Do astronomers at the 3,000 dollar level become degenerates

[batboy]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

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.

http://www.waid-observatory.com/gallery-nebulae.html" guy is using a telescope that retails for $4000 (the newest, best version of it, anyway) and a camera of the level he's using probably costs another $800 today.