Magnification

[Piero]

For extended nebulae I use 4-5mm exit pupil. For all the rest, I observe at different magnifications without paying too much attention to it. It depends on the seeing and on the details I can catch.

8"dob: 50x-500x

Tv60:15x-250x

[TareqPhoto]

So it is about the clear or view condition after all.

So, how many times per year do you have that clear or good view?

Also, how do you know it is a clear view if it is not cloudy or haze? someone keep stating that even if i can see by my naked eyes clearly it doesn't mean the quality of view is there, so i really don't know what i should follow, clear view or quality of air and sky and light? and if the air is not good quality and light issue and whatever then how come to have clear view by eyes? and if it is about details, then how can i know what is the best time to observe for better details?

[Stu]

5 minutes ago, TareqPhoto said:

So it is about the clear or view condition after all.

So, how many times per year do you have that clear or good view?

Also, how do you know it is a clear view if it is not cloudy or haze? someone keep stating that even if i can see by my naked eyes clearly it doesn't mean the quality of view is there, so i really don't know what i should follow, clear view or quality of air and sky and light? and if the air is not good quality and light issue and whatever then how come to have clear view by eyes? and if it is about details, then how can i know what is the best time to observe for better details?

You can classify sky quality in a wholee number of ways, but seeing and transparency are two often used terms.

Seeing relates to the stability of the atmosphere, and transparency is....., well how transparent the sky is!

I tend to view these two as suiting different types of targets. If the seeing is very stable, then high magnification targets are worth going after such as planets, the moon and Double stars etc.

If the transparency is excellent then all those faint fuzzy nebulae and galaxies will look a whole lot better, than can mean any range of mag really but often it is low to middle to take in the larger ones.

Strangely often you either get good seeing or good transparency, it's not often you get both together unfortunately.

[TareqPhoto]

2 minutes ago, Stu said:

You can classify sky quality in a wholee number of ways, but seeing and transparency are two often used terms.

Seeing relates to the stability of the atmosphere, and transparency is....., well how transparent the sky is!

I tend to view these two as suiting different types of targets. If the seeing is very stable, then high magnification targets are worth going after such as planets, the moon and Double stars etc.

If the transparency is excellent then all those faint fuzzy nebulae and galaxies will look a whole lot better, than can mean any range of mag really but often it is low to middle to take in the larger ones.

Strangely often you either get good seeing or good transparency, it's not often you get both together unfortunately.

Oh i see, clear enough!

Yes, strange if it is as you said, but is that all over the world or in some areas around the world?

I remember almost 2 weeks ago [Friday] the sky wasn't that clear, but i think it was transparent because the moon details was nice through C925, the Jupiter was low details but i can see the bands barely, and Saturn was also nice, so that i was asking about magnification so i want to look at them larger or bigger size, but in all cases, in my country i think i can have one of them one day or another, not all days are bad conditions anyway, we can't see the milky way from urban, but the planets are clear, the moon is clear, the sun is the most clear object in the sky, so for sure i may have an opportunity to have good magnification, and i am going to ask about eyepieces or maybe resurrect my thread about a reflector, i already decided on one.

[Moonshane]

you can often tell how steady the seeing is by looking at bright stars. if they are 'flashing' (scintillation) then the atmosphere is not very steady so low power objects like galaxies will be best. sometimes the sky is slightly hazy but very steady so higher power objects might be better like planets and moon/double stars . As Stu says, the sky is often clear as a bell but not very steady or hazy and very steady but rarely steady and transparent. unfortunately there seems to be a correlation between clear steady nights and lunar presence. not really of course but it feels like that sometimes. The way to get around this is to have a decent range of eyepieces and a couple or more scopes and you can cope with all eventualities. that's what I do.

[John]

43 minutes ago, Moonshane said:

..... The way to get around this is to have a decent range of eyepieces and a couple or more scopes and you can cope with all eventualities. that's what I do.

I think the above is important. Often, it is only by actually viewing through the scope that you can tell what sort of seeing conditions apply at that time. Having a range of eyepieces gives a range of options and then you can make choices to get the best out of the seeing conditions.

Sometimes you set out intending to view one type of target only to find that the conditions are not optimal for that so, you have to change your plans

[TareqPhoto]

I hope to get that set of EPs just right, but i am trying to buy only few first that can suit me, mostly likely the ones that is different and better than the ones i already have or coming with the scopes as standard.

I hope i can reach a proper magnification for my eyes, i am not sure if blurry or less details big view is what i want or detailed one even smaller, if i must live with smaller size magnification then i hope it will give me a really crystal clear or sharp or detailed one, otherwise what is the point with small object view and not much details, i will magnify then and won't care about details.

Now those EPs series you are talking about, is there something specific to look at? like which brand? which degree? which model design?....etc

[Moonshane]

That's a complex question. I'd have a read of this and consider how it fits with you, then decide:

This long thread will show the diversity:

My own preference is Televue and apparent fields from 50 degrees to 70 degrees depending what I am observing and with what. I prefer 50 degree plossls for binoviewers (which do assist the detail seen but obviously not a cheap option) for solar system objects plus double stars and Delites (62 degree true field) and Panoptics (68 degree true field) for everything else.