Help which Dob is best...?

[Astronolee]

OK so I am new to Astronomy and I dont want to start out with a cheap scope wishing I had got a better one. I have been to many star parties and know that I want a big Dob with the wow factor. Firstly I am 39 years old and quite capable of lugging a big scope about so weight is no issue but I do want one that I can fit in my reasonably sized car. So all 3 of these scopes are truss style retractable scopes but I do not understand why they are all roughly the same price. OK here are the 3 scopes I have narrowed down to buy and all 3 i have found at the same price...any advice would be hugely appreciated...

1) Skyliner-300P FlexTube Synscan Go-To with Tracking 12" Dobsonian

2) Orion SkyQuest XX12i intelliScope Truss Dobsonian (12" inch Dob)

3) Meade Lightbridge 16" Dobsonian (no tracking)

Please Help...!!!!

[Guest]

The Skyliner and Skyquest are both 12" with GOTO/Tracking so no surprise they are the same price. The 16" has more glass but no goto/tracking - if tracking was added it would be much more expensive.

Do you need/want tracking or are you happy to star hop and learn as you go?

[Capricorn]

Weight is a factor, half the time you will not be bothered to lug it outside and use it owing to the weight.

How about 80% of the time you will not lug it outside to use it?

Seen it happen so many times.

A big dob is an expensive ornament if not used.

Aperture is king is one statement, the other is your best scope is the one you use the most.

[brantuk]

If you especially want goto then get the Skyquest which imho is the best of the two 12" 'ers. If you want to see more and deeper and getting a dob especially for the views (whilst not fussed about goto) - then the Lightbridge would be my choice. Hth

[Astronolee]

I was under the impression that SkyQuest merely pointed you in the direction of the object but did not track it which made me wonder why it was same price. I have tried tracking scopes and non-tracking scopes and can see benefits in both. As a beginner I just cannot work out which would be more suitable...would it really make much difference star hopping etc...I know a little of the night sky and want to learn more so I realise a non Go-To would help but then again wouldnt a Go-To help speed up the learning?...I know I will buy one of these 3 scopes in the next coupld of weeks just do not know which one...aarrgghhhhhhhhhh

[NGC 1502]

Post #2 is good.

Please be aware that the 16" Lightbridge is very heavy, especially the base. Best to see one in the flesh before buying, perhaps contact Telescope House about that.

I can see you are in Essex, if you are in SE Essex you would be welcome at my club http://www.cpac.org.uk/ on any Weds evening or at one of our public events, details on the link, just click on 'open nights'

Regards, Ed.

[Guest]

I was under the impression that SkyQuest merely pointed you in the direction of the object but did not track it which made me wonder why it was same price.

Good point! My apologies for being wrong: http://orionskyquesttelescopereviews.wordpress.com/xx12/xx12i/

Persoanlly I don't see the point of the SkyQuest system. It isn't even a proper goto in that you have to move it.

[John]

Good point! My apologies for being wrong: http://orionskyquest...com/xx12/xx12i/

Persoanlly I don't see the point of the SkyQuest system. It isn't even a proper goto in that you have to move it.

To be fair Orion don't claim it is GOTO - it's Push To. The XX12g version does actually move the scope to point at the desired object so that one is a GOTO.

The optics in the Skywatcher will be the same as the Orion as both are made by Synta.

I've owed a couple of 12" dobs (a Lightbridge and now an Orion Optics that will be shortly dob mounted) and the 16" ones are much larger. I'd definitely make a point of trying to see both sizes for real before deciding.

[brantuk]

Yep the Lightbridge has a very heavy base. The top and trusses disassemble but lifting the base into the back of a car is really a two man job. Some folks use a ramp and wheelbarrow wheels/handles attachment to make it easier. The main purpose of buying a dob is usually for the views produced by greater aperture - I personally can't see another reason - and the bigger the better - but you do need to plan the logistics.

The Orions imho have slightly better optics than the SW Flextubes - even though owned by the same company. Using a goto does help you learn - but you have to know what you want to goto and which stars to align the scope to in order to set the goto up. Realignment is often required mid session and the sky has moved - which can be disorienting if unfamiliar with the new area of sky. Plus - using goto isn't always quicker than manual finding.

None of those are biggies and it's all personal preference really - but you'll definitely learn more from a manual scope and you'll see more with a larger aperture. It would be interesting to know why you chose a dob in the first place if your objective isn't aperture?.

[BinocularSky]

The Orions imho have slightly better optics than the SW Flextubes - even though owned by the same company.

????

Orion is owned by Imaginova; SkyWatcher is owned by its founder, Synta -- entirely different companies.

[jabberwocky]

I'd be tempted by the 16 inch lightbridge at the current sale price, over £500 off at telescope house, but it is a big heavy so and so, depending on your circumstances how many times will look at it on an anything but perfect night an think ' can I be bothered?' The best scope is one that you will actually use.

[John]

????

Orion is owned by Imaginova; SkyWatcher is owned by its founder, Synta -- entirely different companies.

I thought a number of the Orion (US) scopes and accessories were made by Synta though ?.

I've owned the Orion ED80 and ED100's and they are identical to the Skywatcher equivalents in every respect apart from the paint job.

[Moonshane]

I have a 16" f4, a 12" f4 and a 6" f11. The 12" f4 seems tiny in comparison with the 12" f4. I'll try and upload a pic later. There is no comparison to the aperture of the 16" but it is big and heavy and for those times when clouds threaten during an evening the advantages of the 6" f11 are obvious - it's very quick to cool, easy to set up and move and works very well as a grab and go.

the 16" takes only a few minutes to set up but perhaps an hour or so to cool to ambient. it's worth it though on clear nights.

given the choice you have, I'd get the 16" assuming it will fit in your car but then start saving for a 6" dob.

[ezerasurfr]

I have the 10" Lightbridge. I'm only about 2 weeks into owning it as well, and I'm about the same age (34). I've hauled the scope outside on every clear night. While the base on mine is not nearly as heavy as the 16"; Lugging it around I can see will get tedious. But I'm still young and don't mind. That being said, I really like not only the truss design on the Meade, but I also like how the altitude bearing sits on the base. The design of the base is simple, but very smooth. From what I hear, unless you are quite proficient with the GOTO system, you can end up spending a substantial amount of time getting the system ready to be used, instead of just using your scope. This was one of my reasons for going to a manual system. I also wanted to learn the sky, as I'm still green at this - which I feel I may not get with an automated system. I know my 2 pence isn't much, as I don't have much experience in this hobby, but I just wanted to share.

[John]

The Meade Lightbridges need counterweighting at the bottom end of the tube if you start using 2" eyepieces and add a 50mm optical finder. I found a light shroud essential with my Meade LB 12" to stop stray light getting into the tube a reducing contrast. Optically I reckon they are around the same as the Skywatchers.

Whether the above is the same with the 16" Lightbidge I don't know though.

[ezerasurfr]

The Meade Lightbridges need counterweighting at the bottom end of the tube if you start using 2" eyepieces and add a 50mm optical finder.

Agreed. With my Celestron 5mm, I need some counter weight to view objects low in the sky. There is no real need if the objects you're looking at are at their zenith.

[Dude_with_the_tube]

Moonshane,i would appreciate if you could upload some pictures of your 16" dob next to 12" as 16" is the ultimate weapon and i will definitely look out for one of them for myself in not far future.Will try and nag someone in Scotland if he would be willing to show me the beast in flesh before i buy it so I dont end up living in one of the boxes the scope comes with. i think there where a few guys in Glasgow area with Skywatchers 300P what will give a rough idea of the size.

[Bart]

The 16" is very heavy. I whip it out of the garage on a customised wheelbarraow arrangement, so it takes me 2 mins to get it out there, and I have a bad back. My skies are pretty good so I won't travel much with it. I have a 10" and that is a piece of cake to manouever and to get into and out of anywhere. To get it (16") in and out of a car would, I imagine, be a big deal. Mind you, maybe the others would be as well. It would definitely be hard work with the LB. Don't get me wrong, you'd have to prise my LB out of my cold dead hands as I heard someone say here before, but it is a real handful. Because I just wheel it in and out, it's no bother for me.

Barry

Edited January 14, 2013 by Bart

[Dude_with_the_tube]

Barry, i did quite a lot of weight lifting as such those 70kgs will not be a big issue for me to handle.On top of that i will be observing from my back garden as such i will only have like 20 mtr of lugging to be done.In adittion i have a wife and 2 kids i can utilise and make a use out of them lol.(hope they are not reading this hahaha)

[BinocularSky]

I thought a number of the Orion (US) scopes and accessories were made by Synta though ?.

Indeed they are, but I was replying to a comment about ownership of the company, not the manufacturer of some of its kit.

[Moonshane]

the main difficulty with scopes of 16" and larger is the bulk, not necessarily the weight. my 16" OTA (it's a solid tube) weighs about 35kg but it's the size that makes it difficult to carry. I use a sack truck for the ota and carry out the base. it's set up as quickly as I can carry it out which is about 3 minutes. I carried it the length of the house once - hence the sacktruck!

[brantuk]

That explains my confusion - thanks John and Steve

[John]

Indeed they are, but I was replying to a comment about ownership of the company, not the manufacturer of some of its kit.

OK - that makes sense Steve

[Moonshane]

hi all

as promised, here's pics of my 12" f4 and my 16" f4. the 16" is the one on the right

there's a substantial jump in bulk and weight of the OTA, and especially the bases from 12" to 16" and this is lessened with home built bases. the 16" is 550mm square compared with the Skywatcher base which has a round diameter of (I think) 840mm so much larger than mine; bear this in mind. I can carry my 16" base with one hand.

[sparkyjon]

Oh my days i thought my 8 was big lol. Those are awsome. One day when I've done my observatory maybe.