Skywatcher 18" and 20" Truss Dobsonians

[damnut]

Along with a labour of love, ladders and wide doors, come ever deeper pockets!!

[estwing]

Hopefully a bit of competition from a 'major brand' will help to drive prices down elsewhere.....my dream of owning a 20" when I turn 50 could become a reality

..er drive down prices where?custom dob makers? I don't think so....Nichol/hinds/orion mirror vs gso,etc and then there's the issue that Steve and Shane have brought up..sorry to say oneEyedsam but if your dream is a 20" then I say this...get saving,you really wouldn't want to get one of these BIG scopes and not be able to break it down as much as possible.

[ollypenrice]

Along with a labour of love, ladders and wide doors, come ever deeper pockets!!

Not necessarily. I paid £1400 for a newly finished 2O inch home built Dob. It wasn't perfect and still isn't but it was an awful lot of scope for the money and has been well reviewed by those who've used it. It really isn't bad at all. It's not an Obsession but it's in John Dobson's tradition. I'm often told off for under-selling it, truth to tell.

Olly

[Optical Dob]

Carbon fiber perhaps.

[scarp15]

Time will tell gents. I'm sure that the market is vibrant enough, with appetite and interest out there, to accommodate choices. So bestoke, custom builds such as provided by David Lukehurst and Moonshane, alongside Nichol Optics mirrors etc, will complement new mass produced alternatives, which as per may inevitably require some compromise and tweeking.

[scarp15]

And I was going to add that in a way, one type feeds off the other.

[damnut]

HI Olly,

I'm afraid for me £1.40 is too much...I've had to sell all my kit. (10"LX 200, 152mm Bresser,127mm Bresser, ST 120) The deep pockets referred to the intended new scopes started in the thread. from skywatcher.

Best Regards

[Moonshane]

Time will tell gents. I'm sure that the market is vibrant enough, with appetite and interest out there, to accommodate choices. So bestoke, custom builds such as provided by David Lukehurst and Moonshane, alongside Nichol Optics mirrors etc, will complement new mass produced alternatives, which as per may inevitably require some compromise and tweeking.

not me any more. although I made one or two what I consider to be nice scopes, my current one for Estwing (18" f3.9) will be my last for others. I'll make a few more for myself no doubt, but there's just too much work in them for me and if I want to keep observing then something has to give to be fair to my family and keep me sane!!

[Gib007]

I never understood the attraction of Dobsonians. Extremely large Newtonian Reflectors that can really only be used for observing. I'd look through it, see the object, say "That's nice!" and then be done with it..

[estwing]

I never understood the attraction of Dobsonians. Extremely large Newtonian Reflectors that can really only be used for observing. I'd look through it, see the object, say "That's nice!" and then be done with it..

..funny if I want to see a pic of a planet I use google or hubble...

[faulksy]

..funny if I want to see a pic of a planet I use google or hubble...

nice reply :grin:

[Scott]

I can't see how mass production can make these scopes cheaper....unless of course there's a trade off which means a loss of quality. A 20" mirror is a 20" mirror and in being such a beast, requires a great deal of care in manufacturing. I'm damn sure I wouldn't want to be paying silly money for a mount made from chipboard and malamine. In short, if you want the views a 20" dob offers, you better be prepared to pay for the privelige.

As always, just my opinion....make of it what you will.

..funny if I want to see a pic of a planet I use google or hubble...

It's not all about what you image, It's about the journey

Edit:- don't get me wrong I do see the attraction of visual...but I like imaging too

[Naemeth]

Perhaps the most unfair thing we can say about each side (imaging and visual) is this (and it doesn't apply to planetary work):

Visual is mainly concerned with looking at something fuzzy and barely visible. It's about the journey.

Imaging is mainly concerned with sitting there waiting for photons to come in, then spending equally long on the computer processing the image. It's about the journey, but unlike in some visual observing, the final product is the most important.

Having seen Jupiter through a 14" SCT, I have no desire to image planets purely to get good views of planets - I've seen amazing views through that scope, and it's great that I can get that from visual observation .

[planet15]

I never understood the attraction of Dobsonians. Extremely large Newtonian Reflectors that can really only be used for observing. I'd look through it, see the object, say "That's nice!" and then be done with it..

I think difference between looking at Google photos or Youtube vids about stars, and looking into the stars in the night sky through own scopes is, difference between watching music vid on TV, and going to concert and seeing the band playing live. I would say they are experience of different dimension.

[John]

I never understood the attraction of Dobsonians. Extremely large Newtonian Reflectors that can really only be used for observing. I'd look through it, see the object, say "That's nice!" and then be done with it..

Why post this in a thread that is about large dobsonians ?

If they don't "float your boat" fine - there are many other threads on here about other aspects of the hobby that might appeal more to you.

Personally I've not been drawn to try imaging in my 30+ years in the hobby but I admire those that do it and the results they produce.

I'm not going to jump into a thread in the imaging section and say "I can't see the point of imaging". It's just not polite.

[Gib007]

Why post this in a thread that is about large dobsonians ?

If they don't "float your boat" fine - there are many other threads on here about other aspects of the hobby that might appeal more to you.

Personally I've not been drawn to try imaging in my 30+ years in the hobby but I admire those that do it and the results they produce.

I'm not going to jump into a thread in the imaging section and say "I can't see the point of imaging". It's just not polite.

My apologies if it offended you. I'm normally publicly cynical with things I'm not into. If it helps, sometimes I don't see the point in imaging either, even after having spent several thousand in equipment. I do enjoy the geekier side of things though.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

[Doshy]

I never understood the attraction of Dobsonians. Extremely large Newtonian Reflectors that can really only be used for observing. I'd look through it, see the object, say "That's nice!" and then be done with it..

I had a couple of mates over last night, neither of which has a telescope. I set up the Dob as well as the deck chairs so they could have a look at some deep sky objects. In the end they saw the ring nebulae and M13 and were blown away, lots of "wow" and "oh my god that's amazing". I presume at yours they would have been shown a colour printout ?

[Gib007]

I had a couple of mates over last night, neither of which has a telescope. I set up the Dob as well as the deck chairs so they could have a look at some deep sky objects. In the end they saw the ring nebulae and M13 and were blown away, lots of "wow" and "oh my god that's amazing". I presume at yours they would have been shown a colour printout ?

My friends have to sit in a car with me for 6 to 8 hours in the darkness and then wait 2 or 3 more hours the next day before I show them what they were meant to see. Now that's edge-of-your-seat excitement right there!

[Doshy]

My friends have to sit in a car with me for 6 to 8 hours in the darkness and then wait 2 or 3 more hours the next day before I show them what they were meant to see. Now that's edge-of-your-seat excitement right there!

[crashtestdummy]

I never understood the attraction of Dobsonians. Extremely large Newtonian Reflectors that can really only be used for observing. I'd look through it, see the object, say "That's nice!" and then be done with it.rolleyes:

I don't like the idea of spending 2 hours twiddling my thumbs waiting for data to hit a camera then spending hours behind a computer in post edit when I could be looking at hundreds of clusters and galaxies but I recognise everyone else's right to do what gives them a buzz

Its

[Scott]

I challenge anyone to look at estwings new moonshane and still not understand the attraction of big dobs. Even on a cloudy night you could sit and admire it and have a very enjoyable night . Lucky beep beep beep

[mapstar]

It will be interesting to see if these dobs actually materialize? And as others point out what the quality and prices will be?

As for the visual and imaging side both have their plus points, but no matter how complicated a camera is they are digital and our eye's are analogue.

To refer to music of either side analogue is warmer as it has more depth unlike digital which is compressed to take out all the bit's we can't supposedly hear but those same bit's do affect the sound?

Processing data and bringing all the detail out is something I've never done but know plenty that enjoy it.I enjoy the results and labour people put into the images they put together.

I personally enjoy the visual for now but maybe later I will image when my eye's fail me.The moon and planets no matter how many images you see always draw a wow through the telescope from everyone.

Most of all no matter what, it's an awe inspiring hobby that make's you realize how small and insignificant we are.

[astronymonkey]

Well..... back to the topic of the post ......

Its good to hear some of the commercial producers are looking at 16inch plus scopes at last, but hopefully they'll address the weight issues by using lighter cells, low profile bases, asymmetric alt ring bearings etc to make them useable.

A true lightweight , ultraportable large aperture dob would be a winner for me , especially if it could be added to in a modular fashion ie encoders, drives, balance systems, transport systems, dew control etc but we'll have to wait and see.

There comes a price point though where the commercial products arnt much cheaper than the bespoke offerings and I think Id probably go for the leukhurst over a commercial product if there is not much in it.At present a lightbridge 16 is just under 2k with a leukhurst standard 16 being just under £2800 so 40% more..... with this in mind the leukhurst 18 standard is £3.5k and the 20inch is £4.6k so I would think £2800 for a commercial 18inch and £3300 for a 20inch model as a minimum.

The bigger apertures call for smaller F ratio but this is a killer for exit pupils so at f4 youd need nothing bigger than a 20mm eyepiece to keep it to 5mm or less meaning in a 20inch scope the minimum magnification would be 100x and the TFOV would be smaller and tracking starts to become an issue. At f3.7 Id be unsure of mass produced optics having the accuracy for these to be diffraction limited.

So a good move, but for me Id take the jump to a hand built once your getting to 20 inches.

Cheers

[swamp thing]

^^ I agree. With big apertures easy hand tracking is really important. The commercial scopes I've used just haven't got this right yet.

You feel at war with them at powers over 300x, and this is the sort of power you want to using often, with larger optics.

[Mike73]

Just noticed a thread on CN this morning with 18" Skywatcher prototype + pics.

http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/6202171/page/0/view/collapsed/sb/5/o/all/fpart/1

I agree with Astromonkeys comments about the price point being the make or break of a 18" Skywatcher, a 16" Sumerian costs around £2200 and I know I'm slightly biased towards Sumerian anyway but I'd still rather go for that than 18" mass produced that 'may' cost around the same.