Quote:
Originally Posted by madbadgalaxyman
Actually, for a lot of people who are not physically very strong (smaller nerdy guys, some women, etc.) or for people who have bad backs, it is the much larger weight and volume which are the real problem with the bigger telescopes, rather than the actual length of the telescope.
The large increase in telescope weight for a relatively modest increase in telescope aperture....... has been discussed in previous threads in this forum.
While a 10 inch telescope may not be that long, it is usually rather heavy and also large in volume, so for most people it qualifies as a physically big scope (with the odd exception)
A 12 inch telescope is always a large and heavy object.
For this reason, beginners are often recommended to go no bigger than an 8 inch Dobsonian, as the 10s and 12s are harder to use and to move.
|
Robert,
I think calling the difference between an 8" and a 10" 'a relatively modest increase in telescope aperture' is quite misleading. We both know that a 10" collects 1.56x more light than an 8" and I wouldn't call that a modest increase - it's over half a magnitude. I accept your point about weight and volume but I also understand that often the limiting factor is width of the back seat or length of the tray in a crew-cab ute. To put the weight issue in perspective, my wife is about 5' 6" and can carry our 10" dobs tube without too many problems. Also that self-confessed short-arse from Swan Hill, Jen, now has a 12" dobs.