Quote:

---

Here's another potential benefit of a larger AFoV, as it appears to me after many years of observing. When using averted vision, while directing my gaze away from the target I seem to prefer not having the field stop anywhere close to my fovea. Strange as it may seem, a vast expanse of sky glow across my field of vision is for some reason better than a sharp discontinuity to black nearby. This might result from the naked eye experience, where the dome of the sky largely fills my field of vision, particularly when gazing near overhead.

---

I have found the same thing. When there's a bright, nearby light source, I get better results with a narrow field, through a telescope or with the naked eye, blocking the light with my hands, but if there is no distracting lights, I get better performance by going as wide as possible, or nearly so.

100° AFOV eyepieces are awesome! And very expensive...


Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

The only possible benefits I've seen from wider AFOV eyepieces are that they allow for larger TFOVs and I don't have to nudge the Dob as often.

Narrower AFOVs will block glare from nearby brighter objects. Other than that, I see no benefit from a narrower AFOV.

IME, any other benefit of either wide or narrow AFOV is merely aesthetic or due to some personal eccentricity of the observer ... which pretty much amounts to the same thing.


Mike

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

And if your widefields are flat and sharp to the edge, simply put the offending star or stars outside the FOV and view the object off-center. I've been doing that for years with NGC2024 (Flame Nebula). No need for a narrow AFOV eyepiece.

---

You're right. I also do that with the Flame Nebula, as well as other nebulae, without really even thinking about it.

So then, it seems there is no need for a narrow-field eyepiece qua narrow-field.


Mike

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

If your widefields are flat and sharp to the edge, simply put the offending star or stars outside the FOV and view the object off-center.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I'd like to see you folks discuss the merits of fewer EP elements as regards the view. This has been mentioned as being a "plus" in addition to the narrower FOV/excluding Alnitak from same......

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I've seen the Horsehead many times now, but never through less than 18" or without an H-beta filter, or great darkness.

---

Quote:

---

For first timers, I would stress that you're really trying to pick up IC 434.

---

Quote:

---

When you manage that, B33 will appear as a thumb in the pudding of the nebula, the snout not at first apparent. Its not tiny, just faint.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I've seen the Horsehead many times now, but never through less than 18" or without an H-beta filter, or great darkness.

---

Yep.

---

Just so folks don't become overly discouraged, under a truly pristine sky (excellent darkness and transparency), the B33/IC 434 complex is rather trivial in an unfiltered 18 inch, and is doable in a good quality, unfiltered 6 inch Newtonian or smaller refractor. It's the first observation that is most challenging. But, once you've seen the Horsehead and know what to look for, it is an object that is much more dependent on sky conditions than aperture when it comes to detectability.

Bill in Flag

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

...it is an object that is much more dependent on sky conditions than aperture when it comes to detectability.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

May I ask what the best eyepieces size is to have the best chance to see the HH? I have a 12" Meade F/10

I have a 2" H-Beta filter and soon to own a 1.25"

What 1.25" and 2" would be be best for my scope?

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Hi David

Perhaps a Televue 40mm 1.25" Plossl and a 2" Televue 55" Plossl?

Or even a Meade 4000 Series 56mm Super Plossl Eyepiece 2"

A lot cheaper

---

Post Extras: