jumping appeture ?

[rory]

okay, last night found m33 triangulum galaxy, and chuffed to do so.

in my scope it was barely visible smoke colour of no distinct shape.

still happy to add to my list. but im not really observing,as its nothing more than grey smoke in my 90mm.

im after quality not quantity, not see more objects ,but see more of an object,if you see what i mean.

if i jumped to 8" apeture in the same conditions, would it have made much difference in an object like m33 ?

or would we be talking 12-14" ?

[sunshine185]

I tried for the life of me to find the triangulum galaxy last night with my 8"dob, either I was looking in the wrong place our the lp is so bad here in Oldham that it isn't visible. If you can see it with a 90mm where you are them I think a jump in appature will show you more.

[cantab]

M33 can be quite a hard object with its low surface brightness.

[swamp thing]

Hi

TBH objects like M33 require dark skies more than large aperture.

In any LP it's easier through my 15x70 bins than my 16" scope.

Kinda defies logic I know but it's true.

How much detail you'll see often depends on sky quality not aperture.

Without observing from your site it's difficult to know what aperture will start showing detail.

Stephen James O'Meara sees incredible detail with a 4" frac but he is on Mauna Kea.

Whereas, from my back yard M101 is pretty much invisible through a 16" scope.

Regards Steve

[Chris H]

I live in an area with quite dark skies and I find M33 a tough target with my 10" Dob. It took me ages to find it, eventually got it in some 10x50's then when I knew where to look found it with the Dob. As cantab said it is a large diffuse object with low surface brightness which makes it a difficult customer. However if you upgraded from a 90mm scope to an 8" Dob you would see a world of difference in many other DSO's and planets. The fever gets us all in the end

[NGC 1502]

Hi

TBH objects like M33 require dark skies more than large aperture.

In any LP it's easier through my 15x70 bins than my 16" scope.

Kinda defies logic I know but it's true.

How much detail you'll see often depends on sky quality not aperture.

Absolutely agree with that. Under excellent conditions using my 10" Dob, M33 shows a "backwards S" shape (the main spiral arms) and NGC 604 within the northern arm. But if the sky is not very transparent, it's just a hazy blob. And sometimes it's visible in the small refractor in my sig. as a blob just about brighter than the sky background.

From my light polluted back yard it's a very tough object to detect at all.

Regards, Ed.

[damnut]

Hi Rory,

As with most comments above, even in my 10"Lx it can be a difficult object. However, get some time in at the ep end and over a small period of time detail will come out also, you need to persevere after the first view. :-)

Cheers

[Rich MedRev]

I echo all of the previous comments, given the large size and low surface brightness it is a difficult object in anything but proper dark skies and usually a low power wide field view is needed, i find bins the easiest way to spot it. From my back garden even with my 10" dob it is tricky and good seeing is required. When I take the dob up onto the wolds it is much better and i get some structure but it is very subtle and extremely faint. Aperture is always favourable under the right conditions.

[andrew63]

I think in general DSO particularly low surface ones are very disappointing - see the recent thread on the crab nebula. And though dark skies and extra aperture help - some of the reports from people using 16" dobs are wonderful - most of the time all that can be seen is an extended smudge in small telescopes - if you are a deep sky hunter I'd say over 10inch as a min.

I observe with a small scope like yours, 4" ref. and enjoy finding them and eke out as much detail as you can. The images you see on here are very misleading to people starting out.

If you can see M33 from your site, you will be able to see a lifetime of objects with your equipment and a bigger aperture may still not show you what you want to see from a visual perspective.

andrew

[acey]

There are a number of NGC objects within M33, and an 8" or larger scope will show some or all of these details at a dark site (I've viewed some with 8" and all with a 12"). An 8" shows the S-shaped spiral structure at a dark site. If the sky is too bright then no instrument will show much if anything. At a light polluted site the most important thing is having lowest possible magnification, so that binoculars may give the best view (assuming it can be seen at all). Even at a dark site, binoculars will often give the brightest views, though a scope will give the most detailed. Depends whether you're looking for a whole view or for particular details, though in either case, sky darkness counts for more than aperture. Same can be said for M101 (which has about half a dozen NGC objects in it).

[spaceboy]

okay, last night found m33 triangulum galaxy, and chuffed to do so.

in my scope it was barely visible smoke colour of no distinct shape.

still happy to add to my list. but im not really observing,as its nothing more than grey smoke in my 90mm.

You saw M33 in an 90mm scope Granted the focus is off but I did a single 30 sec exposure in an 8" newt and all I came up with was this.............

[andrew63]

That is one of the advantages of a small refractor in that they behave in a similar way as binoculars. In my case for DSO a 32mm gives 22 mag. so in effect i'm viewing like a 22x100. And in a smaller refractor it may equate to something like 15x70. You can carry that sort of telescope on a tripod to find the darkest skies possible. Thats why i feel something like a megrez 72 is so enticing!

[acey]

You saw M33 in an 90mm scope

Discovery of M33 is credited to Hodierna who used a "1-foot telescope", meaning focal length. Its aperture would have been about an inch. M33 is a naked-eye object at very dark sites: I've tried for it but neither the sky nor my eye has ever been good enough.

[swamp thing]

That is one of the advantages of a small refractor in that they behave in a similar way as binoculars. In my case for DSO a 32mm gives 22 mag. so in effect i'm viewing like a 22x100. And in a smaller refractor it may equate to something like 15x70. You can carry that sort of telescope on a tripod to find the darkest skies possible. Thats why i feel something like a megrez 72 is so enticing!

Indeed, a good RFT is an extremely valuable tool for the huge faint fuzzies.

Regards Steve

[RikM]

I spotted M33 in my 9x50 finder for the first time last night. In the 10" with a 14mm EP (71x) I can see it okay as a misty patch but I can't make out any structure. I think I am still at too high magnification.

[umadog]

Acey, I've seen M33 naked eye but that required Bortle 1 skies. I've found the spiral structure can just be made out with an 8" from mag 5.5 skies. There is no question that an 8" will help the OP to see more DSO detail, even under current LP conditions. It won't help all objects equally, and the low-brightness stuff will always need dark skies, but extra aperture will help even in LP skies.

[rory]

Good replies guys, thanks. It was as faint to me as the crab neb was. But I noticed very little twinkle in the stars and with no moon about, I thought I'd perservere. I knew I was in the right spot by star patterns around it ( stellarium and t.l.a.o) tapping the mount leg and averted vision was rqd. Like m1, grey smear on grey background. I'm going to try bins next.

[Stu]

I've detected m33 using 15x50is bins from a dark site, but never seen it in a scope. Mind you, only really have the 4" which would give a wide enough fov to fit it in! Dark skies required, as has already been said

Stu

[Astronut1982]

I can make out M33 at my dark site with my 80ED apo. I've included a pic of a single 30s exposure. Its not the best but you can just make out the spiral arms.

As yet I've not had much joy in viewing or photographing M101 but I'm off to the dark site tomorrow so fingers crossed!

Jeff

[rory]

nice picture, thanks for sharing it. looking at it i couldnt of seen more than the central area. i found it hard to make out where it merged with background.

[Double Kick Drum]

For something with such a high advertised magnitude, its low surface brightness means it is less a worthy target (in my opinion) than much smaller and supposedly fainter galaxies.

I find NGC2403, M81/82, M65/66 and M51/NGC5195 all more rewarding to name but a few.

Two galaxies in one FOV at least gives something to compare and contrast.

[rory]

its the only galaxy ive seen apart from m31. so ill look foward to seeing the ones you mention d k drum. thanks...

[swamp thing]

For something with such a high advertised magnitude, its low surface brightness means it is less a worthy target (in my opinion) than much smaller and supposedly fainter galaxies..

wait until you see this monster from a dark sky.

M33 is one of the skies true wonders from a dark sky, and shows so much detail it's breathtaking.

Because it is so large some of the details can be made out very well with small apertures. Which is unusual for a Galaxy.

From LP skies I agree, it ain't much to look at.

Regards Steve

[Ags]

Bear in mind that a scope cannot make an extended object brighter than it is to the naked eye - at best it can show the same image much larger but undimmed. This is different to stars, which a scope can make much brighter. Of course, up to a certain point a larger area of faint fuzz is easier to see than a tiny area of faint fuzz, so you do see more faint fuzzies in a larger scope.

So a large object like M33 will always be faint in any scope. A giant scope however pushes up the minimum magnification you can use (to avoid exit pupil issues) so not only is the image not any brighter but an extended object like M33 would be over-magnified!

[rory]

thanks ags, thats a very good explanation.