Visibility of APOD objects in amateur telescopes?

[Oldfart]

It's pretty obvious to amateur astronomers that your APOD's of the moon, planets, and other familiar objects are or are not visible to some extent in amateur-size telescopes. But I've often wondered if I'd have a chance of glimpsing some of the finer deep sky objects that Hubble or observatories capture for your pages.

In connection with this, I was just wondering if the authors of APOD's decriptions might be persuaded to add a short line to their captions which tells us what possibility we might have of directly observing these objects with our amateur telescopes.

[Chris Peterson]

It's pretty obvious to amateur astronomers that your APOD's of the moon, planets, and other familiar objects are or are not visible to some extent in amateur-size telescopes. But I've often wondered if I'd have a chance of glimpsing some of the finer deep sky objects that Hubble or observatories capture for your pages.

In connection with this, I was just wondering if the authors of APOD's decriptions might be persuaded to add a short line to their captions which tells us what possibility we might have of directly observing these objects with our amateur telescopes.

The vast majority of the deep sky objects featured on APOD are readily visible in amateur class telescopes. In some cases the images may be posted because of interesting features (e.g. gravitational lensing, narrowband filtered zones), and such features might not be seen visually. Of course, views through the telescope can't compete with images, but most objects can be seen as the usual faint fuzzies.

[apodman]

You led me to wonder how many APOD deep-sky objects are naked-eye objects. After all, some nights I can see M31 through the glare of city lights if I shield my eyes and know where to look (I do).

Not being willing to analyze a long list of APODs, I asked the same question of a shorter list: How many of the 100+ Messier objects are naked-eye objects? About 10 if I'm lucky (and away from the lights), but I don't have a list. And this is just spotting them, not seeing great detail in most cases. Okay, I can name M31 (the Great Spiral in Andromeda) as well as familiar naked-eye objects like M42 (Orion nebula) and M45 (Pleiades), but my point is I can't name 10 without looking at the whole list, and even then I'm guessing the last few.

The answer becomes easier to find on the internet when I ease the requirements from naked-eye observing to 7x35 binoculars. Small binoculars up to 7x35 and 10x50 are usually for terrestrial use, whereas binoculars for astronomical use start around 11x70 (just where one person draws the line). Nonetheless, this web site divides 76 of the 100+ Messier objects into the following categories:

42 easy objects for 7x35 binoculars
18 tougher objects for 7x35 binoculars
16 challenge objects for 7x35 binoculars

(once again, we are talking about spotting with some degree of confidence, not seeing great detail)

[apodman]

views through the telescope can't compete with images

But the telescope, be it ever so humble, physically connects me with the universe. Which is no small thing.

All you kids out there, don't sit inside like me getting images through technology all the time. Go outside and look for yourself once in a while. I used to freeze in dark fields all night for enjoyment, but technology has made it easy for me to become a weather wimp.

[Chris Peterson]

But the telescope, be it ever so humble, physically connects me with the universe. Which is no small thing.

My connection with the Universe is strongest when I make my own images, with my own telescope, sitting in my (warm) lab a few meters from the scope. I've never really had much appreciation for the view from the telescope, except for the Moon, Saturn, and Jupiter.

But I'd agree, the connection is much better- whether imaging or viewing- than it is simply viewing images on the Internet. But that may not be the case for everyone. It's nice that people who don't want to deal with telescopes and equipment have this great resource.

[Hrundi]

I'd like to add my own two cents on optical viewing. For me, the experience of seeing something with my own two eyes, with no camera filters acting as a negotiator, is otherworldly.
Objects gain an entirely new dimension, even though a lot of the detail that one would normally see is not there.
Targets, such as globular clusters, double stars, and open clusters are especially enhanced, with features one can't infer from photos, as well as increased "prominence". Cr 399 is but a shadow of itself on photos, and Albireo's beauty cannot at all be appreciated.
As for galaxies and nebulae, while they lose all their color and a lot of detail, they're simplify different objects visually. Even as faint fuzzies, there's the challenge, and a mysterious beauty involved. And any detail that can be seen is of course immensely more valuable.

There are similar arguments to imaging, although from different angles. The point I'm trying to make is, that as far as the experience is concerned, no method is inferior, and the experience entirely varies from person to person.

I'd love to see a tidbit about the visual observability of objects that are posted.

[Oldfart]

I'd love to see a tidbit about the visual observability of objects that are posted.

Good! Looks like we have a popular landslide vote on its way for this, it's picking up steam! (Anyone else?)

And I appreciate the thoughtful comments from you folks concerning this subject. I realize that the APOD theme is necessarily all about images, there's no choice about that. I just think it would be nice to connect these images a little more directly to us backyard telescopers.