Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Aperture Fever? 8" vs 10" or 12"

  • Please log in to reply
168 replies to this topic

#1 DNA7744

DNA7744

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 99
  • Joined: 02 Oct 2010
  • Loc: Big Bear Lake, CA

Posted 25 January 2019 - 12:51 PM

I love my Sky-Watcher Collapsible 8" Dobson...but I am just wondering about stepping up to a 10" or 12 " Dobson in the future.  I primarily enjoy lunar and DSO viewing...and was looking at possibly upgrading to either the Explore Scientific 10" Truss Dob or 12" Truss Dob.  Both weigh about the same as my Sky-Watcher 8".  Is the WOW factor for visual viewing worth the upgrade?  All scopes are f/5. 


Edited by DNA7744, 25 January 2019 - 01:04 PM.


#2 areyoukiddingme

areyoukiddingme

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3947
  • Joined: 18 Nov 2012

Posted 25 January 2019 - 01:08 PM

Going from 8 to 10 is not going to be a major jump, so I'd only go that way as a replacement, not as a complementary scope.

 

I'd go to 12" and that should be a nice bump. Globulars in particular will be a lot more resolved.


  • spaceoddity likes this

#3 Luca Brasi

Luca Brasi

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 246
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2017

Posted 25 January 2019 - 01:10 PM

I made the jump from a Orion 8" to a Skywatcher 14". It provided vast improvements in planets/moons, faint reflection nebula, and distant little galaxies. But mainly just increased the amount of objects I could identify...

I was a little disappointed in the little improvement in galaxy detail. Objects like Bodes Galaxy went from a fuzzy ball in my 8", to a fuzzy ball with a hint of arms in my 14".

I would say forget about the 10", you wouldn't notice the difference.

The 12" would improve Jupiter, Saturn and allow you to chase the fainter moons. If you have a very dark site, the 12" will bring more objects into view and provide a some improvement on large galaxies.

You can never really upgrade from an 8", it is the perfect blend of size and power. If you want a second scope go for a wider field (nice pair of binoculars and a mount) or save up and get the biggest beast you can fit in your car.
  • tcchittyjr, Bonco2, BinoGuy and 3 others like this

#4 TOMDEY

TOMDEY

    Gemini

  • -----
  • Posts: 3302
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014
  • Loc: Springwater, NY

Posted 25 January 2019 - 01:12 PM

Deep Sky will benefit the most. So going as big as your sensibilities can tolerate will be the most gratifying.    Tom


  • Jim Davenport, spaceoddity and Bob4BVM like this

#5 Dougeo

Dougeo

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 249
  • Joined: 21 Dec 2017
  • Loc: Apache Junction, AZ

Posted 25 January 2019 - 01:16 PM

Deep Sky will benefit the most. So going as big as your sensibilities can tolerate will be the most gratifying.    Tom

I totally agree with Tom.

 

Doug



#6 Jim Waters

Jim Waters

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2015
  • Joined: 21 Oct 2007
  • Loc: Phoenix, AZ USA

Posted 25 January 2019 - 01:17 PM

You should go to a 12" or maybe 14" scope.  You would not see a great improvement in a 10" scope.


  • Codbear likes this

#7 25585

25585

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3037
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2017
  • Loc: In a valley, in the UK.

Posted 25 January 2019 - 01:22 PM

I agree 12 inches is your next step. A SW collapsible like the 8 you have would be manageable, but 14 & up a full truss to keep weight down perhaps. 


  • spaceoddity likes this

#8 Starman47

Starman47

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 529
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2018
  • Loc: Tennessee

Posted 25 January 2019 - 01:33 PM

A 12" would more than double the surface area of the primary. So, more photons at the eyepiece.


  • 25585 likes this

#9 Cosmosphil

Cosmosphil

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1323
  • Joined: 04 Feb 2005
  • Loc: So. California

Posted 25 January 2019 - 01:39 PM

+1 on moving to at least a 12" from an 8"    That's a 125% gain or about 1/2 to 2/3rds magnitude gain.

That will give you more detail on the brighter objects you can already see with the 8" and you'll see

faint fuzzes in the 12" that are invisible in the 8".    

Lunar and planet detail / color will increase substantially as well.    


  • spaceoddity and DNA7744 like this

#10 Astro-Master

Astro-Master

    Ranger 4

  • ****-
  • Posts: 303
  • Joined: 09 May 2016

Posted 25 January 2019 - 01:42 PM

IMO 15" or 16" is where the DSO's come alive under dark skies.  Globulars, Galaxies, and Planetary nebula really show some detail.

Attend a star party and make up your own mind.  Look through as many different size scopes, and ask questions about ease of use and pros and cons.  Its better to buy a good used premium Dob than some newer China made scopes.  

Save your money, do the research, than decide on what to buy.



#11 Codbear

Codbear

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 758
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2016
  • Loc: Novato, CA

Posted 25 January 2019 - 02:14 PM

Around this place, what you've got barely classifies as being mildly overheated...you haven't even begun to feel the fever UNTIL you get to that 12" range or so. At that point you will turn into an aperture zombie!lol.gif

 

In all seriousness though, I think Jim Waters and Astro-Master have the right idea. I also enjoy DSOs and Lunar. While my 11" Teeter is extremely good, and certainly shows more than my TEC180, it was my Teeter 16" that really opened up the sky for me in a way that the other scopes couldn't. 

 

As others have said though, weight and manageability become much more of a consideration at the 16" size than say a 12".

 

And why isn't my Teeter 16" in my signature? I sold it! I have given my allegiance to The Dark Lord and am awaiting completion of my SpicaEye 24". Yes, I am a zombie.


  • Scott Beith and Astro-Master like this

#12 Cosmosphil

Cosmosphil

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1323
  • Joined: 04 Feb 2005
  • Loc: So. California

Posted 25 January 2019 - 03:25 PM

Around this place, what you've got barely classifies as being mildly overheated...you haven't even begun to feel the fever UNTIL you get to that 12" range or so. At that point you will turn into an aperture zombie!lol.gif

 

In all seriousness though, I think Jim Waters and Astro-Master have the right idea. I also enjoy DSOs and Lunar. While my 11" Teeter is extremely good, and certainly shows more than my TEC180, it was my Teeter 16" that really opened up the sky for me in a way that the other scopes couldn't. 

 

As others have said though, weight and manageability become much more of a consideration at the 16" size than say a 12".

 

And why isn't my Teeter 16" in my signature? I sold it! I have given my allegiance to The Dark Lord and am awaiting completion of my SpicaEye 24". Yes, I am a zombie.

I guess the lowly 11" is just the grab and go...……….ohmy.gif 

 

I do remember back in the day when we'd travel hours to just SEE a 10" or 12" scope not just look through them.  Zombification is for real in this post Dobsonian era!!


  • Codbear likes this

#13 gwlee

gwlee

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1514
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2015
  • Loc: 38N 120W

Posted 25 January 2019 - 03:52 PM

I love my Sky-Watcher Collapsible 8" Dobson...but I am just wondering about stepping up to a 10" or 12 " Dobson in the future.  I primarily enjoy lunar and DSO viewing...and was looking at possibly upgrading to either the Explore Scientific 10" Truss Dob or 12" Truss Dob.  Both weigh about the same as my Sky-Watcher 8".  Is the WOW factor for visual viewing worth the upgrade?  All scopes are f/5. 

The difference in views going from 8 to 12 will generate a "wow," so will the difference  in weight.  A few pounds that might seem insignificant when reading about them in the catalogue become much more significant in use, so I'd wouldn't recommend replacing the 12 with the 8 unless you find the 12 EASY to manage because telescopes seem to get much heavier to me after the new wears off. Over time, the visual WOW becomes wow, and the weight wow become WOW! 


Edited by gwlee, 25 January 2019 - 03:54 PM.

  • Javier1978 and Bonco2 like this

#14 Bonco2

Bonco2

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 212
  • Joined: 01 Jun 2013

Posted 25 January 2019 - 04:01 PM

I just sold a 10 inch  so that I could buy a 8 inch. For me it was a good choice because of the weight factor.

Bill



#15 TOMDEY

TOMDEY

    Gemini

  • -----
  • Posts: 3302
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014
  • Loc: Springwater, NY

Posted 25 January 2019 - 04:09 PM

Sigh... yes... the fever only gets worse... The problem is that, whatever you got, the vendors seem to just keep making bigger ones...

 

Reminds me of the classic Hitchcock movie Vertigo. The hero (pb James Stewart) has this obsessive crush on the heroine (pb Kim Novak) and she comments, "You've got it BAD?!"

 

Here's my progression >>>  Tom

Attached Thumbnails

  • 44 90 collage.jpg
  • 43 80 Vertigo.jpg

  • Scott Beith, Cosmosphil, Asbytec and 7 others like this

#16 stargazer193857

stargazer193857

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7108
  • Joined: 01 Dec 2013
  • Loc: Southern Idaho

Posted 25 January 2019 - 05:46 PM

Reading this thread I wonder how 10" scopes get sold at all.

Even though a 10" could have less coma, I think I'd try to sell 11" scopes just to catch more 8" upgrades.

Edited by stargazer193857, 25 January 2019 - 06:03 PM.


#17 stargazer193857

stargazer193857

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7108
  • Joined: 01 Dec 2013
  • Loc: Southern Idaho

Posted 25 January 2019 - 06:06 PM

If you could have a 10" that is 30 pounds, would you switch to that from the 8"? Maybe some 6" owners would go for it, if they could afford it. Maybe some chose 6" for weight reasons, though many reject 8" for cost reasons.

Anyone here stayed inside on a good night because you did not feel like taking out an 8"?

#18 spaceoddity

spaceoddity

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1992
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2009
  • Loc: Cloudsylvania

Posted 25 January 2019 - 06:19 PM

I made the jump from a Orion 8" to a Skywatcher 14". It provided vast improvements in planets/moons, faint reflection nebula, and distant little galaxies. But mainly just increased the amount of objects I could identify...

I was a little disappointed in the little improvement in galaxy detail. Objects like Bodes Galaxy went from a fuzzy ball in my 8", to a fuzzy ball with a hint of arms in my 14".

I would say forget about the 10", you wouldn't notice the difference.

The 12" would improve Jupiter, Saturn and allow you to chase the fainter moons. If you have a very dark site, the 12" will bring more objects into view and provide a some improvement on large galaxies.

You can never really upgrade from an 8", it is the perfect blend of size and power. If you want a second scope go for a wider field (nice pair of binoculars and a mount) or save up and get the biggest beast you can fit in your car.

I think 1 object where a 10" shines over an 8 is breaking open the larger globulars. A 10 keeps up pretty well with a 12 on globulars, but a 12 is noticeably better on everything else(except maybe the moon). Glad you mentioned Jupiter and Saturn. People tend to think that more aperture is just for fainter stuff, but that extra resolving power is very noticeable on planets. My friends 12 always showed more detail on Jupiter than my 10. Even with my 16, seeing details like spiral arms in galaxies is tough - takes dark skies and good transparency along with averted vision/dark adapted eyes. It is possible in a 12 and even a 10 under great conditions. 


  • DNA7744, Bonco2 and Luca Brasi like this

#19 kfiscus

kfiscus

    Baltic Birch Dob Bases

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 6436
  • Joined: 09 Jul 2012
  • Loc: Albert Lea, MN, USA

Posted 25 January 2019 - 07:06 PM

12" is the perfect size for DSOs.



#20 Asbytec

Asbytec

    Guy in a furry hat

  • *****
  • Posts: 14665
  • Joined: 08 Aug 2007
  • Loc: Pampanga, PI

Posted 25 January 2019 - 09:03 PM

I like the idea of a one magnitude jump as being a good rule of thumb, even though I did not follow that advice when I bought my second scope. Primarily because I cured aperture fever

 

I have not defeated the idea larger aperture shows more, that would be something and I don't imagine making many friends pursuing that angle. I just changed the way I think about it by putting emphasis on myself to see more through whatever aperture I use currently. It's challenging, to be sure, but I obtain personal reward in the challenge itself. Almost ironically, that's (almost) true even if I do not see anything at all. NGC 660 has so far avoided me, but I am still determined to go after it. Even just a peek at it is more rewarding in it's own right than nothing at all. The thrill of the chase. The employment of not just machine, but of man and machine. A 12" offers the same challenges, only those challenges are deeper. 

 

Absolutely fine to observe through larger aperture, there is plenty of cosmic beauty to be had. That's what we're after. I chased aperture nearly all my life looking for every more detail. Until I made the paradigm shift from the equipment to myself as an observer. I do not get the beautiful images of a larger aperture, but I feel the same reward with what I have learned to see in a smaller one. Again, it's fine to go big because those same challenges exist on a deeper scale. But, the point is, the emphasis on observing and the reward that comes with it almost makes our equipment meaningless. Beauty is simply a matter of observing and the cosmic scale we feel rewarded by observing it. That doesn't change the fact larger aperture shows more, but the "fever" itself is tamed. 

 

Sigh, I digress and talk too much...get the largest aperture you can afford and use easily enough, I say the 12" (over twice the surface area) is a nice almost 1 magnitude boost over the 8". Most importantly, get it for the right reasons and enjoy whatever aperture you decide on. There are cosmic challenges to be had in every aperture.  smile.gif


Edited by Asbytec, 25 January 2019 - 09:09 PM.

  • Scott Beith, Jon Isaacs, daquad and 8 others like this

#21 Jond105

Jond105

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2510
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2018
  • Loc: Detroit

Posted 25 January 2019 - 09:14 PM

I've read great reviews on the 16" ES Truss. So I'd suggest from an 8", go 12" or go all out and get the 16" ES Truss.

Edited by Jond105, 25 January 2019 - 09:14 PM.


#22 Jond105

Jond105

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2510
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2018
  • Loc: Detroit

Posted 25 January 2019 - 09:19 PM

Reading this thread I wonder how 10" scopes get sold at all.

Even though a 10" could have less coma, I think I'd try to sell 11" scopes just to catch more 8" upgrades.


I think they are sold for people like me. Easily manageable, was my first dob, I chose it to go with my 100 and 120mm refractors. 12" seemed to cumbersome, 8" felt like I'd want the little extra aperture.
  • 25585 likes this

#23 N3p

N3p

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 436
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2018

Posted 25 January 2019 - 09:44 PM

No matter what happens, I would keep the 8" because moving the 12" is not something I would be up to on every available occasions. I find it hard to exhaust a 8", after 3 years I still think it's pretty good, not too hard to move but I still find it heavy.


  • Jon Isaacs, DNA7744 and 25585 like this

#24 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 75554
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 25 January 2019 - 10:49 PM

There was a time I owned an 8 inch and a 12.5 inch.  Then a 10 inch F/5 was offered on Astromart at a very good price and bought it . 

 

6035960-3bears2.jpg
 
Soon I parted ways with the 8 inch because I never found a reason to use the 8 inch when the 10 was around. That was more than 15:years ago.  I still have the 10 inch and the12.5 inch. 
 
I believe ergonomic differences are more important that magnitude gained.  If a scope is too big or too awkward,  it's unlikely to get much use. .
 
Jon

  • Scott Beith, Scott Rose, daquad and 4 others like this

#25 stargazer193857

stargazer193857

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7108
  • Joined: 01 Dec 2013
  • Loc: Southern Idaho

Posted 25 January 2019 - 11:10 PM

The longer focal length of the 12" f5 is a big contributed to its power. Extra magnification without magnifying the errors.

That same length means you need a more complex chair, and bigger eyepieces if you want to stay wide. Yes, I'm well aware the 12" is better than the 10" for many small things. But the 10" is easier to transport, and maybe good enough.

And the person who said to get a 14" or 16": at budget prices, though are big scopes that take some serious setup.
  • daquad, DNA7744, Codbear and 1 other like this


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics