16" vs 12"

[sejanus]

i know, i know. aperture rules. But tell me, is 16" over 12" a significantly noticeable step up in detail you can resolve on dso's?

If it is, i don't mind buying the 16" but if the 12" was almost there....well it is only 50% the price, or even 33% the price if I bought a conventional 12" dob.

i don't mind the extra weight of the 16" lb, i guess i am just after reassurance that it is such a step above the 12" that it is worth getting.

on another note, i ordered a cheapy EQ1 today to do some widefield stuff, which i think should perk my interest in it a bit more rather than the whole eq6/align thing - can't imagine you need a super accurate 'drift' align for a 16-35mm lens!

[casstony]

I don't know if this helps, but have you seen Obsessions M13 comparison http://www.obsessiontelescopes.com/m13/index.html

[mickoking]

A 16" is significantly less portable than a 12". Both scopes will show heaps of stuff the 16 incher, of course showing more. It is a personally thing, I once owned a 14" truss tube, great scope but too big for my liking. I settled on the 12" (304mm) as a good compromise between sheer aperture and portability.

[h0ughy]

well its up to you, are you just going to roll out of the shed most of the time or go to dark sites, if the first then go the 16, if the latter then go the 12, but consider the 16

[Miaplacidus]

There's no way around it. You have to get both.

[DobDobDob]

I wish you would not have posted that link :( all my life I have heard that bigger is better, but until a few moments ago, I never really understood the true significance of that statement. After seeing this page, after just getting a 6 inch, I can see that I will never be satisfied, in fact there will never be a size that will be sufficient, because no matter what I get in the future, there will always be that size plus a couple of inches larger :whistle:

I am truly a shattered man...my journey has many many many tens of thousands of dollars to go, numerous trades and back trading, and endless yearning and dreaming and wishing....ah....what a bummer :P

[casstony]

The best giant telescope to look through is one that belongs to someone else - easier on your creaky joints and your wallet.

[Zuts]

Go the 16", you know you want to :)

[casstony]

Know that these people telling you to get the 16" are all going to invite themselves over to your place once you buy it :)

[sejanus]

heh, I'm only 28. joints aren't creaky...........yet :)

[glenc]

The image in the 16" is 77% brighter than in the 12" and the resolution is 33% better if the seeing is excellent. But you also have to look at $s (it costs 3 times more), portability and setup time.

[h0ughy]

yep and after you weight up the facts go and have a look at one and through one if you can.

[janoskiss]

They are all just different ways of saying one is a 12" scope and the other is a 16" scope. ;)
Look see for yerself, sejanus! :)

Certainly would not want a 16" as my only scope. Like to also have something smaller to use at short notice, take anywhere... 8" Dob works a treat there.

[rmcpb]

Steve hit the nail on the head. Having a lone 16" byitself as your only scope would not be a good idea regardless of how good your back is and the size of your truck.

[Peter Bobroff]

Go to the South Pacific Star Party next month. There will be scopes of all sizes and unlimited advice from an infinite field of experts.

Perhaps you might decide to build a 16" for less than the cost of a 12" - it is easier than you might think.

There will be 16" scopes that are smaller and lighter than the average 12" and exquisite 12" scopes that the owners would never replace.

[Moon_Shine]

Hi,
Forget and ignore all the advise above,this is the scope you REALLY!! want,and just think of all the friends you'll make :P
http://www.astrobuysell.com/au/propview.php?view=257
Cheers

[shredder]

From your original post, it sounds like you are considering the Light Bridges?

I just got a 12" LB (lucky me!), and I must say its a big scope (even colapsed its big). Its virtually at the limit of what you can manage to move around and put away (at least for me, and I am in my mid 30s and still fit). I would suggest only go for the 16" if you have a. The Space, b. The Strength. c. Somewhere to keep it permanently.

As for seeing, I can't say in comparison to a 16" as I don't have one. But I can say I can now see faint fuzzies from my back yard (something my C8 never could do), and I aren't dissapointed or wishing I got the bigger one. I'm generally wishing all this cloud would just bugger off....(and the mossies)

The 12" is also small enough to work as your only scope (by the sounds of it the 16" isn't). So keep your $ get the 12, and spend a little of the difference on an ArgoNavis would be my suggestion.

M

[skies2clear]

What, that puny little thing? :D

CS

[wavelandscott]

As others are trying to say...if purely after the "deepest" view get the 16 inch...

However, you must factor in transport...

The best scope choice in my opinion is the one that you will use. A 16 would be great but if you only get it out 2 times a year in my mind it diminishes the advantages of the extra magnitudes observable...

Get the one you are most likely to use...I find I use my 2 smaller scopes as often (recently more) than my 12.5 inch...mostly due to time constraints...yes the bigger one is "better" when I use it I just don't get to use it as much as I can/do the smaller ones.

[AstroJunk]

Mate, you're 28 - don't waste your youth on small scopes like I did!

Eyesight gets worse with age, so start big and get BIGGER!!!

(nobody really expected an un-biased response from me did they? :lol: )

[ausastronomer]

I don't necessarily agree with this.

In the almost 7 months I have had the 18" Obsession, the 10" dob hasn't moved. Moreso, unless I have a need to have 2 scopes available, which I will do from time to time in the future, for my 10yr old to use; the 10" scope won't ever get a look in :)

The 18" Truss scope is not that much less portable than the 10" tube scope. When I do use a scope from home, which isn't all that often, it takes less than 2 minutes to wheel the 18" Obsession out of the garage, remove the wheelbarrow handles and start observing. From my Mag 5 skies at home, the 18" blows the 10" into the weeds. It doesn't get much more convenient actually.

CS-John B

[sejanus]

the obsessions are a bit better built with portability in mind aren't they? I have seen a vid where a fairly slim girl assembled a 20" model.

I guess you could chuck wheels on the lightbridge though. My backyard viewing location is 5-6 metres from it's storage location (garage).

[xelasnave]

So is the contest now between 18 and 20 inch?
When I started I wanted a 16inch five scopes later that want has only increased. The reality is if you go smaller you will justify the decision upon sensible consideration..bah being sensible is not what this gane is all about. Any money spent on a lesser version that what you desire is in fact money wasted..
good luck with the purchase
alex

[janoskiss]

fair point from John B. Whether you can make better use of a small scope depends on your observing habits/preferences. I like to have a smaller scope to take to non-astronomy parties and other events to show the sky to non-astronomers. Also when people pop around I might like to quickly plonk the scope outside to show them the Moon, Saturn, Jupiter etc. 5 mins is plenty for cooldown for a respectable 200x quick look with the smaller Dobs.

[Orion]

There is no substitute for aperture.

[Starkler]

Quite right, as long as it's aperture that will actually get used, rather than something thats too big, heavy, and cumbersome to be bothered with.

I'm currently waiting on a 15" SDM truss dob. I have decided on this size as I wanted a 'large scope' that I could lift, transport and set up on my own without breaking my back in the process.
I feel that an 18" or larger just becomes that bit harder and therefore less likely to come with me to viewing nights.

My other scopes are 5" and 10" newts. The 5 gets more use as a quick look scope. After the SDM comes, the 10 probably wont get used much at all but the 5 still will.

[iceman]

Gav lucky you didn't view through Rod's 20".. you'd be tempted to get a 20" very quickly :)

It depends how serious you are. The big scopes are awesome but if you don't use it much it's not going to repay you in WOW sights.

[sejanus]

i think from my flurry of buying and selling gear it may appear to some that I'm not serious :D but i am. i already miss not having old trusty 80mm to whip out.

[norm]

Hi,

Another factor apart from the size is also the quality of the scope and what your prepared to put up with. The 12" lightbridge appears to be without its own minor problems and by all accounts easy to fix (eg, new springs, collimation knobs etc). I would assume the 16" LB would be the same - one would hope Meade sorted these issues out.:shrug: ???
If on the other hand you want say the best and money is not an issue, it would be hard not to consider an SDM truss dob. Sure your paying a lot more, but then again your getting an absolute premium product. One that will most likely require no mods or changes at all and something that your likely to keep forever.

NB: I'm not bagging the LB, none the least, the 12" LB is a beauty and its the one I'd get. The 16" on the otherhand is yet to be 'road tested' and it would be interesting to see how it goes.

Good luck with your decision!

[sejanus]

Ah yes. If our mate from SDM made something in the 16-18" range in the 4-5k range I'd be all ears. But as they are 10k or so, I can only look at them with envy :)

[ausastronomer]

The problem here is that when a scope is "hand made" it takes "almost" as long to make a 12" or 15" scope, as it does a 20" or 25". The difference in the materials cost isn't major and the only real saving available by downsizing, is the savings realisable from buying a smaller primary and secondary mirror. People expect the cost of the scope to decrease exponentially as the aperture decreases. This may apply to mass produced scopes, but not to hand made ones. This is the reason Peter Read advertises his smallest scopes as 18". Below this aperture it is really a labour of love and he makes nothing. People expect him to be able to build 12" and 15" scopes, for a lot less money than an 18" and it just isn't so.

CS-John B

[Starkler]

Well that just pays for the mirrors and doesnt leave much for the rest of the scope. eg a 15" OMI mirror was going to cost $3750.

Peter Reads prices dont look particularly cheap compared to importing an Obsession, but when you consider that his scopes come 'fully loaded' with loads of extras then the value becomes apparant.

[sejanus]

hi guys

I don't mean to imply that Peter is overcharging - just that he doesn't have anything in my price bracket. I'd love one of his scopes, the pics of Rods look like a work of art. Unfortunately even with 2 jobs I can't justify 10-12k on a scope, though maybe in 10 years I could after the house is paid off.