Second Telescope. Please help me decide!

[sabana]

Hi guys

I've already got a Celestron 8se which I like, But the problem has arisen because I feel I'm missing out on what other types have to offer.

My second telescope would be a Dobsonian 10 inch or a Skywatacher 80Ed.

The field of view of the refractor and Dob appeals so much. Each has their positives and negatives.

I'm leaning towards the refractor. But that 10 inch diameter keeps calling me.

Can you help simplify the decision for me:icon_confused:

[pvaz]

If you want to image in the near future or want a portable travel scope then get the 80ED. Visually it's a considerable downgrade from the 8SE.

If you want to see the best possible views for your budget then get the 10". In this case I would actually save a bit longer and get something with a more significante aperture increase.

[rfdesigner]

Another vote here for concidering 12" plus if you want more aperture.

Otherwise the refractors seem very popular amongst the imagers...

[pvaz]

BTW if the only reason for the upgrade is to get a shorter FL then consider a focal reducer as well. It may solve your problem and let you save some money.

[brantuk]

Get a 12" Dob first and fill the nights with lots more new objects while saving for an ED80. Unless you want to start imaging straight away in which case the refractor may be the way to go. Don't forget you'll need a decent eq mount as well for the ED80 whereas the dob comes ready to go - so it could take a while to get.

[johninderby]

A 10" dob isn't enough of an aperture increase to bother with. Definitely a 12" to make it worthwhile, and they can be picked up fairly cheaply second hand.

John

[Chris H]

The op says the larger field of view appeals, the 10" Dob has a larger TFOV than the 12" Dob.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

For larger true FOV go for the 80mm. I got an 80mm triplet to complement my C8, and love its 5.6 deg FOV. On the C8 I installed a 2" visual back, and can get 1.38 deg FOV. A 10" or 12" dob might scrape a bit more out, but you are rapidly limited by the largest exit pupil size. Considering an F/4 scope, and a 28mm UWA (7mm exit pupil), you get 1.87 deg FOV out of the 12". Limiting yourself to a 5mm exit pupil that would reduce to 1.34 deg FOV. The dobs will allow you to see deeper.

[sabana]

So I'm still feeling torn. Do I need to go further into space (Dobs). Or do I want the wider FOV and better contrast and the option for astrophotography?

Honestly I don't know if I need to go further. Will I be mssing anything if I don't? Has anyone any experience in Deep Space from light polluted skies?

Thanks for any help in making this decision.

Would you say theres more 'Wow' with Dobs than Refractors?

[Ags]

I would say aperture would help with some DSOs in polluted skies: clusters and nebulae. The nebs would need a narrowband filter and still would be better under dark skies. Aperture won't help much with galaxies - all their delicacy is lost in bad skies.

Remember the 80mm will be showing similar views to a pair of big bins when used as a widefield instrument. From my experience, the lack of light grasp at 80mm is very evident.

[brantuk]

To help you decide why don't you join a local astro soc and go along to an obseving session. You'll find plenty of helpfull folks willing to let you look through different scopes. It sounds to me like you want both types of scope and only you can decide the order in which you get them - in the end it may be a budget decision

[sabana]

Sound advice on the astro clubs. It seems like a 'fickle' thing that you won't know until you try out both in the field.

The 80 will leave me a bit a bit frustrated I feel. But the Dob won't. (see I've switched my mind again).

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

The wow factor was evident for me in my APM 80 mm, when viewing the whole of the Veil or the North America Nebula in southern France. The views with UHC filter at 12x and 23x were amazing, much better than with the 15x70 bins. A big Dob can show much more, of course, and the option of 15x70 bins and a Dob is well worth considering.

[Moonshane]

I live 9 miles from Manchester and 4 miles from Stockport so light pollution is an issue for me. I am only a visual (d)observer.

That said, there is absolutely no comparison when looking through a 12" dob and a smaller scope such as an 8" aperture or less.

I have a 16" aperture (another step up from 12") dob, a 6" f11 dob and a small 90mm f5.5 refractor. the 16" gives me great light grasp and is my favourite instrument for all but planets and doubles. for those I use the 6" f11.

the views from all of these scopes is very different. I like the wide field of the frac and the very quick and easy set up but if I had to selleverything and only have one scope then that would be the big dob as this is just so flexible. I can use an aperture mask and create a 170mm f11 scope and it provides just over a degree of field whch is enough for all but the most massive targets. I can fit both of the double cluster clusters in the field and it's only things like Pleiades, Beehive and some of the other larger open clusters that will not fit. For them I use the finder or the small frac.

I cannot emphasise enough the benefits of aperture for almost all targets when observing visually. This is with the caveat that you can cope with the weight and size of a large newtonian. make no mistake, they are big from 12" upwards.

even with light pollution the views are great although obviously not like at dark sites. I don't subscribe to the 'it's not worth having larger aperture at light polluted sites' brigade. there's no doubt that more aperture gives more detail on most targets due to more light gathering or more resolution. this applies equally at LP affected sites.