystar filters makes a really amazing one.

Says someone who has no content

@@rkeele82 Well jackass, you don't need to be a brain surgeon to know that jabbing one with a scalpel isn't the right way to do brain surgery. You never even mentioned one of the filters you had on display, you didn't even answer your own question of the title, and you left out several other options for Solar such as D-ERF etc. You also fan boy over the meade even though you can also double stack (which you didn't mention) the lunt... lunt is also cheaper, and has a better quality right now. as well as more option. The video was incomplete and poorly done, I have no content on this account. But nice assumption that you think I may or may not have a channel, active or otherwise as if it matters to judge your shitty video lmfao.

And then you can collimate the damn thing like normal.

You generally only want to only use a wedge on a refractor, reflectors will build up too much heat without a front element ERF... so I guess if you did get an ERF from somewhere like daystar filters, you could use a wedge, though I have never tried it myself.

@@rkeele82 thanks man

Correct... and as long as you have your scope tracking the Sun it shouldn't heat up too much as the heat will be transferred into the backplate of the wedge. There's always a chance of something getting damaged, but the way things are designed, the wedge passes only 1% of the total light into your eyepiece, and so as long as the Prism is good, you should be too. I have never had a problem with mine.

@@rkeele82 Thanks for the great video and the rapid response!

Thanks for your help, and the quick response.

If you can get and afford an 80 mm etalon, go for it. Otherwise buy a smaller one and adapt it. The blocking filter should have 6 mm clear aperture at least, so I would suggest a BF10 when choosing Coronado or a 1200 blocking filter when choosing Lunt. The 600 is meant for telescopes up to 600 mm focal length, but that might be a bit too small of a margin. It also makes very accurate tracking necessary. An alternative to the combination of etalon and blocking filter would be a Daystar Quark, containing both and additionally a strong Barlow lens.

Yeah, most likely

Yeah, the quark is definitely on my wishlist, I'll hopefully have one here pretty soon where I can post an updated video using it.

As far as camera's I've been using the LPI-G Advanced camera, and it's been amazing, Orion has been having sales on them. But I've been extremely happy with the quality of the videos that I've used to stack with into a final image... If you go to my Instagram, you can see examples of what I've gotten using this camera... Most if not all my Planetary images are taken using this camera.

NO. Refractors only.

Good question, I've used a few different ones, my favorite I use for 1.25 eyepieces is this one. It's worked the best for me. agenaastro.com/meade-smart-phone-adapter-608007.html

Thank you for your reply. I will have to try. I have the double stack 15mm. Amazing detail on the surface. Super high contrast. I hope to get some good shots with the cell. 👍

yeah NO ONE DOES THAT, NO ONE

Buy Seymour filter and cut it yourself

Seymour filter sheet

Its going to be red, trying to photograph using a cellphone is going to appear redish pink... the other colors are generally only like that after processing.

@@rkeele82 Nice! What do you recommend for tripod and 12mm eyepiece? How about a camera link to a pc?

Where did you buy this?

Correct, it should not make a difference.

This wouldn't work with a H-alpha solar filter, as th ND5 front filter blocks the 99.999% of every part of the spectrum, including H-alpha. Observing in H-alpha works differently. If you have a larger aperture, some systems need an energy rejection filter (Schott RG630 or interference type) in front of the telescope, while systems with the etalon in front of the telescope don't. Drawback of the latter: They become _very_ expensive with larger apertures.

I will politely disagree with your assessment. From a "purist" point of view, and for those extremely serious about spending thousands of dollars/pounds to have bragging rights, then no, don't purchase these types (advertised as 1000mm focal length but physical length measurably less than 1 meter). However, for the casual hobbyist who wishes to go out on occasion to have a look around (moon, planets, some nebulas, the Andromeda Galaxy) then these are not a bad option. I personally own a Celestron 114GT of this bird-jones design (15 years now!). I obtain extremely sharp imaging of the moon and have observed Saturn and Mars and some nebula BUT one must know a few things first: 1. These mirrors are not true parabolic but easier to manufacture Spherical Mirrors, and as such the outer edge light rays will not come to the proper focal point as the center region. Thus the Barlow/"Corrector" lens (not a true "Corrector" lens) inserted into the focus tube basically increases the magnification (focal length) and in doing so removes the distorting outer edge keeping only the more accurate central area. This increases the apparent focal length. 2. The introduction of the Barlow/"Corrector" means that light rays must travel through more glass than just the eyepiece before reaching your eyes, thus absorbing some of that light so that there is some dimming -- any photography will require longer exposures than one without this additional Barlow. Otherwise the Barlow/"Corrector" by big name companies is very satisfactory and should not introduce aberrations (chroma, etc.). 3. These bird-jones scopes are very easy to collimate without having to remove the "Corrector" (not a true corrector) lens from the focusing tube. However, alignment is absolutely critical so I recommend a two-step process: 1. first center the optics using a Cheshire Eyepiece. Make sure the primary has an adhesive 'ring' to mark center. The ring of the primary, the view of the primary, the secondary mirror, the focus tube, and the hole in the Cheshire all need to be centered around each other. Many video show how to do this. That is the hardest part. 2. Second, now use the laser collimator to fine tweak the laser point as described here and elsewhere. Again, I am using a 15 year old Celestron 114mm GoTo using the supplied Celestron SMA "OK quality" lenses and I obtain extremely sharp images. If anyone is not getting sharp imaging then the alignment is sub-optimal. Fix the alignment! 4. Due to the increased focal length/magnification these scopes are generally unsuitable for large structures such as the Andromeda Galaxy as the FOV is too small. 5. These types of 'consumer' scopes are great for casual imaging but the GoTo computerized alt-az mount is improper for "long exposure" deep sky objects due primarily to the angular re-orientation of objects moving across the sky that the x-y movement of alt-az mount cannot correct for, unlike equatorial mounts which are a must for stellar astrophotography of deep space objects. But for short exposures of the moon it will be fine. For planets you will need a series of short exposures and learn stacking software. 6. For photography of the moon you can use a cell phone but with a digital astrocam consider the loss of light with these scope designs, thus be sure to get a camera that support very short exposures but with large fps videos (130 would be nice). Also watch your sensor pixel size. Larger pixels (3um and greater) will absorb more light thus reducing electronic noise. An expensive cooled camera with this scope is for the dedicated astronomer/hobbyist and is is overkill for these scopes. Always read camera specifications.

Old comment but I'll bite anyways. That's a 90mm f/10ish refractor yes? Theoretically you could get a 1.25" solar wedge for it, but there's a lot of plastic in the design and I'd be concerned about melting the focuser. A mylar film filter will be inexpensive and good to get you going. I'm sure by now you've either figured that out or gotten a different telescope, but someone else with a similar scope may see these words and go from there.

What was the condition of the filter? If the filter was scratched or damaged it might not protected you appropriately. You should have your eyes checked by a doctor to determine if you have retinal damage.

Yes, they are fantastic for those applications

You won't be able to see anything since that lens corrects the spherical aberration created by the spherical mirror