What are the views like through the dobsonians bigger than 10"?

[Manok101]

I'm thinking of between 14-16", and was wondering if anyone had experience with these?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Daniel-K]

Plenty of users on here use scopes in that range. I myself have a 14" and I really enjoy it,but to get the most out of them you really need to take them somewhere dark . There's nothing like seeing spiral arms in another galaxy and globular clusters resolved to the core.im sure swampthing will have his input too

[Bart]

I have a 10" and a 16". Generally, you will find with the 10" what you'll find with the 16". However, the detail is better. I suppose it comes into its own on faint galaxies, but the GCs shine in it too.

I love using the 16" but find if I'm not planning a few hours it's handy to get the 10" out. The 10" is just so easy to use, lovely smooth action and all seated. Nice.

Would I get rid of the 16"?.......no sir.

I don't bring mine to a dark site, just my garden, but that has a NELM of 5.6 which is pretty good.

Hth

Barry

[Mike73]

These sketches were done mainly using 12" and 16" dobsonians and may give you a rough idea what the views are like.

http://www.pbase.com/mike73/messier_sketches

I think that when you start getting over 10" you really start to see detail in objects and not just notice them as a fuzzy patches but you pay for that detail in the size, weight and initial cost of the scope.

[swamp thing]

Totally agree with Dan 100%

In order to get the most out of a larger (14"-16") scope you MUST have a dark observing site from which to use it.

The difference between a 14" in a downtown suburban garden and a 14" at a pristine dark site is nothing less than astronomical

[Manok101]

Well I can't see much where I live with my 10" I want to see what I've seen from dark sites with my 10" here without having to go places. At one dark site I remember seeing the arms and vague details of andromeda before it got cloudy. That was spectacular, I also saw the whirlpool galaxies, which here they just look like, it could be something, but since I know that's where it is I know that's a galaxy. Even andromeda and m82 both look fuzzy on the best of days. Will the larger scope cut through the light pollution at all?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[swamp thing]

Well I can't see much where I live with my 10" I want to see what I've seen from dark sites with my 10" here without having to go places. At one dark site I remember seeing the arms and vague details of andromeda before it got cloudy. That was spectacular, I also saw the whirlpool galaxies, which here they just look like, it could be something, but since I know that's where it is I know that's a galaxy. Even andromeda and m82 both look fuzzy on the best of days. Will the larger scope cut through the light pollution at all?Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

No, I'm afraid not. It doesn't work like that. Any detail lost to light pollution will stay hidden.

To see faint detail you need contrast not aperture. Contrast only comes with darker skies.

Sorry to be the bringer of bad news

[swamp thing]

To try and clarify its important to realise the advantage of aperture isn't surface brightness as this is finite. The true advantage is image scale.

Eg my 10" produces am image of identical surface brightness as my 20" using the same eyepiece (both work at f/4.5) the difference is in the 20" the object viewed is twice the size.

[soundwave]

Thanks for the info & clarification, swamp thing, as I was also wondering the same thing as Manok...

I think this sketch of Mike sums it up best (the face it makes)...  http://www.pbase.com/mike73/image/144803297

[Manok101]

So basically what your saying is I should just give up my scopes because I don't have the ability to go to a dark site.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Rustysplit]

I live in light polluted surbia, and I still use my 14" dob at home. Sure the views are not as good as a dark site, but worthwhile imo. If the lp is too bad for dso, then the moon and planets are stunning with aperture!! Wait for the objects to be as high as possible to make the best of what you have.

[swamp thing]

So basically what your saying is I should just give up my scopes because I don't have the ability to go to a dark site.Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

No of coarse not. Sorry if it came across like that.

Just be aware of the limitations of a LP site. Try and select more suitable targets like open clusters, double stars, planets and bright DSO's

Moonshane uses his big 16" from a LP area and gets some great results, but doesn't go hunting for faint galaxies or nebula he uses it's image scale and increased resolution for other targets.

[soundwave]

By the way, what about light pollution filters? Are they worthwhile for observational purposes?

[Manok101]

I do not wish to look at the planet and the moon, I get pretty much the same view from binoculars as I do my 10". I almost feel like just giving up all together now.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Scooot]

I found this an interesting read.

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze55p46/id1.html

[Manok101]

It stinks not being able to go anyplace.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[swamp thing]

Can you use public transport to escape the city for dark sky excursions?

There are some great travel dobs that can pack large aperture into very small packages.

[Manok101]

Nope. Not that I'm aware of. Can't drive myself either. I just want to be able to look at say a galaxy or nebula and see more than hey look a blob.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[laser_jock99]

Few hours left to get a 16" for a grand.....

http://www.telescopehouse.com/acatalog/Revelation-16-Inch-Dobsonian--1039-IAS-Showdeal.html#aIASREV16

[swamp thing]

Have you considered imaging?

Imagers are able to use kit that gets around light pollution in ways that us visual guys simply can't.

There's a member on here that lives close to me (hideous light pollution) and gets some superb results using very fast exposures with his set up.

[Manok101]

Well I have and the cost to do it is the issue.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Moonshane]

As Steve says, I use scopes varying from 130mm to 400mm at home and although Steve is obviously quite right about image scale rather than brightness being a major benefit of larger aperture, there is a large difference in what you see with more aperture even in light polluted areas. sometimes though (in fact in the majority of cases) it's a matter of being able to see / detect something in the 16" which is 'invisible' in the smaller scopes.

I personally am of the view that a larger scope is always worthwhile within reason but also agree that at dark sites they really come alive. I rarely get to dark sites but have many enjoyable nights at home despite this.

[Manok101]

Thank you, this puts my mind at ease a bit, I was considering eventually building a large aperture scope myself, mostly for the fun of learning how it's done, I was wondering if it were worth it to build something between the dimensions I was considering. As I stated before my only goal is to just see more than a blob when I observe say andromeda, if it's still faint that's fine, what I'm after is just a bit more detail. Is that clearer?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Joves]

Hi Manok,

I completely understand where you are coming from. Living in downtown Sydney, I have far from dark skies. For me, visually, I try to take satisfaction for seeing anything at all when it comes to faint galaxies and nebula when viewing from home. Moonless nights are definitely the key, but the view is not nearly as impressive or beautiful as it is when I get away to a darker sky (which isn't very often at all).

If I'm in the mood for detail (and I mean, CRAZY detail better than visual even under dark skies) I hook up my Mallincam integrating video camera. I'd urge you to at least look into video astronomy if you really do insist on seeing great detail from light polluted skies. The view is practically live, the detail is amazing, you have the ability to see beautiful nebula in all it's glorious natural colour, and the learning curve isn't anywhere near as large or daunting as imaging. It really is an awesome compliment to visual astronomy.

Better still, you can pick up cameras which will provide awesome results for only a couple of hundred dollars. Here are a few screen shots of the type of detail y can achieve, with the need for any stacking or post processing. The pic of Saturn actually has been stacked, but just wanted to give you an example of how you can get on with planetary images from a video cam. And, to be honest, this is my first and only attempt, so I really have no idea what I am doing.

Hope is helps.

Aaron

[Joves]

That was supposed to say "without the need for stacking or post processing" by the way