Astronomers investing in $3,000 telescopes may experience diminishing returns in satisfaction due to the high-quality images produced by professional observatories like Hubble. While a mid-level telescope can capture images comparable to those taken by professionals, the uniqueness of astronomical objects diminishes with increased access to similar types, such as spiral galaxies. The discussion highlights the psychological impact of owning advanced optics and the potential for dissatisfaction when comparing personal results to those of professional-grade equipment.
PREREQUISITESAstronomy enthusiasts, amateur astrophotographers, and individuals considering investment in mid-range telescopes will benefit from this discussion.
My take on that is that once you get to that mid-level, you're starting to get close to the type of pictures taken by professionals. And here's why: while the Hubble has access to literally billions of interesting objects, and yes, every one is unique in some way, but there is a lot of repetition. Ie, there are only a handful of types of spiral galaxies and all look somewhat similar. Perhaps you can only see 100 of them with a $3000 telescope while Hubble can see a billion, but the pictures you take won't look all that much different. I've seen side-by-side comparisons, but can't seem to find any right now.batboy said:Do astronomers at the 3,000 dollar level become degenerates, in a way, with their huge optics? Once you have seen Hubble's and other huge observatories pictures, I'd think you'd never be satisfied. I plan on buying a $3,000 scope before I pass.