Eye piece images through a Skywatcher 180/2700 Mak.

[bluesilver]

Hi,  I am hoping this is not a silly question,  but what i am trying to chase down is what sort of image can i expect to see of Jupiter or Saturn through the Skywatcher 180-2700 Mak.

I have seen many images an the like on google,  but they seam to vary quiet a bit and i am sure some are not as view through this scope.

So basically what i was hoping to achieve is if anyone that has one of these scopes,  is it at all possible to put up a photo of what the image that you see through the eyepiece  looks like.

I am working on a good about of magnification,  i guess the highest magnification you can go without it starting to get blury/ fuzzy,  just so i looks like a decent image viewed through the eye piece,   Hope that makes sense.

 

I am looking at getting one of these scopes,  but if i can get a bit of an idea on what the image is going to look like first it will be a great help,  either that or wait a bit longer a save a bit more and go for a Celestron C14.

 

 

[alan potts]

The biggest trouble is all images on here or on the Net will have been taken with cameras and they will always in even half capable hands show more detail and colour that through an eyepiece. Then of course it depends on which eyepieces you are using as to how sharp an image you see in the conditions, but most eyepieces are good in the centre if only reasonable at the edges.  I have the scope you talk of and I can say it give top class views of all planets for the money, it may well be not as good as a 150mm APO refractor but it comes close enough. If planets are what you want to look at then there are not many better options to choose from.

But beware your views even with the best eyepieces will not compare with photography as a camera can record things our eyes can't see due to stacking of many shots.

Alan

[Cosmic Geoff]

Be aware that a planetary image produced via stacked images typically looks far better than the average visual (eyeball) view.  The processed image gets much nearer to the scope's ultimate performance.

I started planetary imaging because I was disappointed by the visual views and now I do all my high-resolution viewing of Jupiter, Saturn and Mars that way. I barely ever saw Jupiter's Great Red Spot with my 127mm Mak but the first time I tried imaging Jupiter with the Mak I got a nice clear image showing the extent of the GRS.

From a 180mm Mak to a C14 seems rather a leap. The latter is not a portable instrument.

[John]

To add to the challenge, the experienced observer who spends time at the eyepiece studying a planet will see quite a bit more planetary detail than the novice who has a relatively quick look.

If I posted sketches (which are much more a guide than images) that looked like a novice taking a quick look might see then I feel that you would not be impressed (the 14 inch SCT would not really change this either) but when you see sketches of what an experienced observer, spending long periods at the eyepiece with smaller apertures can see, they are really quite impressive.

You see, there are no guaranteed outcomes with visual observations.

 

 

[djpaul]

6 hours ago, John said:

To add to the challenge, the experienced observer who spends time at the eyepiece studying a planet will see quite a bit more planetary detail than the novice who has a relatively quick look.

If I posted sketches (which are much more a guide than images) that looked like a novice taking a quick look might see then I feel that you would not be impressed (the 14 inch SCT would not really change this either) but when you see sketches of what an experienced observer, spending long periods at the eyepiece with smaller apertures can see, they are really quite impressive.

You see, there are no guaranteed outcomes with visual observations.

 

 

This is very good advise.

I have learned to be patient over the past couple of years and notice do much more visually than I used too ..

[bluesilver]

Appreciate the replies and can understand what you are saying for sure.

I was mainly interested to find out how large of an image you actually get in the 180 Mak  eye piece of the planets to compare to say something like a 10 in dobsonian.

I realise i am trying to compare two completely different scopes,  but am i correct in saying that you would get a larger image in the 180 Mak?

I am planing to do a bit of astrophotography latter on  and the 180 Mak would be ideal for that.

Sorry if all this seams like a pointless question,   but really interested to know if i would get a larger cleared image through the eyepiece of the 180 Mak compared to the 10 inch dobsonian.

 

Thanks again for the replies.

 

 

[Cosmic Geoff]

11 hours ago, bluesilver said:

 but really interested to know if i would get a larger cleared image through the eyepiece of the 180 Mak compared to the 10 inch dobsonian.

With the same eyepiece, you would get a larger image with the 180Mak, assuming the focal length of the 10" Dob is less than 2700mm. But you could easily put a more powerful eyepiece in the Dob to increase the apparent image size, which renders this a non-question.

[bingevader]

If it's just an idea of size you are after, then download Stellarium and stick your 'scope and EP details into that.

It'll give you an idea of FOV and magnification.

[bingevader]

Found two screenshots I took of Stellarium a while back to justify my purchase of an 82º EP!

The Double Cluster through my skyliner and a 82º 24mm EP compared to a 50º 25mm EP.