![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jim Beam wrote in message ...
I read different numbers for how much you can milk out of a specific aperture. I am considering a 7" APO. Some people say 30x per inch, thats it for detail. Well, thats only 210x which seems conservative for a 7" APO. Many people say 50x per inch, and thats 350x for a 7" APO, sounding better. To my mind, this is utterly the wrong way of looking at the problem. What magnification you choose to use depends on your eyes, your tastes, and the target you're viewing. It is *not* a useful measure of how much detail you can see through a telescope -- certainly not when comparing among different observers. For instance, I customarily view Jupiter at 120X in my 70mm refractor, about 40X per inch. That works out well for me, and I have an eyepiece that I like that delivers that magnification with that scope. Other people might prefer 80X and yet others might prefer to use 150X. Yet all of us would probably be seeing a similar amount of detail. In any case, I certainly don't consider 40X per inch too high for that little refractor; in fact, I have used twice that for viewing the Moon, or for splitting tight doubles. 40X per inch is also a tad on the low side (for me) when viewing Saturn's rings or details on Mars. However, the inherent limitations of 70mm aperture are already *quite* visible at 120X. On nights of mediocre seeing, I also customarily use 120X for viewing Jupiter in my 177mm reflector, so I end up using the same magnification on both scopes despite the fact that one has 2.5x the aperture of the other. But that doesn't mean that I see the same amount of detail in both scopes. On the contrary! Except on truly terrible nights, I always see more detail at 120X in the 177mm scope than at 120X in the 70mm scope, despite the fact that this magnification is still nowhere near the small scope's "limit" -- if such a concept is meaningful. - Tony Flanders |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|