Hi all,Well, what a night. The decision has been made. Due to the impending sale of the 8, the 12LB is on the buying list now.Last night had a chance to line up my 8, a 10LB,a12LB,and an Obsession 16.Good seeing, using the 26mm supplied with the LBs, a Meade 6.4mm, and a Celestron 20mm.Below are just my personal thoughts. Please rmember this. In no particular order, these were my jotted down notes.1.The 12LB is still a 12, and matter how small it may look due to great advertising, it still houses 12 optics. Trusses help with this illusion.2. The 10 was the easiest to move around and load in my car. Everyone agrred on this.3.The 8 to 10 aperture difference was very noticable, the jump from 10 to 12 much less so.4.We all noticed a slight feeling of "give" in the trusses when moving the 12 only. The 10 was rock rigid.5.Cooling down time with the 10 and it's fan was much less than my 8, but the 12 still took quite a while to cool.6.The 12 need more regular collimation. (Truss flex??)7.The 26mm is an awesome EP.8.Moving the 10 was incredibly easy. Much easier than my 8 even though it weighs more.The 12 owner is seriously considering selling his 12 after using the 10 a lot more than he would care to admit.9.The 10 would make a perfect serious beginners scope. Buy a Laser collimator.11.The Obsession is in a class of it's own!.ConclusionI am buying the 10. It is a perfect allrounder, and in combination with my WO 66 and 80mm, 95% of observing desires will be taken care of. Why a 66 and 80? It is a great father/son combo.These are my thoughts. Please remember this. Oh yes, I am no Mr. Punyverse, so stature is not an issue.One last point. Could sit down at the 10 all night, not so with the others in much comfort.Hope this helps anyone else, it sure helped me.
Hi Janoskiss, Yes I just noticed that myself. What I meant to convey was the fact that I could have bought either the 10 or 12,after the sale of the 8.Still trying to get the hang of this!
The equipment you already have I imagine is a little on the awkward side to set up/take down. You would definately notice the difference with owning a truss Dob in that department. The 12 is a fine instrument, but please give the 10 a chance. Such rapid cool down time, ease of handling, and plenty of aperture with great contrast were what led me to decide on the 10. On the test night, the 10 was the first scope of the four present to cool down, and the one that three of us always seemed to return to. On a scale of one to ten, I would rate the 12 as 8, and the 10 at, you guessed it,10. The ability of the 10 to handle seeing conditions better was also evident. Great allrounder.
The 12 need more regular collimation. (Truss flex??)
This could be due to the original springs on the primary. I remember Astronut writing a thread of after market mods and this was one of them.
A couple of queries:
Were there any shrouds used?
When you say the 12 took longer to cool down - rough timeframe 15mins - 45mins?
The white parts inside the truss dob (as per the AS & T) article, did you notice anything about it much when viewing.
Hi Norm,
I did notice on the 12 that when you tried to lock the primary, collimation would shift, and by slightly varying margins! This was quite annoying, and totally absent on the 10. I did not think of the springs. I will call the owner and let him know of you're suggestion. Thankyou!.
As for shrouds, yes. On all the truss dobs. Made of a stretchy black fabric, don't ask me what though, and with stud clips. I think 5. I do remember thinking that the shrouds interfered with holding the trusses when moving the scopes, but it simple to just slide the shroud up enough. I also remember thinking that perhaps a way around this would be to select the truss you will handle the most and make the shroud go around the scope until it meets back at the selected truss, but then have something like velcro loops that will allow you to slide past the shrouds meeting line to hold the truss. Sorry, I know my description is clear as mud. Just don't know how to describe it.
I did not write down the cooling times, a bad mistake in retrospect. I think that by 30 mins we were well and truley engrossed with the 10, so probably around the 45 minute mark would be my best guess.
The White was more noticeable in the 12 than the 10. Nothing to write home about in either.
The LB's are really beautiful scopes to look at. Meade have created a real winner here.
I wish I could repeat the night and make much more detailed notes!.
Another thought. To really finish off the scope, I will be mounting an Orion 9x50 finder with the right angle in addition to the great illumiation finder. I just want the luxury of both. When using higher magnifications, which the 10 handles best, the options of both fields of view for finding will be nice. And I can afford not only this, but also the Oxygen3 filter, and a new Ep for the same money as the 12LB on it's own. Don't get me wrong, the 12 is great, but just my preference for the 10 here.
Sorry Norm, I hope this helps a little. If you think of anything else please let me know and I will do my best.
Cheers,
Stellarquest
Last edited by stellarquest; 16-12-2006 at 09:55 AM.
Thanks Ving,
Will mention that in my call to the owner as well. He will be very glad to know the remedy. Unfortunate that there should be such a problem in such a nice scope. Especially when this seems like something that could be easily taken care of at the factory.
Thanks for the compliment. I am very new to internet correspondence, so please bear with me, and I promise to write a decent review on the 10 when it comes in mid to late January. They are selling fast!
yes, the 12s all have saggy springs - solid tube or LB. I use my six collimation screws (3 adj + 3 lock) in a push pull arrangement, no spring. More tedious but once you get used to it it's workable and hold collimation very well.
Hi Vars,Just use them in our backyard for Planets and other brighter targets such as Fornax and Orion etc. Superb optics. I prefer the 66ED as I feel it is a little more contrasty than the 80ED. They are both weighty though. The 66 OTA w/ a 1.25 diag and Ep weighs in at 2kg's. The 80 is mounted on an EQ5 because it needs it. It is very substantial.If weight is an issue have you tried Hutech? They seem a little fragile to me, but the versatility seems fantastic and could fit the bill.The WO's are heirloom quality and are quite cheap at the moment. Have you seen the Petzval for $400 AUD? What a bargain.If you have any question please do not hesitate to post.Cheers,Stellarquest
Last edited by stellarquest; 16-12-2006 at 02:21 PM.
PUBLIC APOLOGY.After re-reading the term of use for this Forum, I have become aware of a potential problem with one of my posts. It is post number 21. The miss-spells are in point4 raised and take the appearance of "& quote".This was not tended as a substitute for any other word, sentence, or sentiment. It is a reflection on my ineptitude to properly use the excellent messaging tools provided. Please accept my apologies for any ill feeling caused. None whatsoever was or is intended.Thank you all.Regards,Stellarquest
Hi Stellarquest,
I've had my 12"LB since March, and through neccessity and being very inquisitive, I've crawlled inside and out of this scope and with the advice of a very close friend and telescope builder I have the carried out the mods needed to turn a very good scope into a excellent one.
If you would like info on what needs to be done, please let me know.
These mods are good for all the LB's. even the up coming 16" which I see still suffers from the problems of its smaller brothers.
The reason the 12" suffers more from spring sag than the smaller ones is, 1. Mirror Weight, 2. The same springs are used on all the scopes, so they work well on the 8", ok on the 10" but bomb out on the 12".
You can just imagine how much sag the 16" mirror will have.
Hi Astronut,I would really appreciate you're insight. The Meade 12 appeared to me to be a brilliant base from which to build, while the 10 seemed to be a fully finished product. I am sure that everyone who has been following this thread would be very interested in you're findings too.Thank you for attaching the thumbnails. These will be a great aid to understanding further what you have achieved. Can see what you mean about the weight of the various mirrors. Why Meade would use the same springs for different loads is a mystery.Look forward to you're post.Cheers,Stellarquest
I agree with Steve. I personally don't see a need to own both 8" and 10" scopes or 8" and 12" for that matter.
I would recommend selling the 8", you mention you have a good offer on it and buying a 10" lightbridge.
Whilst a 10" won't go quite as deep on DSO's as the 12", it is a lot more portable and user friendly IMO. The 10" will "almost" equal the 12" for lunar/planetary/double star work and importantly, will be less affected by poor seeing for high power work than the 12" scope.
IMO if your going to keep the 8" scope as your "portable" scope, the step up needs to be to about 14" or 15", to get a really noticeable increase.
Hi Ausastronomer,All that you have suggested is exactly what will happen and precisely what I found out on the testing night. The 10 was the best allrounder on the evening. The 8 goes next week. The seeing between the 10 and 12 was more of a difference than anyone present had imagined. As it will be very much an allrounder scope, the planetary use does come into consideration. Also much longer cooling time on the 12. I rang the owner of the 12 to tell him of the spring solution from the the members of the Forum, and while he was greateful, he was quite upset at the performance differences 10vs12. He is definately considering selling his 12 and buying the 10. When Astronut places his modifications on the thread, I will be following them to create my own LB 10 superscope.The Obsession, even though in a league of it's own, was a hassle to use in just about every way, and cured me permanently of any future aperture fever. Stunning vistas, but so they should be for the money. The set up was not as easy as the LB's, as one should realise. The amazing thing was, it got the least use of any scope there, including the 8. Go figure. I am most likely missing the point though...Cheers,Stellarquest
There are a couple of changes I would make as soon as practicable.
1. The primary springs are too soft, this will make collimation tedious. I have the product code for these.
2. Change both the secondary and primary collimation knobs, this makes collimation toolless, a big improvement. Once you try to collimate with the originals you'll know what I mean.
3. Have the end rings powder coated black, as all four are WHITE on the INSIDE not good.
A shroud is another essential addition.
One last thing, a dew shield extending about 1.5x the aperture from the front of the tube will eliminate dew on the secondary.
The optics give great views, oooppps!!! One last thing a Orion or similar brand collimator.
The springs are $30
Collimation Knobs, both sets $50.
Powder coat X4 $40.
Shroud $90.
Dew shield $20 High Impact Polystyrene Sheet, H.I.P.S.
Collimator $70 absolutely necessary.
I would also highly recommend a dew heater for the main e/p and both ends of the finder.
With the dew/light shield a secondary heater is unnecessary.
Cheers, John
This is exactly the kind of info I was looking for. Thank you. We did find the collimation at the site a real hassle, as all the scopes present were stock standard. I am not sure if it is allowed to post suppliers of you're parts stockists, but if it is possible would you please?Have seen the ad for Bobs Knobs and liked them.I believe Meade is manufacturing their own brand Shroud. Even though I usually use a Cheshire, I am upgrading to a Laser collimator, for obvious reasons.Thanks for the post John.Cheers for now.
