12" Newtonians - comparisons

[Flame Nebula]

Hi Everyone, 

StellaLyra, GSO, orion optics, skywatcher. 

Has anyone ever compared 12" Newtonians made by these companies? Comparative experiences in visual and planetary AP are welcome. 

Is it a case of all 12" Newts are equal, but some are more equal than others? 

Dobsonian or EQ mounted. 

Thanks 

Mark

[Steve Ward]

For smoothness of operation I'd say the StellaLyra with its roller bearing base would be my choice for a Dobsonian.

But save the frustration I had with my first 'scope ( a 10" Dob ) I'd lean towards the Sky-Watcher  300P FlexTube GoTo , but that's twice the price.

 

Edited March 3 by Steve Ward

[Beulah]

This is a comparison of Newtonians on a Dobsonian Mount between two brands, basic models that are pushed 'the old fashioned way'...

I currently own a 300p Skywatcher Skyliner solid tube, a 300p Skywatcher flextube and a 12" Stellalyra dob. (don't ask...😁)

I would agree that some dobs are more equal than others at the same price point. When I bought the Skywatcher models, they were pretty much the best of the bunch in the budget models - functional, did the job, etc., but with great mirrors - I spent many a happy year studying all kinds of targets and was surprised at how great Saturn and Jupiter looked when the skies settled for those brief seconds...

However, when I bought the Stellalyra dob, I was very surprised at the build quality, which seems far superior for something £210 cheaper than the 300p. Granted, the base is made of the same particle board, but the sensitive dual speed focuser is a dream to use. The altitude bearings are also machined aluminium as opposed to the Skywatcher's plastic alt roller bearings fixed with m6 screws (but somewhat elegant).

Visually......I run a lot of astronomy events and have used different telescopes over the years - the "wows" started increasing more when we bought the Stellalyra dob for outreach. It just seems to be quite an improvement in the lunar and planetary department and pretty much equal to the Skywatcher in the DSO department.

I've not found much actual research into primary mirror quality between Synta (skywatcher mirror manufacturers) and GSO (Stellalyra) but my feeling is the GSO seems more superior in general visual quality and resolution. 

It seems such a biased write-up but frankly, why would I spend more money on a telescope that doesn't match up to a competitor who are offering equipment that is visually superior and just engineered better?

As a caveat, there needs to be a few post-purchase tweaks on the Stellalyra, such as the mirror springs (factory ones are a bit weak but tolerable), but there are always modifications required...

By the way, Stellalyra, AstroTech, Zhumell, Lightbridge, Antares are pretty much  made by GSO.
You also have Explore Scientific....And Orion Optics...

And Skywatcher...

What a great time to be living with so much choice at the consumer level!

 

[Flame Nebula]

1 hour ago, Steve Ward said:

For smoothness of operation I'd say the StellaLyra with its roller bearing base would be my choice for a Dobsonian.

But save the frustration I had with my first 'scope ( a 10" Dob ) I'd lean towards the Sky-Watcher  300P FlexTube GoTo , but that's twice the price.

 

Hi Steve, what frustrated you about your 10" dobsonian? 

[Flame Nebula]

19 minutes ago, Beulah said:

This is a comparison of Newtonians on a Dobsonian Mount between two brands, basic models that are pushed 'the old fashioned way'...

I currently own a 300p Skywatcher Skyliner solid tube, a 300p Skywatcher flextube and a 12" Stellalyra dob. (don't ask...😁)

I would agree that some dobs are more equal than others at the same price point. When I bought the Skywatcher models, they were pretty much the best of the bunch in the budget models - functional, did the job, etc., but with great mirrors - I spent many a happy year studying all kinds of targets and was surprised at how great Saturn and Jupiter looked when the skies settled for those brief seconds...

However, when I bought the Stellalyra dob, I was very surprised at the build quality, which seems far superior for something £210 cheaper than the 300p. Granted, the base is made of the same particle board, but the sensitive dual speed focuser is a dream to use. The altitude bearings are also machined aluminium as opposed to the Skywatcher's plastic alt roller bearings fixed with m6 screws (but somewhat elegant).

Visually......I run a lot of astronomy events and have used different telescopes over the years - the "wows" started increasing more when we bought the Stellalyra dob for outreach. It just seems to be quite an improvement in the lunar and planetary department and pretty much equal to the Skywatcher in the DSO department.

I've not found much actual research into primary mirror quality between Synta (skywatcher mirror manufacturers) and GSO (Stellalyra) but my feeling is the GSO seems more superior in general visual quality and resolution. 

It seems such a biased write-up but frankly, why would I spend more money on a telescope that doesn't match up to a competitor who are offering equipment that is visually superior and just engineered better?

As a caveat, there needs to be a few post-purchase tweaks on the Stellalyra, such as the mirror springs (factory ones are a bit weak but tolerable), but there are always modifications required...

By the way, Stellalyra, AstroTech, Zhumell, Lightbridge, Antares are pretty much  made by GSO.
You also have Explore Scientific....And Orion Optics...

And Skywatcher...

What a great time to be living with so much choice at the consumer level!

 

Thanks Beulah, that was a most interesting read. Interestingly, when I was trawling through astrobin, I found several examples of Saturn where the Enke gap was resolved with a 12" gso (F5), better than equivalent images with skywatcher 12". This is partly what triggered my question. It seemed that the gso mirror was resolving the gap more efficiently. 

Of course, if anyone has some images of saturn using a skywatcher that shows it can match the gso.... 

[Mr Spock]

I wouldn't swap my StellaLyra (GSO) 12" for anything. The optics are superb. It's well built and the focuser is very smooth. Only negative is the primary springs aren't strong enough but they are easily replaced.

[Flame Nebula]

10 minutes ago, Mr Spock said:

I wouldn't swap my StellaLyra (GSO) 12" for anything. The optics are superb. It's well built and the focuser is very smooth. Only negative is the primary springs aren't strong enough but they are easily replaced.

Hi Mr Spock 

Is there anything visually that it can't do, that your C9.25 has? 

[Steve Ward]

18 minutes ago, Flame Nebula said:

Hi Steve, what frustrated you about your 10" dobsonian? 

It was the nudging it around to keep things in the FOV , especially on planets.

The views were great , best I've had , but I didn't/don't have the patience for the 'purist's' approach when it comes to either finding or viewing things.

I very quickly turned to the 'darkside' of EQ Goto mounts I'm afraid.

But a 300mm tube on an EQ mount would be a big handful and a breeze catcher par excellence so be aware of that in case you follow the same path .

[Flame Nebula]

1 minute ago, Steve Ward said:

It was the nudging it around to keep things in the FOV , especially on planets.

The views were great , best I've had , but I didn't/don't have the patience for the 'purist's' approach when it comes to either finding or viewing things.

I very quickly turned to the 'darkside' of EQ Goto mounts I'm afraid.

But a 300mm tube on an EQ mount would be a big handful and a breeze catcher par excellence so be aware of that in case you follow the same path .

Hi Steve, 

I am dabbling with the dangerous idea of a gso newt on an AZEQ6. 😬. Decades ago I had a Dob and for the same reason as you, knew my next big scope needed to track planets at high mag. I have an ed80, hence the az-eq6 mount can be used for dso AP too. 

[Steve Ward]

1 minute ago, Flame Nebula said:

Hi Steve, 

I am dabbling with the dangerous idea of a gso newt on an AZEQ6. 😬. Decades ago I had a Dob and for the same reason as you, knew my next big scope needed to track planets at high mag. I have an ed80, hence the az-eq6 mount can be used for dso AP too. 

For visual I use either my Mak180 or 200PDS on the HEQ5 Pro , for DSO photos the 200 is still too much of a wind magnet though so if I feel like dabbling that way again the ED80 comes out.

But generally these days I'm a solar imager with the Evo150.

[Stu]

9 minutes ago, Flame Nebula said:

Hi Steve, 

I am dabbling with the dangerous idea of a gso newt on an AZEQ6. 😬. Decades ago I had a Dob and for the same reason as you, knew my next big scope needed to track planets at high mag. I have an ed80, hence the az-eq6 mount can be used for dso AP too. 

If you want/need tracking then perhaps consider and EQ platform. Quite a few of us use them; they are easy to setup and give around 45 mins to an hour of tracking.

I keep tagging him for this 🤣, but @Captain Scarlet uses a 12” newt in an AZ-EQ6 successfully so will be able to comment.

Orion Optics dobs are significantly lighter as they are aluminium rather than steel. Theoretically they can have better mirror quality if you spec the higher grade mirrors but I’ve not seen a side by side with a GSO scope to know whether this actually gives better results or not. They are a chunk of cash new, so buying used makes a lot of sense.

[Mr Spock]

42 minutes ago, Flame Nebula said:

Is there anything visually that it can't do, that your C9.25 has? 

It's much better than the C9.25 in every way possible 

[John]

Orion Optics dobsonians are quite a bit lighter than the chinese made ones. My OO 12" F/5.3 weighed about the same as a chinese 10" F/5. It was pretty easy to put out and pack away. Not quite grab and go but about as close to that as a 12" scope can get !

 

[Flame Nebula]

1 hour ago, Mr Spock said:

It's much better than the C9.25 in every way possible 

How's it handle close uneven doubles, like Sirius B, compared to the C9.25? Or more precisely, given that 11 arc seconds isn't close, just the specific example of Sirius B? 

Edited March 3 by Flame Nebula

[Space Hopper]

1 hour ago, John said:

Orion Optics dobsonians are quite a bit lighter than the chinese made ones. My OO 12" F/5.3 weighed about the same as a chinese 10" F/5. It was pretty easy to put out and pack away. Not quite grab and go but about as close to that as a 12" scope can get !

 

You say that in the past tense John ? Do you no longer have it ? 😯

[PeterStudz]

1 hour ago, Stu said:

Orion Optics dobs are significantly lighter as they are aluminium rather than steel. Theoretically they can have better mirror quality if you spec the higher grade mirrors but I’ve not seen a side by side with a GSO scope to know whether this actually gives better results or not. They are a chunk of cash new, so buying used makes a lot of sense.

The particle board that the bases of Chinese manufactured Dobs are made of is also far heavier than plywood. I think Orion Optics use plywood but I could be mistaken. Certainly when I made my own plywood base it was lighter and stronger/stiffer than the manufactured particle board examples that I’ve had experience with.

[Space Hopper]

Just now, PeterStudz said:

The particle board that the bases of Chinese manufactured Dobs are made of is also far heavier than plywood. I think Orion Optics use plywood but I could be mistaken. Certainly when I made my own plywood base it was lighter and stronger/stiffer than the manufactured particle board examples that I’ve had experience with.

No no, OO Dob bases are solid metal. Pretty much bomb proof, and a whole lot better than the 'Weetabix' Chinese variety from Skywatcher etc.

[Flame Nebula]

3 minutes ago, Space Hopper said:

No no, OO Dob bases are solid metal. Pretty much bomb proof, and a whole lot better than the 'Weetabix' Chinese variety from Skywatcher etc.

It doesn't look like orion optics do a goto version for 12", at least from a quick look. 

[Space Hopper]

No, nothing like that. Just the optical tubes.

If you want to go down the 'go-to' route, theres the AZEQ6 or with deeper pockets a Rowan AZ100.

But i personally would'nt entertain the idea of putting a 12" size scope on one. A 12" Newt is a big big scope no matter what its focal length.

If i was going down the Newtonian + alt-az route (not a Dob base) i'd be looking at 8" or 10" max.

[PeterStudz]

25 minutes ago, Space Hopper said:

No no, OO Dob bases are solid metal. Pretty much bomb proof, and a whole lot better than the 'Weetabix' Chinese variety from Skywatcher etc.

Ahhh… OK, my mistake! But as you say “a whole lot better”.

[Second Time Around]

The bases are the best part of the OOUK Dobs.  They're made of aluminium so are lighter than steel or plywood let alone particleboard.  They also have a smaller footprint that enables them to be carried close to your body. 

Both of these features make them much easier to carry.  Indeed, I can go up to a 10 inch OOUK Dob, but only an 8 inch with Chinese makes.

The only mod I've done is adding a pair of kitchen door handles.

OOUK make these bases to order to fit any Dob, not just their own.  Expensive yes, but well worth it.

[Captain Scarlet]

As @Stu has mentioned, I do mount my 12” newt on an az-eq6 in alt-az mode. It handles it perfectly easily even though it’s about 6kg “underbalanced” as I only have 15kg of counterweights to match the 21kg of the full OTA. Although I have replaced the stock 2” steel tripod with a Berlebach Planet, and the stock saddle with an ADM.

Setting up is easy, but does take 20 minutes or so. I put the mount head, counterweights, tripod and rings all separately into a wheelbarrow and trundle it around to where I want to view from.

There I set up the tripod, level it across both horizontal axes using a good spirit level (the universal bubble levels are useless), and attach the az-eq6 head.

I attach the mount’s counterweight extension bar and slide on 3 x 5kg weights. I attach the rings to the saddle and open them up.

I go back to my garage and collect the tube. It lives on its end, so I slightly tip it over, put fingers under the lower edge, other hand’s fingers grasp the upper edge and using my legs (not my back) I simply stand up and turn the whole tube to horizontal and very slowly carefully walk it out of the house. Carried this way, it’s a fairly easy carry and I’m standing up straight.

Once back at the mount, I simply “walk” the tube horizontally into the open rings, close each ring and tighten them up. Both clutches should be tight when doing this. I then slide the counterweights to the end of their bar and lock them down.

Attach finders eyepiece CC etc and ready to go.

All positioning of rings in mount, OTA into rings is done with pre-measured bits of tape. Loading up the wheelbarrow includes old cushions to protect sharp corners meeting.

Cheers, Magnus

Edited March 3 by Captain Scarlet
typo

[dark star]

I love my 12 inch f/4 Orion Optics UK Dobsonian, which I bought second hand. I agree that the metal bases are great. I have managed (just) to fit the base and telescope in the back of my small SUV, the part with the secondary mirror goes on one of the passenger seats.  This means that I can sometimes take the telescope with me when me and my family go on holiday.

I can carry the telescope tube a reasonable distance, it is a bit heavy and awkward but it is possible.

I think the mirror is very good. But I am not an expert, I have been obseving for a few years but the observing sessions I can manage each year are not that many

I mainly observe galaxies and and for these it has been great. I want to try it out properly on the planets at some stage.

I like it is much that I would want to keep it even if I eventually get a 16 inch Dobsonian, but I don't have enough room.

 

David

[Mr Spock]

2 hours ago, Flame Nebula said:

How's it handle close uneven doubles, like Sirius B, compared to the C9.25? Or more precisely, given that 11 arc seconds isn't close, just the specific example of Sirius B?

I've not had it on Sirius in good seeing conditions. I have separated 0.5" stars though.

[Louis D]

The only 12" Dob I've used was a 12.5" Mag-1 Portaball with a Zambuto primary and Feather Touch focuser on an Osypowski equatorial platform at a star party years ago.  It gave superb views of Jupiter with lots of detail in the bands.  The platform worked great to keep objects from drifting.  Being a ball design, it lacked Dobson's hole near zenith.  It was super easy to move from object to object.  DSCs weren't an option, but it would probably work well with today's smartphone DSC apps once rebalanced for the additional secondary cage weight.

I might have gotten one myself back in the day had I had about $7000 burning a hole in my pocket. 😁