M3, M5 M13 What can / do you see Visual Observation No Astrophotography

[HarryLP]

Now that the night skies have improved I have been able to locate and observe M3, 5 and 13 with my 200p DOB. I use the SW25mm planetary wide and the finder scope to locate At this mag I get a smudge. I then have been able to progressively increase the mag with my TMB 8 , 5 and 4mm eyepieces.

My question is what should I/ do you see?

I see progressively more shape detail with increased mag but I find that I am unable to get a precise focus that is I do not observe pin points of light (stars). I can see that each glob is subtly different. M13 has a ghostly outline of what I see as loosely resembling the shadow ships from Babylon 5. I see flecks of light rather pinpoints which appear and disappear. I guess my eyes are constantly changing focus as I struggle to obtain precise focus.

Don't get me wrong I know not to expect hubble views and I am pleased with what I see but I would be interested to hear of other experiences.

 

 

[maw lod qan]

I viewed M4 this morning. Seeing was not the best but I could make out a little detail of the stars.

I was using a 8" reflector, 3x Barlow and 23mm eyepiece.

In the finder scope it was only a good fuzzy.

[Zermelo]

Have a look here:

https://www.cambridge.org/turnleft/pages/seasonal_skies/jul-sep/in_hercules_the_great_globular_cluster_m13

With a 200mm in decent skies, you should certainly be resolving quite a few stars. I was observing with a 150mm earlier this week, and I was seeing around 20 resolved points in a granular mass with some structure to it, ie not just a blob. M3 looked almost as good, and I was resolving some stars in the outer half of the orb. M5 is still a bit low down at the moment and wasn't quite as good, but in June I've seen it as good as M3.

The "winking in and out" effect is something I see quite often in globs; I assume it's stars just at the limit of visibility.

You might want to try focusing on a nearby brighter star first - it's sometimes difficult to focus precisely on a fuzzy object. And to be sure you're giving it the best chance, check your collimation.

Edited April 28, 2022 by Zermelo
"bright" > "brighter"

[AstroKeith]

Yes, with a 200mm you should be resolving at least some stars in the globulars. 

As Zermelo suggest, check focus on a brighter star.
Are you well collimated?
How long had the scope been left to stabilise?
Don't use too much power!

[Kon]

On my 200P I can see individual stars resolving and look pinpoint. Using adverted vision I can get more stars especially at the edge of M13. Transparency will affect how things appear but also collimation as others suggested.

Your 4 and 5mm will be too much even under good seeing.

Edited April 28, 2022 by Kon

[PeterStudz]

Interesting. I also have a 200p Dob, although my experience is slightly different. I’m in Bortle 7 so can struggle with globular clusters but I really enjoy observing them.

Using M13 as an example. To get the best out of it I’ll wait until it’s high in the sky, even if that means waiting until 2am. I’ll also observe for at least an hour, changing eyepieces, using adverted vision, letting my eye relax, making sure I’m well use to the dark. Still, it’ll depend on the night and I’ll need decent transparency. 

But overall, and this goes against what some have suggested here, I’ll get the best views with a 5mm eyepiece. Then M13 fills the FOV and under good conditions I can see 25-30 stars “winking in and out” over a fuzzy background. A bit like a glitter ball. 

[Elp]

Via a 130pds I can only resolve a faint smudge from a bortle 7 as if the eyepiece has been imprinted. Why I tend to image instead.

[HarryLP]

 

Thanks for the quick and interesting responses. According to Clear Skies  I live in Bortle 5. I do my observing out the back so I effectively have a space behind of two gardens facing East and a fairly clear view to the South (approx) between neighbours back gardens on to a farmers field. I am fortunate in that my neighbours do not tend to light up the backs of their homes. Street lamps directly out the front so thats a no no for me.

 For me like PeterSudz I find the better view is with the 5mm.

I also use Turn Left at Orion. WRT to M13 I do see a definite structure and 'stars' both within the greyish outline shape and also the surround. I do not see 'a ball of light that looks as if it were dusted with diamonds'. I do see more precise star points in say the Pleiades and call also resolve the trapezium in Orion.

So my opinion is twofold, I am seeing roughly what some others are seeing taking into account different locations, sky conditions etc. Secondly I am going to have overcome the newbie hurdle of doing my first collimation.

[Zermelo]

I should have said above, I'm Bortle 4.

 

32 minutes ago, HarryLP said:

a ball of light that looks as if it were dusted with diamonds

I'd say in my case it's more like a "ball of boiling grey, dusted with brighter specs"

 

34 minutes ago, HarryLP said:

doing my first collimation

Have you done a star test?

 

I'd also agree with @PeterStudz above - a lot of what you can see is down to observing technique, on top of the kit that you're using.

 

 

 

 

[Stu]

A lot depends on conditions, but with good seeing and transparency you should be able to resolve stars a fair way in towards the core on M13. As others have said, focus on a nearby star then get on to the glob. I often find that by looking at it straight on, the flicking my eye away it really makes the stars pop into visibility in smaller scopes, and this will still help with an 8”.

I think somewhere around x150 at max on the larger globs is worthwhile. Depending on your level of LP, an observing hood can help still to bring more stars out. In M13 with an 8” you should also be able to see something called the ‘Propeller’, which are darker lanes amongst the stars which for a propeller shape. Some info on it here:

https://skyandtelescope.org/observing/m13-and-galaxies/

They all seem to have their own character and shape, some of the smaller ones can be quite tricky but certainly M13, M92, M3, M5, M15 and M22 are all decent ones worth spending time on.

[HarryLP]

8 minutes ago, Zermelo said:

I should have said above, I'm Bortle 4.

 

I'd say in my case it's more like a "ball of boiling grey, dusted with brighter specs"

 

Have you done a star test?

 

I'd also agree with @PeterStudz above - a lot of what you can see is down to observing technique, on top of the kit that you're using.

 

 

 

 

Totally agree. I find that even altering the position of my head / eye over the eyepiece can improve / diminish the sharpness of the view. I have done star tests and get concentric circles again a slight change in head position alters these.

Particularly as to whether or not the hole in middle is central or off centre.

In my short period of observing time over a longer period of extended time with too much cloud, I have learnt very early on that if all else remains the same I see more and more every time I observe the same object. My brain as it were tunes in and remembers.

I am reassured that I am learning and improving but I need to tackle collimation. I have a collimation cap purchased from FLO and I can see the three secondary mirror clasps so thats good. Just need to sharpen the alignment a bit on the primary.

[PeterStudz]

And keep trying! My best view of M13 so far from my back garden was last year.  But I’m new to this and I’m sure better is possible and will come. I’m also itching to go to a darker site.

As for collimation - just over a year ago it was a fiddly frustrating and confusing task. Now it’s a piece of cake, although I flocked my 200p and took it completely apart so it was just a tube then put it all back together which really helped my understanding. Now I’m not suggesting you do that!  But as someone said on here - learning how to collimate is a bit like learning to ride a bike. My advice is to go slowly, bit by bit and don’t worry if it doesn’t all work at once. Eventually you’ll get there.  As I was learning I was still using my telescope and even though collimation was somewhat out I was still getting good views. 

[HarryLP]

16 hours ago, Stu said:

A lot depends on conditions, but with good seeing and transparency you should be able to resolve stars a fair way in towards the core on M13. As others have said, focus on a nearby star then get on to the glob. I often find that by looking at it straight on, the flicking my eye away it really makes the stars pop into visibility in smaller scopes, and this will still help with an 8”.

I think somewhere around x150 at max on the larger globs is worthwhile. Depending on your level of LP, an observing hood can help still to bring more stars out. In M13 with an 8” you should also be able to see something called the ‘Propeller’, which are darker lanes amongst the stars which for a propeller shape. Some info on it here:

https://skyandtelescope.org/observing/m13-and-galaxies/

They all seem to have their own character and shape, some of the smaller ones can be quite tricky but certainly M13, M92, M3, M5, M15 and M22 are all decent ones worth spending time on.

Thanks for the link to the S&T which I found very interesting. I particularly liked the poetic descriptions of how M13 looks to the author . Having observed again last night his tardigrade is my microscopic mite.

[HarryLP]

I had clear skies last night so went out for another look at M13, 5 and 3. From 10pm to 12.15. It was not dark until after 1030 but even straight away I could locate M3.

Last night I used my 32mm omni as the finder, this for me gives much crisper points of light (stars), I also checked out my just delivered omni 10mm (again very crisp points of light) and the 10mm plus omni 2 X Barlow. Compared alongside the TMB II 8mm and 5mm

Seeing when it got dark was so much better than the previous night. Whereas before I was reporting stars in Globs as more flecks of light, last night much more star like in appearance and many more visible. In M13 the grey granularity whilst still apparent adding to the overall shape, many more stars both within and without were observed. I have now revised my impression of M13 as being more 'mite' like with the jaws to the left in the Dob.

I still prefer the TMB II 5mm for looking at Globs but the omnis in my limited experience are good, affordable and very crisp for more general use.

Lastly a quick look at the double/double with the 5mm, good separation in the south pair (top in the Dob)  bottom pair not so cleanly split.

Interesting session showing how change in seeing makes such a difference only 24 hours apart.

[ollypenrice]

You say 'No astrophotography' but, speaking as an astrophographer first and visual observer second, I'd say it was hard to capture the visual sparkle of the globulars in a camera. It's not like the faint nebulae, many of which cannot be seen at all at the eyepiece. Starrry targets are routinely better at the EP than at the camera so I suspect you might want to look at your collimation, and/or cooldown.

Olly

[niallk]

In my skies, the view of M13 through my 250px was similar to what's shown on Obsession's comparison marketing chart for an 8":

https://www.obsessiontelescopes.com/m13/

Spectacular to see, but rather dim at ~200x, with a lot of stars resolved. 

When I got my 15", wow - the effect on globs!  The marketing blurb is not bs!! 😂  They really respond to aperture - bright and resolved.

[HarryLP]

Thanks Olly and Nialk. It looks like with an 8 inch dob my seeing of dso s is reasonable so that gives me reassurance.  Since my last post I have now seen m57 and m71 for the first time, yep I can detect the ring and the angel fish. I take the advice about colimation I am just going to have to take a deep breath and go for it using a colimation cap.

[niallk]

16 hours ago, HarryLP said:

Thanks Olly and Nialk. It looks like with an 8 inch dob my seeing of dso s is reasonable so that gives me reassurance.  Since my last post I have now seen m57 and m71 for the first time, yep I can detect the ring and the angel fish. I take the advice about colimation I am just going to have to take a deep breath and go for it using a colimation cap.

Good stuff!

What I like to do is Google sketches of objects I've observed - you often see them for different sky conditions, and different apertures.  Useful to get a sense of how much you got - or missed!

I find DSOs can be highly sensitive to conditions, and hence revisit targets repeatedly.  Some rare dark really transparent nights can deliver jaw droppingly good views - and only then you realise the difference of an average night!!

Collimation is scarey at the start.  I messed my secondary alignment up so badly on my 250px I wished I'd never tried😂  But maybe it was a blessing in disguise: I studied how it was constructed and what adjustability is provided.  Then studied AstroBaby's guide, an several others, and approached it methodically and it may take a few iterations between primary and secondary.  I used a Cheshire/ sight tube combo tool.  Now I use a laser - buts that's more for helping in the dark.  My 250px held colimation ridiculously well - I'd only collimate in the daytime and it would be fine even after carrying out to my back garden.

PS the hex bolts in the secondary holder are evil: I never did it, but replacing with Bob's Knobs thumb screws would be a really worthwhile thing to do.  I have thumb screws on my 15" and it makes a world of difference!

Edited August 1, 2022 by niallk

[timwetherell]

On 28/04/2022 at 13:46, HarryLP said:

My question is what should I/ do you see?

This is a sketch of what M3 looks like in my 7" scope in good seeing near zenith.