Quote:
Originally Posted by madbadgalaxyman
Let's put some numbers into this discussion......
A 10 inch has 1.56 times the light gathering power of an 8 inch, which is a colossal difference, as we appreciate when trying to see detail on galaxies.
A 12 inch has 1.44 times the light gathering power of a 10 inch. This difference is noticeable to the observer, but it is not
overwhelming.
A 14 inch has 1.36 times the light gathering power of a 12 inch.
In fact, the difference between what you see in a 14 inch and what you see in a 12 inch is not that great;
the level of experience of the observer, the contrast of the optics (e.g. baffling, stray light, and freedom from reflections) , the reflectivity of the mirror coatings, and the quality of the eyepiece, could well make a much bigger difference than the difference in aperture.
In the old "physical size versus aperture dilemma", that is , "I want that extra oomph in my viewing, but can I handle the larger sized instrument?", long experience with owning many and different telescopes taught me the following wise sayings:
The usability of a telescope generally decreases greatly, with increased size. A 10 inch is still "luggable", a 12 inch is a massive brute, and a 14 inch is already an "ultra-brute" when it comes to its size and convenience of use.
The best telescope is the one you actually use, and use a lot.
It's not how big it is that counts , it's what you do with it......
( These opinions are the result of 27 years of regular visual Deep Sky observation )
cheers, madbadgalaxyman
|
If 14" is ultra brute what is the 25" obsession? I want to get one later this year since I can't find a better planetary solution. It is f/5 btw.
