The main problem here is - purely visual, you will have a very hard time seeing galaxies and pretty much no chance of seeing nebulae, specially in color. The objects are pretty faint and at best, you will see a milky smush. Those nebulae I capture send out light in wavelengths not visible to the human eye, so you'll have no chance of seeing them live.
There are some night-vision eyepieces which boost contrast and lightness - really cool but also pretty expansive.
> am I getting a more "genuine" viewing experiencing?
That's a nearly philosophical question and the answer is yes and no. You will be able to see object you normally would not and the image you get is correct in the way that colors for example represent certain gases, so they are not fake, but also not realistic in the way of how you would see it with your naked eye.
Absolutely, and I highly recommend starting that way. The comparison was meant against building up a photography rig with similar capabilities. Even with used components, it's gonna be hard to get into this price range.
A small piece of feedback: it is a really interesting article, but also quite grating to read. I'm guessing you used AI to review/edit, and it seems to have added a lot of filler and coated the piece with its own writing style.
It’s not bad, but does start sounding like AI if you’re familiar with their writing style:
> Gradient correction. Noise reduction. Separating stars and nebula. Stretching the faint structures carefully. Working on contrast and colour. Putting everything back together.
There are some night-vision eyepieces which boost contrast and lightness - really cool but also pretty expansive.
> am I getting a more "genuine" viewing experiencing? That's a nearly philosophical question and the answer is yes and no. You will be able to see object you normally would not and the image you get is correct in the way that colors for example represent certain gases, so they are not fake, but also not realistic in the way of how you would see it with your naked eye.