Apparent angular size of M42?

[Naemeth]

Does anyone know - would it fit into the rather small 0.56 degree max field in the new Mak, once it arrives?

[John]

Depends how dark your skies are - it seems to sprawl all over the place with a decent aperture scope and a dark sky. It was filling most of the field of view with my 8mm Ethos in the ED120 the other night so that is around .9 of a true degree field.

I think you may find it "overflows" the FoV of your mak but it's hardly a wide field scope is it !

[Mike73]

Like John says....It depends on where you put the Mak!

I should imagine you'll have no problem though, the sketch below shows it filling the entire FoV (and a little bit more!) with just 0.39" but that was with fairly good skies and with double your Maks aperture.

[Naemeth]

With my skies, I'd estimate it fills between 1/3 to 1/2 of the field in my 10", perhaps that means it's 0.68 degrees from my location, I guess I'll have to find out .

Mike, beautiful sketch, absolutely beautiful.

[Stu]

I think M42 is one of those objects which looks great at a range of magnifications. There is plenty of detail to be had so I used to enjoy looking at it, and the trapezium within it in the mak, despite not fitting the fov entirely.<br />

<br />

<img src='http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/01/24/yzyqepyp.jpg' alt='Posted Image' class='bbc_img' /><br />

<br />

I would just say don't 'fight' the narrow fov, use the scope for what it does best :-)<br />

<br />

Stu

[Naemeth]

I think M42 is one of those objects which looks great at a range of magnifications. There is plenty of detail to be had so I used to enjoy looking at it, and the trapezium within it in the mak, despite not fitting the fov entirely.<br />

<br />

<img src='http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/01/24/yzyqepyp.jpg' alt='Posted Image' class='bbc_img' /><br />

<br />

I would just say don't 'fight' the narrow fov, use the scope for what it does best :-)<br />

<br />

Stu

I'm especially looking forward to using the OMC200 on M57 and other Planetary Nebula .

[Stu]

I'm especially looking forward to using the OMC200 on M57 and other Planetary Nebula .

Certainly great on them, plus it eats globs for breakfast :-)

[John]

I would just say don't 'fight' the narrow fov, use the scope for what it does best :-)<br />

I think thats great advice for all scope types - play to their strengths and they will reward you 

You do have quite a lot at your disposal Jonathan !

[ronin]

Wikipedia says 65x60 arcmin

Messier.seds says 80x60 arcmin

NOAO says 66x60 srcmin

Deepsky org UK say 65x60, but they specify visual size.

Through the assorted images I can see that some have additional edge detail that others do not, so are apparently bigger.

However everything listed is above the 0.56 (34 arc min) field of the Mak.

[Mike73]

Wikipedia says 65x60 arcmin

Messier.seds says 80x60 arcmin

NOAO says 66x60 srcmin

Deepsky org UK say 65x60, but they specify visual size.

Through the assorted images I can see that some have additional edge detail that others do not, so are apparently bigger.

However everything listed is above the 0.56 (34 arc min) field of the Mak.

I'd say thats pretty accurate if you have CCD's for eyes. 

[Alien 13]

Another +1 for the sketch Mike stunning piece of work.

Alan