Just an interesting read I read a while ago:
http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbarchi...l/fpart/1/vc/1
The idea of the entire thread was to show that the general consensus of Refractors = Planetary viewing at its best, not the case compare to Reflectors (if set up right).
Can someone explain how does 'magnification' vs Aperture work then?
I am under the understanding that
More aperture means, more magnification possible.
At the same time however, if the sky is the Limiting factor, to about 300x or so, then whether one has a 24" dob or 6" dob, doesn't make much difference in terms of Power.
That means a planet (Like Saturn) would be the same size in both the 20"+ and the 6". However, Saturn should have more detail to it in the larger one simply because the larger one gathered more light?
Does that also mean that galaxies etc would be more visible with larger aperture even if the 'size' of what you are seeing would be the same (based on magnification which has been limited by the sky)?
That also then says if you 'do' get a very nice night, where you can go 500x magnification (like these people did in the link provided), then obviously yes, the larger aperture because it provides more detail allows more for magnification to be used without sacrificing detail?
Having said this, I can not understand how a small telescope is as good as a larger telescope for planets. More convenient perhaps, but detail comes from Aperture.
I have a shed where I can store my telescope. I can get the scope mounted on some sort of wooden frame with wheels on it (like a trolley) if needed. We have seen the 12" in person, not bad when its trus-rod style in terms of size.
O and off-topic, how do I set the forum to show latest post at the bottom as I read top down now down up? This is all reverse order!