Orion XX12 Price

[JethroB76 (Jeff)]

Originally Posted by mic_m

I totally agree with the rip off comment about Orion dobs is Australia; hence the reason for beginning this thread.

My only issue with the GSO made dobs is the amount of modifications that are needed to get them up to where they should be directly form the manufacturer; otherwise they are a fantastic scope and I would already have one. I particularly like the two speed focuser on the GSO, from the samples I have had access to at my club it is very nice indeed and after using it I would be reluctant to get a scope without one now. But when I consider the frustration that some have reported in trying to fix their NEW scope and the opportunity cost of ones time that this often represents the GSO dob is just not an option. If the SW (which appears to need less mods) had something better than the parallel poles between the UTA and LTA I would consider getting one of those. However, given most other dobs now have a two speed focuser and a fan the SW lags behind in its feactures even though it sells for a higher price, which is a further deterent in getting one of these.

Other than having a 'computer object locator' already fitted, what makes you say the Orions are really any better quality-wise out of the box?

[mic_m (Michael)]

Originally Posted by JethroB76

Other than having a 'computer object locator' already fitted, what makes you say the Orions are really any better quality-wise out of the box?

Oh boy, with a question like this how much trouble can I get myself into and how fast? First off I should note that the COL is not really a factor for me; I would still want one of these without the COL; rather, it is the overall quality that this scope offers over others in the same budget scope category which makes it a winner for me.

I really don’t want to turn this thread into too much of a GSO vs Synta type thing (I kind of already made up my mind on what scope I want from what is available and this thread is more about understanding the Orion a bit better), but I will make and briefly expand on one basic overarching point in relation to your question.

My basic issue with the GSO dobs in terms of their quality is the degree of modifications that are needed to make a NEW scope work effectively. However, I will note that most issues with GSO dobs have a fix and once they are dealt with the GSO scopes would likely work just as well as the Orions. Though what we are talking about here is out of box quality, for which I believe the Orion is in front in many respects.

Problems with the GSO dobs out of the box include weak primary and secondary mirror support springs which make achieving and maintaining collimation very difficult (I learnt this through my own experience, especially in terms of the secondary spring but many others have reported this too). No such problems are reported with the Orions they have good primary and secondary springs form the factory as do other Syntas.

The GSO primary cell is not as good as the Synta primary cell. This is because the GSO collimation and locking screws are placed too far apart for the locking screws to be effective and using the locking screws may in fact damage the cell. To fix this (get the locking screws to work) one would have to drill new holes for them in the primary mirrir cell next to the collimation screws – no thanks! I would rather buy as scope that has them in the correct place to begin with like the Orion.

GSO secondary mirrors are often astigmatic due to the mirror housing design; this is not an issue with the Synta dobs that have their secondary mirrors attached directly to the secondary support and not contained within a housing as the GSO scopes do.

GSO secondary adjustment screws have pointed ends which dig into and damage the soft metal on the back of the secondary holder making collimation touchy. From my understanding Synta dobs secondary screws have flat backs that do not cause this problem and it is therefore ok to adjust the secondary mirror right out of the box without replacing the screws first.

Like secondary astigmatism, primary astigmatism has been a big issue in the GSO dobs. Primary astigmatism is usually due to the mirror being clamped into its cell too tightly. While this is declining in GSO scopes and it is generally an easy fix, it is virtually unheard of with Orion and other Synta scopes.

The bases of Synta dobs; the XX12 and SW Flextube both have supports perpendicular to the sides of the base; this stiffens the base structure reducing short term flexture and long term wear and tear. In contrast no GSO made dobs (neither the Lightbridge, the solid tube GSO nor the new 16” GSO) have support fins like the Syntas on the sided of their base and because of this, base flexture in GSO dobs has been reported as a problem encountered right out of the box, this is not the case with the Synta made dobs.

One of my major issues with all budget truss dobs (other than the Orion) is the “truss” (in some cases strut structure) itself. The 6 pole design of the LB makes a shroud hard to attach, but I prefer the LB design to that of the 16 inch GSO and the SW Flextube. The three struts on the 16 inch GSO and the Flextube look so fragile, but it’s worse than fragility; it is near imposable to attach an effective shroud without it sagging into the light path or missing the edges, the flextube is the worst in this respect due to its raised poles. While the LB is ahead of the others the Orion is ahead of the LB in my opinion. Its trusses are built like a tank with 8 poles and a shroud that is easy to attach and is kept well away form the light path, unlike the other scopes mentioned.

Also there have been numerous reports of GSO tubes rusting, though this may have been before the new ASDX models that came out last year; nevertheless, I have never seen any reports of Synta scopes rusting which gives me more confidence the finish of Synta scopes. In fact I recall a review in AS&T last year comparing the finish on the reviewed Synta scope as being close that of a vehicle.

Finally, on the very rare occasion there are instances of GSO secondary mirror astigmatism due to the mirror itself; there have been even rarer, isolated instances where some have replaced their defective GSO secondary mirrors with nother GSO secondary and got another defective mirror. While this is certainley not a big issue in the sea of GSO dobs out there it has made me more cautious about the scope out of the box; perhaps this is just a non-rational over reaction to what is just a minor issue.

As stated above it is important to note that all of these issues have fixes, and some may indeed enjoy spending time and money doing this. However, one should be aware that fixing some of the preceding issues would void the scopes warranty; think about it; the warranty would be voided for trying to fix something that should already be working – the irony! I have read about some people making an awful mess of their scope trying to modify it because it was not working – you really have to know what you are doing. This just scars me right away form new GSO dobs. I might consider a well modified GSO if an opportunity presented itself.

I would also like to note here that I have looked through several GSO dobs at my club that performed excellently, but they all needed substantial modifications to get to that stage. I am just not the kind of person who enjoys fixing issues that I believe should have been taken care of at the factory, especially when they are so numerous and when some can be quite challenging. So my preference for an Orion dobs is due to its seemingly better quality straight out of the box.

I have listed some references that back up my comments - there are better ones but this is all I have time to find right now:

Checking the Optics of Your GSO Dob:
- Primary and secondary astigmatism, general observation of the compromises that GSO dobs can come with.
Link

Guan Sheng 12" Dob:
- A weak secondary spring, weak primary springs, sharp secondary screws, sideboard flexture
Link

Astro-Tech 16” Dob:
- Collimation knobs in the incorrect place, weak springs, sharp secondary screws, sideboard / base flexture,
Link

Go to dobsonain kits and read: a word about collimation:
- Correct primary screw placement, primary cell damage
Link

Got my LB 10 - collimation ?- eyeball vs sitetub
- Secondary astigmatism
Link

Dob repaint and My 10" GS Dob REBORN! - Cutting and powder Coating
-GSO dob rust
Link and;
Link

[GrahamL]

I think you need to buy the orion

The 10 " orion I have had a brief look over compared to my
10 "gso seemed to have a better finish without doubt .
Straight out of the box the gso will work great , The rust on the tubes was a issue with the early ones many years back I believe , the powder coating seems very differant these days, the need to fine tune and what to fine tune is a personal thing imo which you will deal with in time on any scope you buy.

Aside some of the more difficult mods tube shortening and such the adjustments seem pretty minor and easily handled . Many probably wheel there dob in and out year in year out without ever bothering with changing anything until they have to , can't judge that
to harshly ,if they are happy and enjoying the night sky its all good

good luck with your choice

[stephenb (Stephen)]

Hi Michael,

I commend you for the effort you have put into researching your options for a new telescope. Often consumers do not put this time into their purchases. I do, but not as yet to the extent you have done, so well done.

The points you have made regarding the design issues in GSO dobsonian range are mostly valid - to a degree.

Dob repaint and My 10" GS Dob REBORN! - Cutting and powder Coating
-GSO dob rust
Link and;
Link

I wish to dispute the issues you have raised with the last point "Rust". This problem was apparently evident on the older, silver OTA, and I have also read posts here at IIS which suggest that this issue is not, and has not occurred on the white OTA's, which have been around for some time. So GSO fixed the problem. What's the issue with this? Aren't companies allowed to improve? To your credit you did mention that this issue has been fixed.

Finally, defective secondary mirrors appear to be very common to GSO made dobs, whereas I have not heard of anything like this for the Orion scopes. Indeed, some have returned their defective GSO secondary mirrors only to get another defective secondary!

Where has this information come from, just out of curiosity?


My summary on these telescopes (I have owned two) is that they are built to a price, simple as that. Yes they have issues with most the points you raise, but for 90% of the customers who want an economical Dobsonian telescope that just works out of the box and gives them satisfaction in using it, they do the job, and I think you are forgetting that important fact.

I would also like to note here that I have looked through several GSO dobs at my club that performed excellently, but they all needed substantial modifications to get to that stage.

I have used my two GSO dobs and others "straight out of the box" with a bit of collimation and they have performed excellent.

Your analysis of the truss designs is probably valid, BUT, as I said all scopes are built to a price, and built to a market, and I think you are being too critical of them.

Also your opinion of the location of the collimation screws is also probably valid form an optical and engineering analysis, but in the end, all I want are three easy-to-turn collimation screws to sufficiently collimate the mirrors. They do the job! My first scope's primary mirror collimation screws had three 3/16 bolts with wingnuts welded to the heads. They worked perfectly.

I think you need to resign to the fact that GSO Dobs are not for you, and you perhaps fall into the 10% of customers that will not be happy with the compromises made in their construction and design. You are obviously not GSO's "target market".

I am not going to debate the deepest, darkest details of faults with 'this scope' vs. 'that scope'. It seems you have made your decision on what build quality you wish to put your money on, and as a consumer, thats your prerogative. As I stated earlier, GSO Dobs are built to a price!.

Again, congratulations on most of your research into the pros and cons of these telescopes. I hope when you eventually decided to but one, one day in the future, you end up enjoying the wonders of the night sky.

[mic_m (Michael)]

Originally Posted by nightstalker

I think you need to buy the orion

The 10 " orion I have had a brief look over compared to my
10 "gso seemed to have a better finish without doubt .
Straight out of the box the gso will work great , The rust on the tubes was a issue with the early ones many years back I believe , the powder coating seems very differant these days, the need to fine tune and what to fine tune is a personal thing imo which you will deal with in time on any scope you buy.

Aside some of the more difficult mods tube shortening and such the adjustments seem pretty minor and easily handled . Many probably wheel there dob in and out year in year out without ever bothering with changing anything until they have to , can't judge that
to harshly ,if they are happy and enjoying the night sky its all good

good luck with your choice

Originally Posted by glenluceskies

Hi Michael,

I commend you for the effort you have put into researching your options for a new telescope. Often consumers do not put this time into their purchases. I do, but not as yet to the extent you have done, so well done.

The points you have made regarding the design issues in GSO dobsonian range are mostly valid - to a degree.

I wish to dispute the issues you have raised with the last point "Rust". This problem was apparently evident on the older, silver OTA, and I have also read posts here at IIS which suggest that this issue is not, and has not occurred on the white OTA's, which have been around for some time. So GSO fixed the problem. What's the issue with this? Aren't companies allowed to improve? To your credit you did mention that this issue has been fixed.

Where has this information come from, just out of curiosity?


My summary on these telescopes (I have owned two) is that they are built to a price, simple as that. Yes they have issues with most the points you raise, but for 90% of the customers who want an economical Dobsonian telescope that just works out of the box and gives them satisfaction in using it, they do the job, and I think you are forgetting that important fact.


I have used my two GSO dobs and others "straight out of the box" with a bit of collimation and they have performed excellent.

Your analysis of the truss designs is probably valid, BUT, as I said all scopes are built to a price, and built to a market, and I think you are being too critical of them.

Also your opinion of the location of the collimation screws is also probably valid form an optical and engineering analysis, but in the end, all I want are three easy-to-turn collimation screws to sufficiently collimate the mirrors. They do the job! My first scope's primary mirror collimation screws had three 3/16 bolts with wingnuts welded to the heads. They worked perfectly.

I think you need to resign to the fact that GSO Dobs are not for you, and you perhaps fall into the 10% of customers that will not be happy with the compromises made in their construction and design. You are obviously not GSO's "target market".

I am not going to debate the deepest, darkest details of faults with 'this scope' vs. 'that scope'. It seems you have made your decision on what build quality you wish to put your money on, and as a consumer, thats your prerogative. As I stated earlier, GSO Dobs are built to a price!.

Again, congratulations on most of your research into the pros and cons of these telescopes. I hope when you eventually decided to but one, one day in the future, you end up enjoying the wonders of the night sky.

Thanks for both of your posts - great comments.

Enjoying the night sky …I agree 100%; you have to do whatever maximises this experience for you.

I try not get too bogged down in my equipment; I like to enjoy what I have and I treat it is a tool to enhance my experience under the stars, not a pursuit in itself. I understand that others enjoy (some tolerate) the whole equipment modification side of amateur astronomy and I can completely understand that it can be a very rewarding pursuit – just not for me.

I have a GSO made reflector, and I have personally experienced some of the issues that I mentioned in my previous post, so when I decided to get my next scope I made a commitment to myself that it has to just work – no issues (or come as close to this ideal as possible given my constraints). I have zero brand loyally so whether it is an Orion a GSO or whatever does not both me in the slightest, my only concern it that it meets my needs and the Orion appears to do this best at present.

I feel that I should add that I don’t see the Orions as being perfect, they are far from it several ways – indeed they are no Obsession. Even in their own category, for example, they do not have all of the best features. The GSO two speed is superior to the Synta focuser (from personal experience and from reports), further the Syntas are often said to be more sticky in both alt and az then the new GSOs (I have experinced this myself in using others scopes but is has also been reported bu others). However in spite of these issues, I believe that in an overall sense the Orion comes closer to my ideal budget dob than does the GSO.

It’s good to know about the rust; thanks to both of you for posting on that. If I get another GSO at some stage I will do it with greater confidence now knowing that it has an improved finish.

In regard to my comment about the secondary mirrors being astigmatic due to optical defects and needing multiple replacements here are the links that I could find;

See post 7 here

See post 5 here

See these whole threads here and here

[stephenb (Stephen)]

Sorry Michael, but I have read the four posts you have made reference to the GSO secondaries, and quite frankly out of a large astronomical population who frequents CN, out of all the thousands of GSO-made dobsonian sold around the world under various brands, to me, this is not a large percentage to put me off buying one.

Just remember Michael, people will find faults (some legitimate and some not) in any scope, but you will only read about the bad ones, and never hear about the good reports.

I will only reiterate, economical Dobs are built to a price and a market. Are there any other similar scopes which are better quality "straight out of the box" you have looked at?

hoo roo

Stephen

[mic_m (Michael)]

Originally Posted by glenluceskies

Sorry Michael, but I have read the four posts you have made reference to the GSO secondaries, and quite frankly out of a large astronomical population who frequents CN, out of all the thousands of GSO-made dobsonian sold around the world under various brands, to me, this is not a large percentage to put me off buying one.

Just remember Michael, people will find faults (some legitimate and some not) in any scope, but you will only read about the bad ones, and never hear about the good reports.

I will only reiterate, economical Dobs are built to a price and a market. Are there any other similar scopes which are better quality "straight out of the box" you have looked at?

hoo roo

Stephen

Stephen, you are likely correct and given the GSO dobs seem to be very popular and therefore highly numerous among amateur astronomers I suppose that it is inevitable that the odd instance of secondary astigmatism will arise in a population of otherwise very good optics. I have rectified my original post on the matter so as not to confuse anyone with information that may be inaccurate.
Cheers.