Should Colimators be Included with a Dobsonian/Newtonian telescope?

[John]

I am gonna buy something so if the deal was right I'd do it of course

Have you tried asking any of them about this ?

FLO don't have time to scan every thread on the forum.

[paul schofield]

Definitely they should be included. And instructions too. Not a lazer one though. Also should come with a free 1 hour collimation class. So many people are put off buying a reflector when the word collimate comes up, I nearly was.

[umadog]

This is a non-issue. Orion's scopes do come with a Cheshire/"colimation cap" in the box. I suspect that's pretty standard fare and it's enough to get you going. Even if it doesn't come with a cap, you can make one for pennies and fine-tune the primary adjustment with a star test. The primary is the more important adjustment. If you want to spend more on a combo tool or a laser then that's up to you. It would be wasteful and uneconomical for these to be included as standard in every new telescope purchase.

I'm sure if you buy your scope from a competent high-street store they will show you how to collimate if you ask. If you buy mail order then you're paying less and forgoing some of the benefits of the high-street.

Finally, there's a network of people on-line who help in these matters. If you prefer hands-on you can pop down to your local club. I've lost track of the number of times a member on here offers newcomers a collimation run-through in person. There is no reason to be put off buying a reflector: collimation is easy and the support system is out there right now to show beginners that this is so.

[Carl M]

I've not collimated my newt ever since I got it for xmas in 2010, no obvious signs of the mirrors not being aligned. Not to say that a cheap little collimation cap shouldn't be included though. A laser collimator should be extra otherwise I'm sure it would bump the price up a notch on dobs/newts

[sabana]

@umadog

Obviously it is an issue because of the positive responses so far. Orion may well include a cap. You may be able to make one for pennies (cap). But its like 2012 dude.

[todd8137]

whilst they at it lets throw in top quality eps and all the rest after sales is the name of the game with them

[Luke]

I'm voting no for OTA's, I prefer them as just the scope.

I have a few diagonals not being used that were included with scopes and I like using a laser collimator, so the collimator would be wasted for me!

[John]

Buyers do have a choice in this. Both these scopes have the same optics:

Orion (USA) XT8 Dobsonian, comes with 25mm plossl eyepiece and a plastic collimation cap: £359.00

Skywatcher Skyliner 200P Dobsonian, comes with 10mm and 25mm modified achromat eyepieces: £279.00

Add an aluminum cheshire eyepiece and a 25mm plossl to the Skywatcher package: £45.00

If you feel strongly about the inclusion of a collimation cap then vote with your feet and teach Skywatcher a lesson !.

[acey]

Orion vs Skywatcher: they may have the same optics, but not the same build quality. I have an Orion Skyquest 8" and a Skywatcher Flextube 12". I much prefer the mount on the Orion. Not to say the Skywatcher mount is bad, just that there's more to a scope than its mirrors. I never needed to do any mods on the Orion, whereas I found it essential to improve baffling on the Skywatcher.

As for collimating, I hardly ever needed to do it on the Orion, but that was only because it was a much smaller scope. The primary cell and collimation bolts on the Skywatcher 12" are much better than the arrangement on my old Orion 8".

[RikM]

I would say NO as well. I ordered a Cheshire at the same time as my first scope (on the recommendation of Steve @ FLO). Good advice and a good bit of kit. Now I have one I don't need another and I would have had three of the things kicking around by now like I do with the kit EP's.

[umadog]

I think Acey's point that people are over-concerned with collimation is a good one. I think a lot of the reason is that most instructions one sees tell you what to do but not why you're doing it. People feel like they're learning black magic and don't understand at what point their collimation is "good enough" or what will be the consequences when it's off by a little. Well thought through instructions would go a long way.

I think it's a little unfair to say that collimation anxiety is a product of the internet age, however. We're seeing more and more fast Newts now, and these need more careful collimation. Herschel's 18" was over f/12 (!) so he really didn't need to be concerned with collimation.

[Thirdway]

£279 for what you get, including delivery! I'm sure that wasn't the case 20 years back. The SW comes with enough bits to get you out and looking. I don't know any product where specialist tools are included. Buy a guitar and you get a basic set of strings, then you buy the tuner, the stand, the strap, plectrums, better strings, string winder, leads, effects pedals. If you paid for that lot up front, or had to choose options ( try that with custom PC building...nightmare ) either the additional cost, or choosing options would probably put most beginners off.

[acey]

Umadog - fair point, but regarding Herschel, remember that much of the time he used his scope without a secondary, instead looking straight down the tube to the primary, hence at an angle to it. This would have introduced huge aberration, which he would have seen in distorted star images - but he still found it preferable because of the improved light-grasp.

Thirdway - the music analogy is interesting. I get my piano tuned about once a year. I can hear for myself that between tunings it goes a bit out, but at £50 per tuning, I can live with the imperfection. I have a digital tuner (for another instrument I own) and I could try tuning the piano myself. But I know (from experience) the madness, wasted time and misery it would lead to. I know how much imperfection I'm prepared to live with, and I live with it.

Same with my telescope.

[Tribal-Wolf]

You should get a free Hubble with every astronomy magazine, I bet even then people would complain lol.

[Kai]

I do think sometimes people try to run before they can walk , i mean if you didnt know about collimation when you received your first scope would it make your "WOW" moments any less ?

[Astro Imp]

For all the reasons above - mainly not wanting a collection of inferior quality items - I think that scopes should be sold without.

As an aside I bought my gear from RVO. When I was deciding which scope to buy I mentioned to Ian that I was worried about collimation of Newts and asked if he would show me if I decided to go with a one. Instantly Ian agreed and willingly showed me. As it happens I have done periodic star tests and so far have not had to do any adjustments.

[twotter]

My 200P dob was well collimated out of the box and stayed that way for a good 18months. The budget was pushed to buy the telescope on it's own so any extra, like a collimation device, would only increase the cost.

So I vote no thank you.

[Thirdway]

I've never come across a Dob or a Newt that needed collimating 'out of the box' as you put it.

In fact i've found that most scopes usually arrive well collimated.

According to Astro Baby mine was well screwed up out of the box. I had to do quite a lot of adjusting to get it straight. I don't know what difference it will make, but suspect it will give me better viewing, not worse.

[sabana]

Saying no to an included collimator is like shooting yourself in the foot. I believe the manufacturers know that collimation is to be expected. And whats the first thing people are advised to buy in this group when getting a new Dob (or joint first). Thats right a Cheshire, or some laser collimator.

The price may be hiked a fraction, but a collimating tool is a necessity rather than a luxury add-on.

If the collimators were mass produced then the price hike would be much less than the individual prices anyway.

[Parus major]

Collimators are mass produced and they cost £25. As you say, they're a necessity, everybody has one.

[hemihaggis]

nope , never , if the scope came with a laser collaminator , i would say , sorry idont want that , iwill keep 30 quid and use a cap with a hole !!

[Moonshane]

my favourite collimation tool is a very cheap and nasty plastic afair with no cross hairs that came free with a celestron refractor (that rather ironically did not have a collimatable cell). it's really easy to use, accurate and will always have a place in my kit.

personally I feel that if the question is should scopes which are aimed at the beginner come with a collimation tool then the answer would be yes and it could be one of the cheap ones I got free - would cost pennies to make.

if the question is should they come with ALL newts/dobs then I would say no as I really don't want a box full of kit I don't really need.

all that said, I buy my scopes used on the whole so this would not apply to me anyway.

I have my cheapie Cheshire (for the primary alignment), a home made collimation cap (for positioning the secondary in the tube) and a 'proper' Cheshire (although I block off the Cheshire bit and just use this one for the cross hairs to align the secondary). works for me.

[Kit-Fox]

I have a collicap and a cheshire tool.

I find them useful and helpful when after trying to get everything lined up 'by eye' i'm left thinking something still isnt right (they either confirm or refute that of course)

I bought both seperately and incurred the cost of doing so, it was my choice to do that and now I have those tools there is no need for replicaitons thereof as they mostly sit in the bottom of my toolbox gathering dust.

Why would I want one with every scope, or even every Newt or Dob I might one day buy? I'm still to be convinved it would be beneficial.

As for collimation demonstrations/lessons, well I found the celestron guide useful, astrobaby's guide invaluable and the advice given here carefully tailored to the situation i described. All of which was free and I feel i'm quite confident on collimation now despite only really having done it 'properly' once. Why would I want to incur the extra cost?