are the pictures real?

[aser hisham]

Hello , I've recently bought a 6 inch telescope but my main concern is that I don't know what to expect , I previously had a 3 inch Newtonian which really was a major disappointment , I am going to buy a 6 mm eyepiece and I want to know something , which is closer to really viewing through a telescope , the stacked images or the videos because the image quality is great and the video quality isn't that good , thank you .

[John]

I feel that sketches or drawings made at the eyepiece are the closest that you will get to the views through a telescope. Neither stacked and processed images or video captures the subtlety of what we see visually in my opinion.

This web page gives some reasonable representations although if your skies are light polluted you may struggle to equal these on deep sky objects:

http://www.deepskywatch.com/Articles/what-can-i-see-through-telescope.html

The 6mm eyepiece will probably be good for high power viewing (depending which 6 inch scope you now have) but you will need eyepieces that give medium and lower magnifications as well to get the most from it.

[aser hisham]

thanks a lot , I've really been worried about this but if what I will see is of the quality of the pictures you sent me I'd be more than glad , I once saw Jupiter through a celestron 8 inch sct and it was amazing . However ,my old 3 inch showed no detail at all . I wish I could have bought the 8 inch sct but they are not available . I have a 2x barlow and a 16 mm eyepiece , I plan on buying a 3x barlow , a 6 mm and a 20 mm eyepiece to get going , are these ok?

[newbie alert]

Sketching m42 isn't going to show anything like what it looks like it is from 1 image without stacking ..rosette is going to look like a bunch of stars..North American isn't going to look like there's anything there ...all this because your eyes cannot see the hydrogen alpha wavelength..

[aser hisham]

@newbie alert Thanks , I'm sorry but what will the planets look like ? especially mars , Jupiter and Saturn?

[newbie alert]

You might find this useful..

https://astronomy.tools/

[John]

19 minutes ago, aser hisham said:

thanks a lot , I've really been worried about this but if what I will see is of the quality of the pictures you sent me I'd be more than glad , I once saw Jupiter through a celestron 8 inch sct and it was amazing . However ,my old 3 inch showed no detail at all . I wish I could have bought the 8 inch sct but they are not available . I have a 2x barlow and a 16 mm eyepiece , I plan on buying a 3x barlow , a 6 mm and a 20 mm eyepiece to get going , are these ok?

I doubt you will use a 3x barlow to be honest with you. A 10mm eyepiece would be more useful and give you a reasonable set of 20, 16, 10 and 6mm

What 6" scope do you have now ?

Seeing things well depends on a number of things in addition to the equipment. The seeing conditions, light pollution and observer experience all play a big part in what you can actually see through the eyepiece.

The planets will look smaller than you expect, even at high power. Saturn and Jupiter can look like the examples shown in the link that I provided above. Mars is usually a much smaller disk except at opposition, the next one of which is due in July 2018. Uranus and Neptune are very tiny blue-green disks. Venus varies in size a lot and shows clear phases which change over the days and weeks that it is visible. Mercury, when it is visible, is like a tiny version of Venus.

 

[aser hisham]

Quote

5 minutes ago, John said:

I doubt you will use a 3x barlow to be honest with you. A 10mm eyepiece would be more useful and give you a reasonable set of 20, 16, 10 and 6mm

What 6" scope do you have now ?

Thanks , I wont get the 3x barlow then , http://www.egy-telescopes.com/reflector152-750eq.html

 this is my telescope , it's not much but it's the best that's available .

@John

[aser hisham]

@newbie alert Thanks a lot . 

[Stu]

37 minutes ago, newbie alert said:

Sketching m42 isn't going to show anything like what it looks like it is from 1 image without stacking ..rosette is going to look like a bunch of stars..North American isn't going to look like there's anything there ...all this because your eyes cannot see the hydrogen alpha wavelength..

Not sure I understand what you are saying? These objects are visible visually so can be sketched?

 

[newbie alert]

So they can't be imaged with something more sensitive than your eyes

7 minutes ago, Stu said:

Not sure I understand what you are saying? These objects are visible visually so can be sketched?

Show me what's visible on m42,rosette etc..basically anything emitting HA 

 

[newbie alert]

39 minutes ago, aser hisham said:

@newbie alert Thanks , I'm sorry but what will the planets look like ? especially mars , Jupiter and Saturn?

All 3 are very low on horizon causing issues with seeing unfortunately 

[Dave In Vermont]

Do you have Stellarium? This is a planetarium-program that shows one a very realistic view of the nightime-sky from your location. You can also enter your telescope type - aperture, focal-ratio, and what eyepieces that you will be using. And then Stellarium will give you the view through your telescope/eyepiece combination you choose.

If this would be of interest to you and you don't already have it installed, let us know and one of us would be happy to help you get it. It's completely free of charge, too.

Have fun -

Dave

[John]

13 minutes ago, Stu said:

Not sure I understand what you are saying? These objects are visible visually so can be sketched?

 

Indeed. For example, this was with a 4" scope:

 

[Stu]

7 minutes ago, newbie alert said:

So they can't be imaged with something more sensitive than your eyes

The point was that you can view them visually, and sketch them, so that is likely to be the most realistic representation for the OP to look at. Viewing images from sensitive cameras gives entirely the wrong impression, but the Veil, NAN and Rosette are all visible visually.

[Luna-tic]

What Dave said. I may be misinterpreting what you're talking about, but the pictures you see, or videos you watch, of a particular object are fairly far removed from what you'll see through your eyepiece. The eye works differently from a camera, and watching longer doesn't improve the resolution like a long photographic exposure will. A larger telescope may make things brighter, and to a small degree improve the view, but it would take a move from the typical back yard telescope to Mount Palomar to more closely approximate the difference between eye and camera view.

As an example, I had a C6; Andromeda on a good night was a fuzzy oval, the Ring Nebula was a dim circle. I now have a C8 Edge, Andromeda is a more-defined fuzzy oval, the Ring Nebula is now a dim donut. I looked at the same things last night through a C11 Edge (with even better seeing conditions), thinking I might actually see Andromeda's arms; it was still a >less< fuzzy, more defined oval, and the Ring had slightly sharper edges. Both were still far removed from even a basic backyard photo that could be made with any of the three setups.

 

Stellarium has helped me a lot, both in learning where these objects are, to seeing them as I can see them through my telescope.

[newbie alert]

Yes as you suggested about andromeda  and its arms being invisible to human eyes,even through a fairly large scope..

What I'm saying is as m42 as a classic example as it's a really bright object and fairly well known...on a image it's very well defined..in a ep it looks like a grey dust cloud with the the trapezium at the centre.. like chalk and cheese on comparison as your eyes can't see the ha bandwidth 

[Gina]

I think that's why many beginner astronomers are disappointed.  They see all these superb stacked and highly processed images and think that's what can be seen through a telescope but it isn't.

[Stu]

Stellarium is very good for understanding scale and framing of objects in different scope/eyepiece combinations, but does not give a genuine representation of what is actually visible.

A C11 has a very long focal length so you are likely to be viewing only the central area of M31 which makes it more difficult to pick out the detail which is pretty subtle. Dark skies make the biggest difference with M31

[John]

I suspect we are all saying more or less the same thing but in slightly different ways here

I can see the main dust lanes in M31 (Andromeda Galaxy) with my 12" scope but they are indistinct and need a dark night to pick out.

I've been happy to stick with visual astronomy for 35+ years though. There are still thrills to be had at the eyepiece

[ronin]

Jupiter and Saturn will be reasonable when they are fairly well positioned, just do not expect them to fill your eyepiece. Mars tends to be small at all times, and that means little detail. Do not get hung up on magnification, although it may go up the detail that is achievable usually drops. In effect you get a big image but not a clear image.

For Saturn aim at 125x to 150x in terms of magnification, Jupiter is bigger so if you can get 125x/150x then Jupiter will be good. But do not expect 200x to be better necessarily.

Personally I prefer single eyepieces in place of eyepieces and barlows. Partly it is easier to work the numbers out, I do not have to swap eyepieces and barlows and the final result depends on Scope+Barlow+Eyepiece so if one is poor the overall result is poor.

Pick eyepieces for say 80x and 120x and a wide one for finding things and getting bigger objects in view with a bot of space around them

This site I found "amusing": http://bigtelescope.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/christmas-and-telescopes-how-to-avoid.html

The expectations and realities of M42, Jupiter and Saturn are likely what many find. My view of Saturn was better then the worst case however as it was sharp and clear, Jupiter was about the size indicated but again clear - could see 2 bands easily and the scope was "small", 70mm refractor. Basically quality of image counts.

[Gina]

The human eye can see Ha but it is highly attenuated.  I've looked through an Ha filter and it shows a deep red view.  The Ha emissions are just not strong enough to be seen by the eye through a telescope.

[IanL]

40 minutes ago, newbie alert said:

All 3 are very low on horizon causing issues with seeing unfortunately 

Yes from Kent, not so much from Egypt where the OP is located.

[Stu]

1 minute ago, John said:

I suspect we are all saying more or less the same thing but in slightly different ways here

I can see the main dust lanes in M31 (Andromeda Galaxy) with my 12" scope but they are indistinct and need a dark night to pick out.

I've been happy to stick with visual astronomy for 35+ years though. There are still thrills to be had at the eyepiece

Not totally sure that's the case John. Your 12" is a better instrument for viewing M31 with I would think wider field of view and a little more aperture.

A lot of this comes down to skies as we know. Last time I looked at M42 through my C925 under what was a dark but not very transparent sky at the Peak Star Party it was pretty awe inspiring. Under a good sky it is an amazing site I think.

There is nothing wrong with setting expectations realistically, but visual astronomy has kept me quite content for over 17 years and I don't see it stopping.

[ollypenrice]

1 hour ago, newbie alert said:

rosette is going to look like a bunch of stars..North American isn't going to look like there's anything there ...all this because your eyes cannot see the hydrogen alpha wavelength..

I've seen the Rosette easily in a 70mm TeleVue Pronto and even more easily in a 4 inch Genesis. It's a large object so you need a very low magnification and a filter, either UHC or OIII. But what you also need is a dark site and without that you have no chance. At higher powers you can start in the cluster (NGC2244) and move outwards. As you pass through the nebulosity it is easily seen as a milky greyness.

The North America is possible naked eye or in binoculars but, again, you need a very low power and wide field in even a small scope. Dark site remains the answer.

Many Ha-dominated emission nebulae also emit fairly strongly in OIII and this is where our eyes are working well.

Olly