Jump to content

NLCbanner2024.jpg.2478be509670e60c2d6efd04834b8b47.jpg

Bresser or GSO for a 12" inch dob


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, thegopieffect said:

Hi, thanks for your response. Have you tried astrophotography with the GSO’s focuser? I mean any workaround? 

I'm not sure what you mean by workaround.

It holds my D500 ok. I can't imagine any astro camera being as heavy as a D500!

IMG_09581200.jpg.118f224f6bcca83713fa0e0fb78ec70a.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, thegopieffect said:

How about the primary mirrors on both? Do you think it’s good equally? With Bresser’s I’m definitely getting the fan. 

I have read in different publications that OSG uses state-of-the-art manufacturing and test lines on their mirrors which ensures diffraction limited performance, with a surface quality of at least 1/16 wave RMS, and often better, i.e. optical performance with virtually no light dispersion. Supposedly, the image produced by their mirrors is above the standard, however they are manufactured in a material (borosilicate N-BK7) with a coefficient of thermal expansion greater than that of the optical glass used in the manufacture of Bresser mirrors in this category, whose material is H-PZ33, with similar specs to Pyrex. 

Considering that the cooling rate of a mirror is proportional to the square of the thickness of a mirror, and the thickness depends on the aperture (for the surfaces of the primary mirrors to be undeformed and stable, the thickness-diameter ratio must be at least 1/6), with a diameter of 10" the mirror must be at least 40mm thick. That is a very considerable mass of glass to cool, which will require a long time to reach (almost) thermal equilibrium. Perhaps this is the reason why the OSG incorporates the cooling fan, to accelerate the thermal balancing process of its mirror, since due to the material in which it is constructed, it therefore has a higher linear expansion coefficient. In the acclimatization process, which in these mirrors of considerable size will hardly take less than 2 hours (depending on the thermal gradient to be overcome), the figure of the Bresser could possibly be somewhat better than that of the OSG. Of course, once both are there. acclimatized, the figure of the OSG will supposedly surpass that of the Bresser, if we trust the quality data of its surface.

Anyway, it is likely that I have not clarified anything, but I wanted to make the point, since we have been talking perhaps more about the accessories, the focuser and the quality of the mount (aspects that are obviously very important), than about the optical quality (which it also is). I must admit, however, that in this case the best thing would be to test both tubes in parallel and under the same conditions in a real observation, and it is likely that no one here can say that they have done it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bosun21 said:

If you are serious about astrophotography then you are buying the wrong telescope completely. Buy a refractor.

It wouldn't be unreasonable to do "serious" astrophotography with a Newton, but then he would have to mount it in an equatorial configuration, get a coma corrector and above all invest a lot of money in a sturdy support, which would undoubtedly enormously exceed the initial budget... In the end, it is clear that a small APO refractor ends up being cheaper...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Chandra said:

It wouldn't be unreasonable to do "serious" astrophotography with a Newton, but then he would have to mount it in an equatorial configuration, get a coma corrector and above all invest a lot of money in a sturdy support, which would undoubtedly enormously exceed the initial budget... In the end, it is clear that a small APO refractor ends up being cheaper...

Exactly. Plus he would have a insanely steep learning curve with a 12" Newtonian as a starting point for AP 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some good points about both scopes.  I think you'd probably be pleased with either.

 One other point which may be an issue for you.  A while ago I had Bresser 8inch Newt tube and mounted it equatorially.  It was noticeably heavier than any other 8 inch I have used with the same focal ratio.  There was hardly enough room on the counterweight shaft for all the weights I needed.  For this reason I didn't keep it very long.  A shame as it was a good scope.  If you're buying the 12inch Dob version you might want to check the weight first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Mr Spock said:

It holds my D500

It may hold it, but locking it in place -using the locking screw- tilts the focuser. Certainly on the five or so which we've witnessed.
Cheers

Edited by alacant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, alacant said:

It may hold it, but locking it in place -using the locking screw- tilts the focuser.

I don't use the locking screws. In addition, I sometime use the 4x Powermate too.

I'm not sure what you are suggesting here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Mr Spock said:

I don't use the locking screws

There is only one locking screw. If you don't use it, you won't see the tilt when you do! The second screw adjusts the Crayford spindle tension.
It probably doesn't matter if the OP is simply going to look through the telescope. Holding a camera for hours on end is a different matter.
Cheers and HTH
 

Edited by alacant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You wouldn't need to hold the camera for hours on a Dob. They aren't made for long exposure imaging :wink2:

Works fine for planetary imaging though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 12 inch Bresser seems to have quite a light tube for a 12 inch. It seems to be made of GRP which probably accounts for it's weight (or relative lack of it). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, John said:

The 12 inch Bresser seems to have quite a light tube for a 12 inch. It seems to be made of GRP which probably accounts for it's weight (or relative lack of it). 

It's still only 600g less than the GSO .

The Bresser is 18.9kg with accessories and the GSO is 19.5kg also with accessories. I suppose the tube rings will contribute to to the weight of the Bresser, but then it's finder scope is made of plastic, probably to save weight.

Edited by bosun21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, bosun21 said:

It's still only 600g less than the GSO .

The Bresser is 18.9kg with accessories and the GSO is 19.5kg also with accessories. I suppose the tube rings will contribute to to the weight of the Bresser, but then it's finder scope is made of plastic, probably to save weight.

My OO 12 inch F/5.3 was about 17kg inc accessories. Aluminium tube. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, John said:

My OO 12 inch F/5.3 was about 17kg inc accessories. Aluminium tube. 

 

The O Optics aluminium tubes do appeal to me. I was considering buying a 10 or 12" OTA when one of each size were recently advertised in the classified section. I was thinking of putting it on my AZ-EQ6. I then realised that this would be pointless as I already had a 10" Synscan dob. I really do need to keep myself in check when browsing the for sale astro sections!

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.