Re: (IAAC) FWD: What should I buy? (rich field scopes)

Sue and Alan French wrote:

> While I agree that many objects are best seen at high magnifications, I do
> not agree that there are only a handful that require low power to be fully
> appreciated.  There are enough wide-field objects for a lifetime of
> observing with a small rich-field telescope.  These objects, however, often
> belong to some of the lesser known designations such as Collinder, Melotte,
> Ruprecht, Sharpless, Barnard, etc.  These objects were often overlooked in
> the searches done with ordinary, narrow-field telescopes and did not make
> the more well-known lists.
> Clear skies,  Sue


Actually my message was addressing the use of low power with a typical moderate
f ratio telescope, not a rich-field scope with a much larger field of view.  I
agree with you in principle about objects in the catalogs that you've mentioned
and have seen quite a few of them myself.  However, how many of them would you
consider to be "showcase" objects?  Other than the Coathanger, the Alpha Persei
Association, Coma Berenices star cluster, etc. that is.  Aren't they really of
more interest to experienced observers like yourself who have already seen the
premiere deep-sky objects and are looking for new challenges?


Follow-Ups: References: