Detail viewing on Nebulae and Galaxies with larger scopes

[xarcane]

Hi Everyone

Ok so i have posted a few questions regarding imaging on various scopes but I would like to know/understand one item.

Basically I have looked through an 8" Dob, 10" dob and a few refractors etc at my local astronomy club. But they don't have anything larger than a 10" reflector.

I would like to know how much clearer is the detailing on Nebulae and galaxies through larger apeture scopes (whether they be dob's or SCT etc) above 10" scopes. I undertsand that difference scope types will show variant changes but general is it worth spending the extra money on a 12" from 10". Like wise is it worth upgrading to 14" from 12" etc?

I am really interested in viewing DSO objects but need to know how much money is worth investing in a scope until it becomes redundent in size?

e.g. does a 16" scope show more than a 14" for that extra X amount of £ price tag?

I know you will all ask certain questions of me so here are some stats.

I live in a very dark village (lovely!) with no street lighting and a dark field on the back of my house!

I am looking to spend about £2500 to £3000 pounds on scope and mount (i have beens aving for 2 years getting by on 20 x 80 bins!)

I was looking at getting a C11 on an EQ6 but I am open to suggestions

Don't worry about size and moving it as i have build a wooden observatory and it will remain in one place

I will get into imaging eventually but I am fully clued up on this aspect.

I don't really want a dob because i would like to get into DSO imaging later on which I understand is a whole different ball game.

[E621Keith]

The difference can be quite significant. However, don't expects the images from big scope to look like what you can get from imaging. The only time I've ever seen a galaxy remotely similar to modern AP photo was with a 24" dob in Kelling Heath. There are many monster dob owners; 28", 32", even 48" dob exists, so I guess they don't become redundant in size.

However, when a scope gets larger than 12", you have an additional constraint whether it can fit inside your house. The 16" Lightbridge is famous for being to wide for many doors. It's best to visit a star party and look through one yourself.

[xarcane]

Hi Keith

thanks for the advice, I am looking to get a C11 on an EQ6. would this show nice detail on nebulea and galaxies just through viewing or should i consider a 14"?

[Peter Drew]

Based on my experience with my 16" SCT and 30" Dobsonian I would say that the DSO's that actually show detail will also do so with smaller apertures. Faint fuzzies tend to stay faint fuzzies with large telescopes, they do however, bring into view more faint fuzzies that are invisible to the smaller apertures. Your choice of a C11 on an EQ6 would be a good compromise specially if backed up with an 80mm APO for wide field DSO imaging.

[xarcane]

Hi Peter

thanks for the advice, you have confirmed my thoughts

thanks