What is it like to visually observe deep sky objects with a telescope of 60 cm or more?

I used someone else's 60cm caliber Daubson. The mirror is so big, like a dining table. Climb the ladder to see.

Not particularly shocking, to be honest. The cantilever of M33 is still relatively obvious, and several star-forming areas can also be seen. The Veil Nebula can be viewed very closely. The internal hierarchy is clear. But to be honest, I didn't feel a big difference compared to my own 30cm.

Optically speaking, when looking at galaxies and nebulae visually, the brightness of the surface light source is determined by the exit pupil of the device. A 6cm aperture f 5 telescope and a 60 cm aperture f 5 telescope can see the same brightness as long as the eyepiece has the same focal length. The advantage of large-aperture telescopes is that they have a high magnification, so they can see more detail.

However, this is sometimes a disadvantage. Because of the same eyepiece, the field of view of large telescopes is narrower, and super-large objects like M31 are more powerful than small telescopes. <>

The effect of different calibers is different, the larger the caliber, the brighter the target, and the more details will be.

Deep space targets, if you mean galaxies or planetary nebulae, are mostly gray clouds

You can try to look at the clouds with a telescope at night when there are clouds

Most planetary nebulae in galaxies will probably be smaller and fainter than the clouds in the sky.

Of course, if the aperture is large enough, such as a 300mm DOB, you can see the cantilever feel of individual galaxies and all kinds of planetary nebulae in a great environment.

If you are looking at star clusters, for most open star clusters, the requirements for aperture are not so high, for example, I often use 80mm binoculars to survey the sky.

However, globular clusters will require more multiples and apertures.

If the aperture is small, the brightness will not keep up, and the resolution will be difficult to decompose the star spots of some beautiful globular clusters

There are also some brighter targets, such as the Orion Nebula, which are the best objects to look at.

If the caliber is large enough, you can even feel the color of the M42

Of course, large-aperture telescopes are difficult to carry

However, in my own experience, when I see the globular cluster of NGC5139, I will not regret buying a large-aperture telescope

Every friend of mine exclaims "wow" when they see this cluster for the first time

A large-aperture telescope can be very impressive when looking at deep space, for example, you can see the colors of many nebulae, the spiral arms of galaxies, and the member stars of disintegrating globular clusters.

However, for me, if I only observe those famous nebula clusters, it is a bit of a waste to use such a large aperture, so I have to look at the NGC IC table, the Abell galaxy cluster table, the Abell planetary nebula table, the Palomar globular cluster table, the Terzan globular cluster table, the Hickson galaxy group table, the globular cluster in M31, and so on. <>

If you have the same eyepiece, the object or field of view of the object with a large aperture of the objective lens will become larger, and it feels like you roll up 2 paper tubes of the same length, when this paper tube is a standard cylindrical shape, you will feel that the object you are looking at is in a circular range that is far away from you, but if it is a conical cylindrical shape and the diameter of the end of the small mouth is the same as the previous paper tube, you will find that you can see a larger range of circular areas. In a way, you can have a larger field of view or image an object closer to your eyes, rather than a small distant circular field of view.

In fact, the environment is much more important than the caliber. The largest mirror I've ever seen is the school's 32-inch RC, located in the light-damaged red zone, with an unaided limit magnitude of about the same, and the bright nebula, globular cluster, and planetary nebula are really shocking (up to 524 times), but galaxies can basically only see the galactic nucleus. <>

In fact, when the aperture reaches a certain data, there is really no difference between you looking at the planets, for example, you look at the moon with a diameter of 600 mm and a diameter of 150 mm, the clarity is about the same, only when observing the deep sky nebula, the advantage of large aperture can be brought into play, the larger the aperture, the higher the brightness, and generally this kind of large-aperture telescope is basically impossible to refract. Civilian large-aperture refraction is too expensive!

1.The main difference is the magnification and caliber. The deep space is bigger.

times, in fact, it is the effect of stretching from 400m to 1m, and there is an objective impact of the environment in fact, and the effect is discounted. The magnification is too large and not suitable for personal use.

3.Both reentry and reflectors can be used for photography. It's all about matching and mobility. In the case of photography, it is also necessary to consider the degree of restoration of the image.

4.There is no absolute in everything, the large diameter is only the increase in the amount of light, the main thing is that the optical effect of the lens affects the purchase, don't buy the extreme, only the right one is the best.

Lots of bugs. Deep space doesn't need much magnification, because the stars can't be put anywhere, and the diameter of the nebula can't be contained at all by high multiples. 80600 or 80900 is fine, such as the Sky Wolf Painter.

Planets need high magnification, but they also need large apertures, because aperture determines resolution, so cattle are better. 150 caliber cattle anti, such as Xinda Xiaohei, ** cheap and sufficient.

Small-aperture long-focal length should be refraction, although there are also small-aperture long-focal length retracement, but the principle is limited, and the sharpness is very poor.

When it comes to photography, a good equatorial mount is more important than a good mirror. The investment in the equatorial mount and mirror should be 2:1:1

Visually, a bull with a theodolite is better.

If you plan to buy a mirror, it is best to go to forums such as Tianzhiwen and Shepherd to eliminate illiteracy.

You are right, the catadioptric telescope is not suitable for observing deep-sky objects, but is more suitable for observing planets, the moon and the sun (Gabbard membrane).

This is because the focal ratios of catadioptric telescopes are very large. The general Schkagiobi is about 10 (such as C8, C11 of Cintron), and the Macaggio is more than 12 (such as 130 and 150 Maca of Boguan). The large focal ratio results in low imaging brightness and a small field of view, while deep-sky objects have a large visual area and are very dark, so the catadioptric type is not suitable for deep-sky objects.

For the observation of deep-sky objects, apochromatic refractors (APO) can be considered for photography, and large-aperture DOB can be considered for visual observation.