AFOV vs Aperture Poll

Hello, Jon,
My opinion as well.
Clear skies,
Bill Meyers,


Jon Isaacs wrote:

* One person (Jon Isaacs) refuses to take the bait; apples are apples, oranges
are oranges, and he'll deal with the desert island when and if he has to.

My solution: Pragmatic, take the 10 inch and buy those Synta 66 degree FOV
eyepieces for the less than the cost of TV Plossls. Yeah, I know its cheating
but its what I have done anyway, I am pretty happy with the Synta Ultrawides.

I am in the position of having both 8 and 10 inch scopes, I have a pretty good
idea of the difference and it is a tough call because that 50 percent extra
mirror area is pretty nice but I have gotten used to the wider fields of view
so viewing through a Plossl seems like looking down a drain pipe.

Jon

Hi there Bill. You posted:

And which is exactly how much fainter galaxies show up in very large telescopes. You have put your finger on a
much broader issue: "detect" is the right word, and the question in my mind is, why "detect" a long series of
objects with averted vision, unless a particular object is intrinsically interesting( (for example, the
Sagittarius dwarf, or a quasar) beyond the many many many similar objects in its class? Is it the thrill of
the hunt that drives people through the Herschel II list?

It can be, but there are many objects on these lists which do show detail at
higher power, so they do not necessarily require a wide-field eyepice to view
(although again, it can be helpful to use one). Some of the finer galaxy
groupings and the larger clusters are almost invisible at lower powers, but
can be quite interesting at high magnifications. I recall viewing the Perseus
galaxy cluster in a 20 inch at about 181x, and the galaxies outnumbered the
stars in the field! Clear skies to you.
--
David W. Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 11th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 18-23, 2004, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************

Hi there Bill. You posted:

And which is exactly how much fainter galaxies show up in very large telescopes. You have put your finger on a
much broader issue: "detect" is the right word, and the question in my mind is, why "detect" a long series of
objects with averted vision, unless a particular object is intrinsically interesting( (for example, the
Sagittarius dwarf, or a quasar) beyond the many many many similar objects in its class? Is it the thrill of
the hunt that drives people through the Herschel II list?

It can be, but there are many objects on these lists which do show detail at
higher power, so they do not necessarily require a wide-field eyepice to view
(although again, it can be helpful to use one). Some of the finer galaxy
groupings and the larger clusters are almost invisible at lower powers, but
can be quite interesting at high magnifications. I recall viewing the Perseus
galaxy cluster in a 20 inch at about 181x, and the galaxies outnumbered the
stars in the field! Clear skies to you.
--
David W. Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 11th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 18-23, 2004, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************

On 12/30/03 09:01 +0900, Bill Meyers wrote:

Tony Flanders wrote:

globular clusters that were hardest to give up. M5 is
stupendous through a 12-inch scope even under very heavy
light pollution.

I agree with you pretty much but "chacun a son gout" M5 is
also stupendous with a 4 inch scope at 17x in my view.

Alas, M5 isn't much more than a dim smudge when viewed with a 4"
scope under the light pollution here. At that point, it's only
stupendous in the knowledge of what is being viewed, IMO.

trane
--
//------------------------------------------------------------
// Trane Francks Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.

On 12/30/03 09:01 +0900, Bill Meyers wrote:

Tony Flanders wrote:

globular clusters that were hardest to give up. M5 is
stupendous through a 12-inch scope even under very heavy
light pollution.

I agree with you pretty much but "chacun a son gout" M5 is
also stupendous with a 4 inch scope at 17x in my view.

Alas, M5 isn't much more than a dim smudge when viewed with a 4"
scope under the light pollution here. At that point, it's only
stupendous in the knowledge of what is being viewed, IMO.

trane
--
//------------------------------------------------------------
// Trane Francks Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.

Hello, Trane,
Sorry to hear your skies are so light polluted. If you can get to a
dark sky, M5 and a number of the other bright Messier globulars can be
quite beautiful in a 4 inch at low power. I would say the same for M27,
which lies is a gorgeous Milky Way field.
Clear dark skies to you,
Bill Meyers

Trane Francks wrote:

On 12/30/03 09:01 +0900, Bill Meyers wrote:

Tony Flanders wrote:

globular clusters that were hardest to give up. M5 is
stupendous through a 12-inch scope even under very heavy
light pollution.

I agree with you pretty much but "chacun a son gout" M5 is
also stupendous with a 4 inch scope at 17x in my view.

Alas, M5 isn't much more than a dim smudge when viewed with a 4"
scope under the light pollution here. At that point, it's only
stupendous in the knowledge of what is being viewed, IMO.

trane
--
//------------------------------------------------------------
// Trane Francks Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.

Hello, Trane,
Sorry to hear your skies are so light polluted. If you can get to a
dark sky, M5 and a number of the other bright Messier globulars can be
quite beautiful in a 4 inch at low power. I would say the same for M27,
which lies is a gorgeous Milky Way field.
Clear dark skies to you,
Bill Meyers

Trane Francks wrote:

On 12/30/03 09:01 +0900, Bill Meyers wrote:

Tony Flanders wrote:

globular clusters that were hardest to give up. M5 is
stupendous through a 12-inch scope even under very heavy
light pollution.

I agree with you pretty much but "chacun a son gout" M5 is
also stupendous with a 4 inch scope at 17x in my view.

Alas, M5 isn't much more than a dim smudge when viewed with a 4"
scope under the light pollution here. At that point, it's only
stupendous in the knowledge of what is being viewed, IMO.

trane
--
//------------------------------------------------------------
// Trane Francks Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.

Put me down for aperture, but I would still miss the Naglers.
rat
~( );

email: remove 'et' from .com(et) in above email address

Put me down for aperture, but I would still miss the Naglers.
rat
~( );

email: remove 'et' from .com(et) in above email address

Hello, David,
I agree with what you say here. Many report that galaxies show more structure or detail at high powers.
Certain galaxy groupings are intrinsically interesting to me because they are groupings. The "trio in Leo" (M65,
66, and 3628), and Stephan's Quintet, come to mind. The trio is bright. I've only seen the Quintet once or twice and
I remember it as quite faint.
A galaxy like NGC 1275, which is such a strong radio source, interests me intrinsically because of that fact. I
tend to like galaxies to have something special about them if I am going to take the trouble to track them down.
I've never seen the Perseus Galaxy Cluster but would love to see it someday. To me it is intrinsically
interesting because it is a huge cluster of galaxies, at the mind-boggling distance of 300 million light years.
I agree also that for most faint galaxies, a wide apparent field of view is not essential.
Clear skies,
Bill Meyers

David Knisely wrote:

Hi there Bill. You posted:

And which is exactly how much fainter galaxies show up in very large telescopes. You have put your finger on a
much broader issue: "detect" is the right word, and the question in my mind is, why "detect" a long series of
objects with averted vision, unless a particular object is intrinsically interesting( (for example, the
Sagittarius dwarf, or a quasar) beyond the many many many similar objects in its class? Is it the thrill of
the hunt that drives people through the Herschel II list?

It can be, but there are many objects on these lists which do show detail at
higher power, so they do not necessarily require a wide-field eyepice to view
(although again, it can be helpful to use one). Some of the finer galaxy
groupings and the larger clusters are almost invisible at lower powers, but
can be quite interesting at high magnifications. I recall viewing the Perseus
galaxy cluster in a 20 inch at about 181x, and the galaxies outnumbered the
stars in the field! Clear skies to you.
--
David W. Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 11th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 18-23, 2004, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************