Field of view calculator (or what a scope could show you)

[Darkstomper]

I was just reading through some older posts when I came across one from brantuk (many thanks!). He posted a link which takes you to a page from which you can enter a number of different criteria and see what a given scope and eyepieces could show you.

I am finding this extremely helpful as I am doing my nut in trying to decide which scope.... 150p eq3 - 200p dob - 200p eq5...aghhhh

anyway just thought it was worth re sharing!

http://www.12dstring.me.uk/fov.htm

[Smeg]

Yeah thats a pretty cool site, there is also an app available The New CCD Astronomy Home Page

I use it to see what new toys to buy that will help my viewing/imaging

[nightfisher]

useful to say the least

[RikM]

Very useful for showing you what the field of view would be with different scope/EP/camera combinations. Remember though that the view through a scope with your own eyes is nothing like what these sites show as these are all long exposure images of the objects.

[Darkstomper]

Ah thanks Rik, I am very new to this. So it's more what you can capture than, what you can see, that it is representing?

[Darkstomper]

Holy moly Rik... Just looking at your images taken with the 150p..wow.

I am almost decided on the 150 on eq3, have you upgraded eye pieces etc? Or are the images showing what can be achieved with the package as it comes? Noted re the motor drives. Cheers.

[RikM]

Yes, that's right. The images the web site shows are good representations of what you would capture with a long exposure photograph. You won't see the colours or the same level of detail looking through an eyepiece. Take a look at some of the sketches posted in the Imaging - Sketches and Unconventional - Stargazers Lounge forum for an idea of what to expect visually.

[RikM]

I am glad you like the images But if deep sky imaging is your goal, my kit is not the ideal equipment. Steve Richards (Steppenwolf on SGL) book Making every photon count should be the first thing you buy.

I haven't modified the scope or mount, but I have added a few trick bits like a polar scope and a Rigel QuickFinder and I take my time to make sure the scope is cooled and collimated properly and the mount is leveled and acurately polar aligned. I also use a laptop and capture software and put many hours into acquiring the data and processing the final images. Even then I have many more duds than good images. The scopes is too big and the mount is too small really.

If you are more interested in visual observing, then the Skyliner 200P Dobsonian is a lovely scope.

[John]

Yes, that's right. The images the web site shows are good representations of what you would capture with a long exposure photograph. You won't see the colours or the same level of detail looking through an eyepiece. Take a look at some of the sketches posted in the Imaging - Sketches and Unconventional - Stargazers Lounge forum for an idea of what to expect visually.

In the interests of "expectation management" this is very important advice from Rik. Visually, our eyes can't compete with the images taken through scopes with a few exceptions like the moon. Thats not to say that visual astronomy is not amazing it's just that what you see with your eye is generally much, much more subtle.

[Darkstomper]

Thanks John, I think that rings true with me for much of my exciting new interest. Spending time looking at Hubble images etc can very much raise expectations. I have to say though the thrill of picking out Jupiter with binoculars, watching the ISS or learning the constellations is so far above my expectation of what I would get from this that come the day I get my new telescope I may just do a small wee....