Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

# Confused with aperture, & exit pupil - what will I see?

## Recommended Posts

lets imagine I wasn't to see a nice DSO about 15' size and I think it should look good nicely framed with a 1 deg field of view in the EP..

Which would give the better (or higher probability of seeing anything at all ) view from a semi urban light polluted home site (e.g Bortle 6)?

a) an 100mm f/6 refractor (fl 600mm) and a 10mm EP (60 deg afov, gain 60x = fov pf 1 deg)
(and exit pupil of 100mm / 60 = 1.6mm)

or

b) a  200mm SCT with focal reducer to give f/6 (fl 1200mm) and a 20mm EP (60 deg afov, gain 60x = fov of 1 deg)
(and exit pupil of 200 / 60 = 3.3mm)

My gut feeling is that the SCT should give a better view just based upon its 2xaperture - but Im not sure I understand fully the maths why.
Is the larger exit pupil going to result in a better / brighter / more successful view?
Or will the view be 'roughly' the same ?
Or have I got it all wrong.....

Thanks.

##### Share on other sites

Exit pupil is eyepiece focal length / telescope focal ratio.

Exit pupil is the size of the light beam not the size of what it sees. Imagine holding binoculars in your hand, exit pupil is the bright little light patch you see on the area youo would look through.

Whether using a focal reducer effects exit pupil calculation I don't know.

Edited by happy-kat

##### Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, happy-kat said:

Whether﻿ using a focal reducer effects exit pupil calculation I don't﻿ know.

Yes it does as it effectively reduces the focal length of the scope so reduces the focal ratio resulting in a larger exit pupil.

• 1

##### Share on other sites

With 2x the aperture a 200mm scope actually has 4x the light gathering area of a 100mm aperture so it's going to show DSO's better.

With SCT's and mak-cassegrains the long focal length restricts the size of the true field of view that is attainable so larger DSO's may not fit into the field of view. But if it can fit in, it should be brighter and more detailed than in a 100mm aperture scope.

• 1

##### Share on other sites

The SCT and focal reducer is superfluous to what I was trying to work out.

I was trying to understand why the larger aperture scope would give the better view. Since they both have the same overall F ratio in this example and the fov using the 2 eyepieces is the same.
Im thinking that (assuming the eye pupil remains fully open and is larger than the exit pupil)  the exit pupil is effectively controlling the aperture of the eye. Since size of the rods/cones are fixed in size (and treating them like a camera sensor) - so the larger exit pupil in this case is allowing the eye to have a higher f/ratio of its own and hence brighter and more differentiated light levels between the background and the subject view.
(as well as more detail due to the higher aperture resolution of the scope - and ignoring any sampling at the eye).

##### Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Fraunhoffer said:

The﻿ SCT and focal reducer is superfluous to what I was trying to work out.﻿﻿

Yes, I was just answering the question from happy-kat.

In some ways, the more interesting or relevant question is what happens when you keep the exit pupils the same as it directly illustrates the benefit of a larger scope.

Strangely enough, the even the largest scopes cannot make the surface brightness of extended DSOs brighter than they appear with the naked eye. What they can do is maintain brightness at larger image scales which helps with visibility and allows your eye to detect contrast more easily.

In your example, with both scopes giving an exit pupil of 3.3mm, the 100mm refractor will only be giving a magnification of x30. So, the SCT example can maintain the same surface brightness for the object at twice the image scale.

• 1

##### Share on other sites

Isn't the exit pupil of both telescopes in this example 1.6mm

10/6

##### Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, happy-kat said:

Isn't the exit pupil of both telescopes in this example 1.6mm

10/6

one is 10/6 and the other is 20/6.

exit_pupil = ep.focal_length / (t.focal_ratio)
= ep.focal_lenght / (t.focal_length / t.aperture)
= (ep.focal_length / t.focal_length) * t.aperture
= t.aperture / (t.focal.length/ep.focal_lengh)
= t.aperture / gain

sorry for the shorthand.

## Create an account

Register a new account

• ### Similar Content

• By StevieH
Hi all I’m just looking for advice on upgrading telescop. At the minute I’ve got a Meade ETX 125 and had some good views with it so far. Mainly Moon Planets and brighter clusters. However I wanted to see more Galaxies and nebulas which is a much to ask for a F15 scope.
im looking at second hand Celestron/Meade 9.25” f10 s With maybe a focal reducer and Sky-Watcher 10”-12” F4.9 dobsonians which is the better choice?
• By Sonmalul
There is something that makes me think practicality.
We can all agree that a long focal length scope is better suited for planetary use than its short length brother which would be best suited for dso viewing or guiding/photo.
We can take those two (refractors) as an example: 90/900 and his brother, a 90/500 (and we will be using Plossl EPs)
Exit pupil is an important factor in viewing comfort.
Exit pupils are dependent on the scope's focal length, the EP's fl and the main lens diameter.
For example, to acheive 100x in the 90/500 we will need a 5mm eyepiece and to acheive the same mag in the 90/900 we will need a 9mm eyepiece.
The exit pupils of both scopes in those configurations will be 90/100=0.9mm
The theoretical magnification limit for both scopes lies at about 180x.
It is true that to reach this 180x you will need a 5mm EP in the 90/900 and a "2.8"mm EP in the 90/500 and those will probably make for an eyelash brushing eye relief... But looking at exit pupils up to 100x, those scopes do not seem to complement one another, but rather replace each other.
So, ignoring abberations, and not taking into account eye relief so much, wouldn't the faster scope be almost as practical and easy on the eyes for high-ish magnifications as the slower, heavier, harder to mount in the wind scope?
just my evening neurons buzzing...

• Hello all,
New to the hobby and eager to learn information about where to start. Mostly interested in planet viewing, especially the moon. Looking to start out and need the portability as i may have to get out of town a ways to really get a good look at the heavens. I'm considering  either a set of 20x50 or 20x80 binoculars (tripod mounted) or  getting a Meade StarPro AZ 90mm telescope. Both are within 50\$ of each other online. Wondering what would be my best bet for starting out, I will be staying focused on the moon for now, and thats my #1 priority (seeing the moon in extreme detail) but may soon get into farther planets/galaxy observation.
thank you.
• By Stefann
Hi everyone, about a month ago i got my first telescope. Wasn't sure what to get but i wanted something portable and easy to setup and use. After some internet "research" i decided to go for a refractor on a manual alt/az mount. The telescope was on a 50% sale so i decided to go for it , the Meade infinity 90.

The package:
The scope came in one big box, everything was inside. Included was the optical tube, the mount, 3 eyepieces (6.3mm, 9mm and 26mm), a 2x barlow lens, 90 degree diagonal, red dot finder, an eyepiece holder for the mount and a few manuals. The optical tube:
The tube has a 90mm (3.5in) aperture and 600mm focal length. It looks and feels as a quality instrument, it has a small dew shield and the focuser is smooth when you move it back and forward. As expected the lens looks to be coated. It has a dovetail bar on it with 3 holes for screws. The mount:
Light but stable, made of aluminium. It has 3 extendable legs, and 2 slow motion cables (alt/az). One screw to mount the tube on on top (adjustable back and forward). The eyepieces and barlow:
All 3 are modified achromat eyepieces, the lenses are made of glass and are OK for the beginner, but i would suggest upgrading if you can. The barlow is bad i even think that the optics are plastic (not sure), it is usable if you don't have other options but this should be the first upgrade in my opinion. Observing: First light:
The telescope arrived in the morning so the first thing i did after a quick setup was to adjust the red dot finder. I looked at some mountains about 20km away, the view was nice and very detailed using all eyepieces. Combining the 6.3mm with the barlow got me a bit blurry view, but the barlow in combination with the other eyepieces was ok. Night came and it was a moonless and clear night (only light pollution from the city i live in). I saw orion right infront of me, "marked" it with the red dot finder where i thought M42 should be and looked through the 26mm eyepiece. It was a bit blurry but after adjusting the focus i could see some nice pinpoint stars and also something fuzzy, i realized it was the orion nebula. After letting my eyes adjust to the view for a few minutes i started seeing 2 faint "wings" on both sides and in the center were 4 very tiny stars, i didn't expect to see that on my first night. I followed my target for about 15 minutes using the slow motion controls , it was easy to do. Also tried the 9mm eyepiece and with it the 4 stars were more easily seen but the faint clouds got fainter so i moved back to the 26mm. Next target was venus, i tried all eyepieces + with combination with the barlow. It looked like a very bright half moon without any details. When using the barlow the view was ok but purple glow was showing around the planet, without the barlow the purple wasn't noticeable. I also looked at the star Sirius which looked nice, bright and much bigger then any other star i could see that night. After Venus went down i decided it was enough for day one. Moon:
I expected it to look good, but not this good. I was observing the moon for a couple of nights until it got full. I could see a lot of details at the terminator , with low and high magnification. When the moon was full it was very very bright and it looked best with the smallest magnification using the 26mm eyepiece. Jupiter and Saturn:
I got 2 opportunities to look at these 2, the first time i think the "seeing" was bad. I could only see Jupiters 4 moons and the planet was a bright disc without any details at any magnification i tried. Saturn also wasn't very good, i could see the rings but they were blurry and "dancing" around. But the next time i had the chance to look at these planets the conditions were much better, first target was again Jupiter. With the 26mm eyepiece i could see a white disc with 4 moons.With the 9mm i could see the moons again but now the disc had very faint 2 bands without any color. The view was best with the 6.3mm eyepiece, the 2 bands were clearly visible and on the upper belt on the right side there was a small dark dot, i am not sure if it was anything . Next target was Saturn, event with the 26mm eyepiece i could see that it has rings, i switched to the 6.3mm right away and wow there it was, Saturn and its rings clearly visible, i even think i could spot the cassini devision, but it might have been my eyes playing tricks. I tried using the barlow on both targets but it was making the image blurry, but at this point i had purchased a higher quality barlow and the views were very nice with it , but the  max magnification i could use that night was 133x, anything higher and the image was getting wobbly (probably that was due to the atmosphere that night). After that some clouds came in and it was time to get back to bed (got up just to see the planets in 4am). Conclusion:
I think i got what i wanted, a small and very portable telescope for some basic amateur observing. I do recommend this telescope to anyone as a first telescope or even to an experienced astronomer who is looking for something light, portable and being able to set it up and start observing in 2 minutes. Also i would recommend you replace all of the eyepieces and the barlow. I got me a few plossl eyepieces and a nice barlow, it was worth it.
Feel free to ask me anything regarding this telescope i will be more than happy to answer.
Sorry for any spelling mistakes this review probably contains

Also i am attaching a few images i took directly off the eyepiece using my smartphone (handheld).

The Telescope

The Moon:

The Moon:

Venus:

Saturn:

Jupiter:

• Skywatcher skymax 90mm mak or Skywatcher evostar 90mm.

which one is better for planetary?
×
×
• Create New...