digggggggggg t1_j9ce9zw wrote
It's going to be hard to see with much light pollution, and it certainly won't look like what you see in pictures. Under your average surburban sky (Bortle 4-5), it'll look like faint smudge with averted vision.
Recommendation would be to use binoculars - you'll know you found it if you see a bright spot with a halo around it, kind of like an out-of-focus star: that's the galactic center. You're unlikely to see any spiral features without a larger telescope and without long-exposure photography.
Andromeda's apparent magnitude of 3.4 is deceiving because that's the overall integration of _all_ light across an area 6 times bigger than the moon. Its surface brightness outside of the galactic center is pretty dim. That's why it's much, much easier to see a star with a comparable apparent magnitude, since the star is essentially a point.
dastardly740 t1_j9cuwl4 wrote
Edit: adding to the comment of someone mentioning size because that is what makes it an interesting target for a basic camera.
This isn't quite the same as seeing it with your own eyes. A digital camera that can do a 10s or so exposure with a delay on a cheap tripod can get you a picture in less than ideal conditions for naked eye viewing. The delay is because I am going cheap, so don't have a remote, which gives time for vibration from pressing the button to die out.
And being so big (and fuzzy), no need for zoom which makes it fairly easy to aim in the general right direction, and end up in frame.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments