First and foremost observing love: naked eye.
Last but not least, telescopes.
And I sometimes dabble with cameras.
Quote:I can't think of any other contenders. They're the only two planetary nebulae that seem like plausible naked-eye targets in a super-dark sky.
Quote:Its listed in skysafari as 7.09 mag and I don't see any on a quick search that are brighter. Does anyone know if this is indeed the brightest pn in all the celestial sphere???
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:Hmmm....I'd say M-57 is brighter ...
Quote:On the whole, integrated magnitude is a far more reliable indicator of an object's visibility than surface brightness.
Quote:Quote:On the whole, integrated magnitude is a far more reliable indicator of an object's visibility than surface brightness.It's a little silly to say that either one is more reliable than the other.
Quote:Go through the exercise of sorting a list of planetary nebulae, galaxies or globular star clusters, first by magnitude and then by surface brightness. The lists ordered by magnitude will much more closely match a subjective ranking by ease of visibility.
Author of "What's Up" articles for CN Author "Touching the Universe" iUniverse Author "Deep Sky Observing" Springer Author "Nebulae and How to Observe Them" Springer 8" Celestron SCT and Vixen ED 80 on a CGEM Canon T2i camera and lenses for piggybacking