OK, so you compared/contrasted your views of various objects with a 70mm (700mn focal-length) telescope (a refractor I presume) with those with a 127mm telescope (a Maksutov-Cassegrain having double the focal-length of the smaller telescope) and are wanting to know why your views of Messier objects were basically no different in the 127mm than they were with the 70mm telescope.
Well, many of the Messier objects are galaxies or other extended objects that are not resolvable into stars. For the visual observation of such objects, the contrast between the object and the background sky is of great importance. That contrast is dependent solely upon the object and the background sky. The telescope does nothing to change that -- not its aperture, and not its focal-length.
Observing such objects from a more light-polluted sky will reduce the contrast even more -- eventually to the point where those objects will become invisible -- regardless of the telescope. On the other hand, observing those objects from a less light-polluted sky will result in views that have a higher contrast between the object (the brightness of which is unchanged) and the background sky (which will now appear to be darker).
Many on these forums are so obsessed with aperture ("bigger is better") that they ignore the importance of other critical factors -- sky quality and observer experience being too of the biggies.
The below sketch is from a strictly visual observation with a 1-inch (25.4mm) aperture -- but under a "seriously dark" sky by an observer who's been observing such objects since the 1960s:
Make the same observation with a telescope of triple the aperture, but under a more severely light-polluted sky and M110 will become invisible while only the cores of the other two galaxies will be able to punch through the light-pollution. In other words, the Great Andromeda Galaxy will appear to be much smaller when observed under a light-polluted sky -- due to insufficient contrast (with the brighter sky background) for the fainter portions of that galaxy to be visible.
That being said, increased aperture still has its advantages. For such objects it permits one to have more magnified views without thinning out the limited light from the object too much. And for many such objects, if they're not magnified sufficiently, one isn't going to be able to see them. The human eye has very poor resolution when it comes to the observation of faint objects under low-light conditions.
As for those tiny planets (as well as lunar details), with adequate experience/training, one learns to pick out fine details that go unseen by less experienced observers -- all other things being equal. Also, the quality of one's optics (specifically the telescope's objective) and one's seeing conditions (the atmosphere one is forced to look through) can often prevent a larger aperture instrument from showing more detail than one can see with a smaller aperture telescope.
The below sketch shows the apparent size of Jupiter, at 200x, in the field of an eyepiece with a 52 degree apparent field of view -- your "tiny" view of a planet:
. . . While the below sketch shows what an experienced eye might be able to see upon observing that very same 200x view of Jupiter -- while carefully examining that tiny image in the telescope's eyepiece:
Of course, in that second view Jupiter had to be sketched much larger in order to show all that the eye could see in the "tiny" eyepiece view.
One's equipment is often capable of showing much more than what many beginners will be able to see -- until those beginners have gained more observing experience.
Buying more and/or buying bigger aren't always the better approaches when it comes to being able to see more. There's also one's sky conditions and observer experience to take into account, and that last one costs nothing -- except for one's time.
P.S. Try sketching what you see when observing objects through your telescopes. You'll end up being able to see more -- and perhaps even being better able to note differences in what you're able to see with your telescopes. The individual behind the eyepiece is in many ways more important than all that resides on the other side of the eyepiece.
Edited by Sketcher, 17 June 2025 - 02:36 PM.
))).
