"Considered as a collector of rare and precious things, the amateur astronomer has a great advantage over amateurs in other fields ... the amateur astronomer has access at all times to the original objects of his study; the masterworks of the heavens belong to him as much as to the great observatories of the world. And there is no privilege like that of being allowed to stand in the presence of the original." --Robert Burnham Jr, Burnham's Celestial Handbook
150mm MCT f/13, 31% CO
"People say I'm in denial. I disagree."
Quote:Here's the hypothetical. It could pertain to deepsky as well but for the sake of simplicity, lets use Mars...Say you have a novice observer with a 10" Reflector looking at Mars with all his heart for the first time ever. Along side him we have a high ranking visual observer with seasoned expert skills and experience also with a 10" identical scope.Obviously the expert will see more. The question however is simply: how large a reflector would the novice need to be able to see the same details as the expert?
First and foremost observing love: naked eye.
Last but not least, telescopes.
And I sometimes dabble with cameras.
Quote:Gee, it must be really, really cloudy where you are. Arizona Ken
Joseph Cannavo: Teeter in Rocky Mountains!My Scopes/Stuff:16" F5 Teeter/ZambutoTom Osypowski equatorial platform10" F5 LightbridgeMid 70's RV-6Orion 100mm EDMy ATMing:Low Profile Front Collimating Dob/Cell for 16" Conical MirrorFront Collimating Dob/Cell for 16" Standard MirrorDob Driver with novel azimuth friction clutch, and axial (rotating) electrical connection.Red Oak Observing PlatformRed Oak Combination Observing Chair (Post Pending!)
Quote:Here's the hypothetical. It could pertain to deepsky as well but for the sake of simplicity, lets use Mars...Say you have a novice observer with a 10" Reflector looking at Mars with all his heart for the first time ever. Along side him we have a high ranking visual observer with seasoned expert skills and experience also with a 10" identical scope.Obviously the expert will see more. The question however is simply: how large a reflector would the novice need to be able to see the same details as the expert?I'm going to throw out 12-15" in aperture - my guess.On deepsky the same scopes, again and a seasoned expert with a novice, but now its M51.How large a scope might a novice need to see the same nuances? There's real technique here.We often debate scopes but what about abilities?Thanks guys.Pete
- Mike ------------ If you make something idiot proof, someone will just make a better idiot. ------------ Mallincam VSS+ iOptron Minitower Celestron 9.25 Edge HD WO EZ Touch mount Skywatcher 150/750 Newt Equinox 80 refractor Equinox 120 refractor Stellarvue M1 mount Nagler Type 4 - 12,17 and 22 and 3-6 zoom Pentax XW 7,10,30 and 40 XL Delos 14 ---
Quote:Lastly, time. More experienced deepsky observers can put in a whopping amount of time on objects I wrote off with the same aperture - even the same galaxy. I was amazed Jake Saleronta (spelling) saw details in a face on spiral I gave five minutes and moved on with disappointment . He on the other hand spent well over an hour with the same aperture and began to see clumpy arm shapes. I'm into this for decades - I just recently found out Im too quick to move on. Experience is a progressive thing! Thanks.Pete
Mes télescopes et jumelles:
150mm F5 Newt on EQ5, 127mm Mak Cass on AZ4
Oberwerk BT70-45 and 15X70 SkyMasters
My eyepieces are made from the waste product of exploding stars. 10XTi 102XLT ST80A(2" Focuser) XW: All; XO: 2.58 Televue: Naglers-T1 Smoothside-full set, 17T4,12T4,Ethos 17,4.7; plossels-40,32,20,17,&7.4mm; Pans-22,24mm; Delos-6,8,12,17.3mm ES100: 5.5,9*,14,20 ES82: full set ES68: 16,20,24,34 NLV: 5,9,10,15 Ortho: HD-7,9; OPS-9,12 Meade RG 7mm Other: Pentax 12.5K(.965), 10mm Parks Zoom: Nag3-6 *=on b/o DAS Dark Site
Orion XT12i with Swayze-refigured primary & Protostar secondary
Televue NP101 refractor
William Optics Megrez 90 refractor
Universal Astronomics Deluxe Mounts
Quote:So to answer your question. I don't think experience or aperture is the issue, it's expectations.
David W. Knisely . . . . . . "If you aren't having fun in this hobby, you aren't doing it right." Hyde Memorial Observatory http://www.hydeobservatory.info Prairie Astronomy Club http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Quote:I got "trained" early on, being forced to put up with observing with a little 2.4 inch f/11.7 refractor for a number of years as a youngster. This experience taught me how to push myself and learn how to eek-out objects and the very faintest detail using proper dark adaptation, averted vision, proper power selection, and other viewing techniques. This was true of several of us in our club who also started in the late 1960's with the small refractors and then eventually worked up to the larger apertures some time later. When I 'graduated' from my little refractor to my 8 inch f/7 a few years later, the amount of detail I could see was astounding, so all that "training" really paid off. Indeed, one night a few years ago, I had my 100mm f/6 refractor out on my driveway testing the 8.5-12mm Speers-Waler eyepiece I was reviewing, and abruptly saw the dust lane in M104, which surprised the heck out of me. Some others I observe with could not see the feature in that aperture, so I began to notice this difference more and more. I could really notice this one night when we were observing the Horsehead at one of our club's star parties. It was quite faint, but after seeing it several times before, I had little trouble getting it in my Nexstar 9.25 inch SCT with the H-Beta filter. However, a friend with a 10 inch couldn't see it in my scope. He hadn't come up through the ranks (started with a 10 inch), so his observing experience hadn't been as fully developed. Eventually, he gained at least some of that experience and closed our observing "gap", but I find that even now, I still tend to have a small but definite edge over others in our group who didn't start out "small". It might be a 20% to 25% gain in "effective observing aperture", but it is hard to judge an exact level of improvement, as levels of observing experience vary widely. On planets, the difference due to experience is less noticeable, but may still be there, especially when looking at the finest low-contrast detail. Clear skies to you.
DJ Eastern Missouri, USA Bushnell 8x42's, SV80ed, Nexstar 130SLT, C5+, 8" LX200 Classic, 10" f/7 Cave, Orion XT10 w/Moonlite focuser
Quote:While acknowledging all that has been said here, it doesn't necessarily take too much astronomical observing experience to enjoy viewing stars of unending variance of brightness, color, and pattern in a wide field across the night sky. In that case I think an awareness, curiosity, and appreciation of nature is just about all one needs.
--Dawg, the Russell "Akita mani yo." Observe everything as you walk. (--Lakota) Celestron Celestar 8 Standard SCT, f10 Celestron C80ED ref., f7.5 Celestron 80mm Wide View ref., f5 Orion 120ST ref., f5 Criterion RV-6 Dynascope, Newt., f8, (c. 1962) Sears Discoverer 60mm ref., f7, (c. 1973) Celestron Ultima DX 10x50 Nikon Action Extreme 10x50 Tasco 7x35 wide
Quote:Obviously the expert will see more.Pete
“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” ― Werner Heisenberg
12" LX200 GPS
10" LX200 GPS
4" Unitron 150
4" Bosma refractor
Denk Binotron 27, D14's and D21's
Galaxy Note 8 running SkySafari Pro via Bluetooth
Wireless Autostar II
Orion XT12g 12" f/4.92 GoTo Dob Orion 9x50 RACI - Green Laser Pointer Orion 4.5" f/4 EP: ES82 30mm, ES68 24mm EP: Hyperion 21, 17, 13, 10, 8, 5mm Various filters, including Skyglow, UHC, O-III Celestron Ultima 2x Barlow Celestron 12x80 binoculars & mount
Quote:I had a first timer look at Jupiter through a 6" at about 180x and didn't know what he was looking at to the point where he had to google an image of Jupiter to spark off he's imagination. I couldn't believe it. Some people need things to slap them in the face. My guess would be 10" for experience, 16" for novice.
Quote:I did notice something watching experienced observers work. They move slower and take more time to look. I see this at my club viewing nights. Some folks look and say I got it and move on. Others look and study and contemplate. I am not saying there is anything wrong with either technique, just slower sees more.
Quote:Since experience enables us to see more, Sue French must be a very well-preserved 125 year-old.
Happy owner of-- A Mag 1, 12.5 inch Porta Ball A Dual Axis Equatorial Platform A PST Double Stack