I really wish astronomers would come up (or use) a standard mechanism for indicating the field of view of an image. The scale of this one in the night sky is much larger than the deep field one.
The image details do have the dimensions listed in a standard measure down under the "Fast Facts" section; I assume this will be included for every image release.
The deep field image says it's about 2.4 arcmin across[1], Stephan's Quintet image is about 7.4 arcmin across[2], etc.
Your thumb at arms length is ~2 degrees or ~120 arcminutes wide. The fingernail on your index finger at arm's length is ~1 degree or 60 arcminutes wide.
The moon is about half a degree or 30 arcminutes wide. This doesn't make sense but give it a try tonight if the moon is out.
FWIW many of the galaxies and nebula you see in astrophotography are actually bigger in the night sky than one might guess. Andromeda for example is about 6 times wider than the moon at ~3 degrees across - https://slate.com/technology/2014/01/moon-and-andromeda-rela...
this is so much more digestible than "grain of sand at arm's length", and those two metrics dont feel at all equivalent -- the moon is not ten grains of sand at arm's length wide, right?
The moon is pretty darn small. Half a degree wide. Imagine gluing ten grains of sand together, balancing it on a fingertip, then stretching your arm out. Around a degree wide? Depending on your grain of sand, of course.
That's the distance of an object away that has a parallax of 7.3 arcminutes and a baseline of 1AU. The 7.3 arcminutes referenced here is the width of the image on the celestial sphere.
In the Ring Nebula image, the two galaxies just kind of casually hanging out on the left side (just above midline), one square on, the other edge on, is pretty impressive.
There are a few others to be found (I suspect image duration is much shorter than for the Deep Field).
Even as far-from-primary-interest-objects, amazing detail.