Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

FatiTankEris t1_iuj5ig8 wrote

That depends on what's sensing the light at the end, your eyes or a camera. If the eyes, then it would look like the night sky, but with stars everywhere. Nebulas would look like grey clouds in the stars. One has to remember that they'll always be pinpoints though, because they're too far away, but some multi-starsystems might resolve separation between stars. If you're using a camera, then what can be seen is increased a lot, an exposure of 2 seconds can reveal colour too. But the sky is moving from our view as our Earth rotates, and under magnification, that's faster and trails out exposures, so a counter-rotating mount with a motor becomes required. It allows the view to remain perfectly still and to take longer exposures of the stars, allowing much deeper views with colours. Such a big telescope usually can't fit on consumer Equatorial mounts like that (10" is quite huge), but a 6" can. Usually smaller telescopes with better mounts are used for DSOs (Deep-Sky Objects). Best is to look on r/astrophotography and r/telescopes (there's a pinned buyer's guide), there you'd see many impressive Deep-Sky Objects captured on even smaller telescopes, about 3", their price usually comes from the EQ motorized mount and camera. A great starter is an 8" reflector dobsonian. The larger the aperture, the greater the resolution and light collection. That's a balance of size and power, so to speak. Planets require large aperture, but no motorization, DSOs require a motor-Mount, but can be shot on smaller optics as well.

1