Planetary Vs Deep Sky - which and why?

[Oat]

As a relative novice to astronomy, i have pondered whether planetary or deep sky observing is most popular, why, and if one is considered as easier for novices to pick up first before moving on to the other? 

I am making some assumption that you also aim to become proficient at whichever you choose before attempting any imaging.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts and opinions....

[Anthonyexmouth]

id say deep sky, can be done with a small tracking mount and a DSLR with a kit lens. 

[Davey-T]

Not sure that either is most popular, more can be seen with planetary and lunar in terms of detail but planets aren't always best positioned if you're in the UK being low down in the murk ATM.

Deep sky covers a multitude of targets so may require more than one scope to catch them optimally.

Then there are niches like double/multiple star enthusiasts that require a nice frac to get the most out of it.

Finally if you've got money to burn there is night vision viewing which brings a whole new dimension to visual astronomy.

Dave

[Oat]

@Davey-T  A bit off topic maybe, but what is night vision viewing? I have some experience of night vision and making NV rigs for hunting... could some of that technology transfer over to astronomy?

[Owmuchonomy]

Regarding observing Dave's point is very important.  For some time (5 to 11 years) the juicy planetary targets are poorly placed at UK latitudes so I am left with concentrating on deep sky targets, the Sun and the Moon.  Mars will be well placed in October 2020.  I found observing and imaging two clearly different endeavours requiring very different thinking so becoming proficient at one is no guarantee of success in another.

[Owmuchonomy]

2 minutes ago, Oat said:

@Davey-T  A bit off topic maybe, but what is night vision viewing? I have some experience of night vision and making NV rigs for hunting... could some of that technology transfer over to astronomy?

 

[johninderby]

I think a lot has to do with where you’re observing from. Planetary for urban areas but the darker the skies DSOs become better.

[Davey-T]

3 minutes ago, Oat said:

A bit off topic maybe, but what is night vision viewing? I have some experience of night vision and making NV rigs for hunting... could some of that technology transfer over to astronomy?

Thread here about it

Dave

 

 

[Stu]

I guess planetary and lunar observing is probably easiest to start with because they are bright and easy to find. It can still take a long time to learn to observe to the fullest extent and pick out all the detail though.

Deep Sky needs dark skies to do properly, although there are brighter targets that will cut through light pollution more easily. Double stars, globular and open clusters and some planetary nebulae are all doable from a town, galaxies and nebulae generally need that dark sky to see at their best.

Don't think of imaging as something you have to do in order to progress. If it takes your fancy then fine, but achieving more in visual astronomy is something that can be highly rewarding over a long period.

[mikeDnight]

28 minutes ago, Oat said:

As a relative novice to astronomy, i have pondered whether planetary or deep sky observing is most popular, why, and if one is considered as easier for novices to pick up first before moving on to the other? 

I am making some assumption that you also aim to become proficient at whichever you choose before attempting any imaging.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts and opinions....

When i first started out in astronomy 38/39 years ago, I had a pair of 12x60 binoculars with which I found every Messier object above my local horizon. I also plotted in my Norton's Star Atlas the paths of several comets as they travelled across the sky. Those second hand bino's with a broken bridge, along with my Norton's Atlas, taught me my way around the sky. At the same time I bought a 60mm Astral refractor and started sketching the Moon and planets. I saw no real reason to limit my interests as I was fascinated by it all. Today I'm mainly a lunar and planetary observer but that's in the main because the seeing and transparency of the sky has deteriorated considerably over the decades. The moon and planets are less dependant on transparency! I suppose I'd say I'm now 100% happy observing the moon & planets, and 99% happy observing anything else. ?

Enjoy it all!

[John]

I'm happy to try and observe it all. I do have some light pollution but do the best I can by having scopes that can be moved around the garden to get the best views and avoid trees, houses and lights.

I'd not want to restrict myself either way. Deep sky includes lots of fascinating objects that are not "faint fuzzies" as well - it would be so limiting to decide not to chase those plus the planetary positions are  not that good currently so the more avenues you have to explore, the better

 

[teoria_del_big_bang]

Hi, As a relative newbie as well (still in 1st year with a scope although always had an interest) I guess I never really considered doing only planetery or only dso but always thought it would be a mixture of both, certainly as a newbie, after all the planets are not always visible, and when they are often have to wait till early in morning, so unless you just look at the moon till then what else to do till the planets are out. I would think naturally on a clear night you would look at whatever is out there.

With recommendations from this forum about that first scope to buy I bought a Dobsonion 200P, which I see you also have, and so glad I did. Whilst this allows you to have some very good observations of both Planetary and DSO as a novice you soon learn that all the wonderful images you see on this and other forums are not so easy to obtain and it also hits you then that if you want to image then the equipment required is quite different depending on what you want to image, if you want the optimum results that is.  So I guess the logical step, if you want to image both is a DSLR, maybe modified to get the best out of DSO's.

Maybe it is later after this initial introduction people decide to concentrate on one or the other ?  But even then I would imagine people still keep some equipment that allows then to do a bit of both.

Just my thoughts as I start out in this and not necessarily the same for all and I am sure there are loads who just concentrate on one or the other, and also even with DSO's there will be those who concentrate on one aspect rater than the whole spectrum and all may have different reasons for doing so.

Steve

[JeremyS]

I enjoy both types of observing. DS when the transparency is good and the moon is out of the way. Planetary when the objects are well placed and the atmosphere is steady enough to provide detailed views. Some nights I do both and some nights I concentrate on one.

 

[GavStar]

I mostly observe from SW London which due to LP does limit what I can see. I started with planets and lunar which are not affected by LP and got some great views. However, as mentioned the major planets are not in a good position for several years to come. This prompted thoughts from me like the following

So about 12 months I started investigating night vision as a way to better observe DSOs to replace, to some extent, the planetary observing I had been doing. Unfortunately night vision is very expensive (although some less expensive night vision options are becoming available, as per the linked thread above).

For me it’s been a real success (an example being the thread below) and really enthused me in respect of this hobby. But I recognise that due to the expense and other reasons it’s not for most people.

 

[celestron8g8]

Seeing Saturn was the first planet i saw before i started stargazing and it was a 14” Celestron SCT  at McDonalds Observatory in Ft.Davis Texas. . That got me hooked for good . I loved the planets and seeing the moon were my first and best until i got hooked on GCs’ . I didnt have a neb filter but as i got deeper M42 was great but seeing the ring neb was a blast then i saw M31 which was great but seeing M65&66  together just added to it all ! To really choose is hard but i know GCs’  really steal the night when several are available in view ! However certain double stars are a sight to see also , that maybe why i favor GCs’ more . But choosing my most favorite ......, no can do  . 

[paulastro]

I've no idea which objects are the most popular for observing.  Most people look at what's available depending on their sky conditions and interests - not that many people ONLY observe planetary or ONLY deep sky.  Also, though any telescope can be used for just about any object, depending on the type and size of telescope the person has (if they only have one telescope) it's natural to favour the objects your telescope shows the best.  A good four inch refractor is great for the Moon and planets, and brighter deep sky objects, but not very good for faint planetary nebula and galaxies. 

I don't think your  assumption that you also aim to become proficient at whichever you choose before attempting any imaging is true.  There are many competent imagers who are not good visual observers, don't particularly want to be and own few eyepieces because they look just don't look through them very often.  Also it would be possible to become a fairly good imager if you NEVER observed visually.  I think it would be very unusual, but after all, if Damian Peach taught me all the techniques he uses in obtaining his wonderful planetary images, told me and  instructed me in the use of the exact same telescope, cameras and software, and I could image with it at the same locations he images from, then I could take as good a pictures as he does!

On the other hand, it takes years of practice to become a top notch planetary observer, and  even then not all of us can end. up at the same level.  Of course, luckily anyone can enjoy planetary and deep sky observing, you don't have to be the best observer there is.  I've been a visual astronomer for over 45 years, and though I'd like to be good at it one day, I've no ambition to be any sort of imager ?.  Imaging is no substitute for the thrill and pleasure of seeing any object 'first hand' through a telescope.  The two things can be done along side each other, or you can choose just to concentrate on one of them.

After all, any astronomer knows that imagers are just failed visual observers. ?

[refractordude]

This is the Southern Pinwheel Galaxy.  It will look half as bright as this image at bortle 4 skies with 7x50 binoculars. DSO are easy to find with binoculars.

[refractordude]

This is what I use to find DSO. I then use the red dot finder on my telescope to aim in that direction. 

[teoria_del_big_bang]

5 hours ago, paulastro said:

I've no idea which objects are the most popular for observing.  Most people look at what's available depending on their sky conditions and interests - not that many people ONLY observe planetary or ONLY deep sky.  Also, though any telescope can be used for just about any object, depending on the type and size of telescope the person has (if they only have one telescope) it's natural to favour the objects your telescope shows the best.  A good four inch refractor is great for the Moon and planets, and brighter deep sky objects, but not very good for faint planetary nebula and galaxies. 

I don't think your  assumption that you also aim to become proficient at whichever you choose before attempting any imaging is true.  There are many competent imagers who are not good visual observers, don't particularly want to be and own few eyepieces because they look just don't look through them very often.  Also it would be possible to become a fairly good imager if you NEVER observed visually.  I think it would be very unusual, but after all, if Damian Peach taught me all the techniques he uses in obtaining his wonderful planetary images, told me and  instructed me in the use of the exact same telescope, cameras and software, and I could image with it at the same locations he images from, then I could take as good a pictures as he does!

On the other hand, it takes years of practice to become a top notch planetary observer, and  even then not all of us can end. up at the same level.  Of course, luckily anyone can enjoy planetary and deep sky observing, you don't have to be the best observer there is.  I've been a visual astronomer for over 45 years, and though I'd like to be good at it one day, I've no ambition to be any sort of imager ?.  Imaging is no substitute for the thrill and pleasure of seeing any object 'first hand' through a telescope.  The two things can be done along side each other, or you can choose just to concentrate on one of them.

After all, any astronomer knows that imagers are just failed visual observers. ?

I couldn't agree more.

Especially with this statement " Imaging is no substitute for the thrill and pleasure of seeing any object 'first hand' through a telescope. ".

However, although said in jest (I suspect) maybe would not concur with the final suggestion"After all, any astronomer knows that imagers are just failed visual observers." ? 

[John]

3 hours ago, refractordude said:

This is the Southern Pinwheel Galaxy.  It will look half as bright as this image at bortle 4 skies with 7x50 binoculars. DSO are easy to find with binoculars.

I think it would look a lot fainter and smaller with 7x50 binoculars. The sketch below was made using a 102mm refractor from a very dark site at 48x magnfication. You can see M83 as a faint patch of light with 50mm binoculars but the scale and level of detail will not rival the sketch below, let alone the above image I feel. I'm not trying to dampen enthusiasm, just inject a note of realism

 

[Oat]

Thanks to all for feedback and input. All very interesting to me.

I guess i was looking to understand where to start. I am far from academic (quite the opposite), infact i struggle when people talk deep science, and the thought of reading a book is a challenge. As i will be travelling this journey on my own i guess i was looking for a starting point. Sure there's TLO and Stellarium but neither of them are that good int he darkness of my back garden. I guess i need to set myself small challenges each time, as supposed to try and hop from one to another to another.... Then there is me also being sure that what i have found is what i think it is.

I may have a way to start night vision, i had not made this connection to astronomy so enjoyed reading these suggestions. I also have an interest in hunting and have built a night vision system for my firearms - actually an easy and quick process. I may be able to adapt a similar design for astronomy with a video out port, i shall investigate. This will probably need to be coupled to a laptop as the camera would be in the eyepiece, and you could view on the laptop screen whilst recording simultaneously. But adding a video out to my current design will need a little thinking....

 

Thanks for the chat ?

 

[refractordude]

57 minutes ago, John said:

I think it would look a lot fainter and smaller with 7x50 binoculars. The sketch below was made using a 102mm refractor from a very dark site at 48x magnfication. You can see M83 as a faint patch of light with 50mm binoculars but the scale and level of detail will not rival the sketch below, let alone the above image I feel. I'm not trying to dampen enthusiasm, just inject a note of realism

 

I wrote half as bright as the image. What bortle skies was the 102 refractor used under. www.lightpollutionmap.info has the dark site where I observed the Pinwheel Galaxy as bortle class 3.

[Davey-T]

54 minutes ago, Oat said:

As i will be travelling this journey on my own i guess i was looking for a starting point.

You could do worse than attend the SGL star party in October, only a short trip from Oxford.

Lots of scopes set up and folk there to chat to.

Dave

http://sglsp.com/

 

[Stu]

10 hours ago, refractordude said:

I wrote half as bright as the image. What bortle skies was the 102 refractor used under. www.lightpollutionmap.info has the dark site where I observed the Pinwheel Galaxy as bortle class 3.

Perhaps half as bright, but dramatically smaller and less detailed at x7 vs the larger scale shown in the image.

[John]

11 hours ago, refractordude said:

I wrote half as bright as the image. What bortle skies was the 102 refractor used under. www.lightpollutionmap.info has the dark site where I observed the Pinwheel Galaxy as bortle class 3.

I believe the sketch was made under a Bortle 4 sky from Crete.

The much smaller image scale of the 7x50 binocular would reduce the contrast difference between the galaxy and the background sky. It would be visible in 7x50's but would not be more than a small faint patch of light I would suggest. Plus it's a face on galaxy so the surface brightness is quite low (like M33 and M101) which adds to the challenge. It's also rather low down viewed from the UK. If you are observing from south of the equator I believe it is an easier target.

Still worth looking for with binoculars though