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

Differences between 10 and 12"

  • Please log in to reply
58 replies to this topic

#1 Pitu

Pitu

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 20
  • Joined: 13 Dec 2020

Posted 24 July 2021 - 08:02 PM

Hi guys.
I'm relatively new in astronomy and whatever I write might not make sense.
I owned two Meade lightbridge 10" and month ago I bought same Meade lightbridge 12"
Almost month I'm trying to see the difference comparing side by side looking in same object,same eyepieces but I can't see much difference between 2 telescope except when I have to take them out of my basement knowing that 12"it is lot more Heavier.
Object observed are
Ring Nebula, Dumbell Nebula, some of M clusters, Saturn and Jupiter. And of course Moon.
I live in Toronto so my "observatory" lol it is my backyard.
Also have light Shroud on both telescopes.
So my questions are:
1. I can't see the difference because I'm beginner or not much difference?
2. How much worth to keep 12"and Carry that heay telescope every time out from the basement?
Thanks for reading my post.
Cheers 🍻

#2 wrvond

wrvond

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,364
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2014
  • Loc: West Virginia

Posted 24 July 2021 - 08:16 PM

There is a difference, but not a huge one. Once upon a time, 10" reflectors were considered "big" telescopes. Now, 12" reflectors are considered the entry level into "big" telescope territory. A 12" can reveal more DSOs than a 10", but there are so many DSO's to see you could go a lifetime and never miss the difference in targets available.


  • psandelle, dragonstar4565, ram812 and 3 others like this

#3 kfiscus

kfiscus

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,239
  • Joined: 09 Jul 2012
  • Loc: Albert Lea, MN, USA

Posted 24 July 2021 - 08:16 PM

The difference will show itself when you are fully dark-adapted and your eye/brain combo are fully trained while working on finding a faint fuzzy.  I went from a 10" to 12" scope years ago.  Once I did that, the 10" just collected dust until I sold it.  For me, the lugging was worth it.


  • psandelle, BillShort, Allan Wade and 2 others like this

#4 grzesznypl

grzesznypl

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 671
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2019
  • Loc: Jackson Heights, NY

Posted 24 July 2021 - 08:35 PM

Its is hard to have your eyes fully dark adapted when you observe from the big city and stray light attacks you from every single possible direction. The difference will be obvious once you observe from darker site.


  • Pitu likes this

#5 Sky_LO

Sky_LO

    No Kick - Mount Marker Lights

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 439
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2018
  • Loc: Oregon USA

Posted 24 July 2021 - 08:37 PM

I had a 12 inch lightbridge in my backyard a while back  

viewing side by side with my XT 10i.    

 

Looking at the Leo Triplet - you could see all three galaxies from my light polluted yard in the 12 inch-

In the Xt 10i - you could clearly see two and had to look VERY carefully to see the third.       

 

So there is a slight difference.  

Ed ting always recommends an 8 inch dob over a ten inch dob for the same reason as your concern. 

ease of use/portability.  He says, "there is nothing that will magically appear in the ten inch that can't be seen by the eight"   So while he is right there is always an "incremental" improvement with an aperture increase.  

 

Whether that improvement is worth it depends on all the trade offs and factors in play.

 

I would suggest using the ten when there is a partial moon, or poor seeing, or bad transparency.

And select bright targets accordingly.  Use it more day to day.   Then, drag out the larger one on those moonless nights and if viewing at a dark site location to take advantage of the good conditions.

 

-Lauren   


  • JohnnyMac, psandelle, ShaulaB and 6 others like this

#6 Bill Jensen

Bill Jensen

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 993
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2004
  • Loc: Springfield VA

Posted 24 July 2021 - 08:46 PM

Hi guys.
I'm relatively new in astronomy and whatever I write might not make sense.
I owned two Meade lightbridge 10" and month ago I bought same Meade lightbridge 12"
Almost month I'm trying to see the difference comparing side by side looking in same object,same eyepieces but I can't see much difference between 2 telescope except when I have to take them out of my basement knowing that 12"it is lot more Heavier.
Object observed are
Ring Nebula, Dumbell Nebula, some of M clusters, Saturn and Jupiter. And of course Moon.
I live in Toronto so my "observatory" lol it is my backyard.
Also have light Shroud on both telescopes.
So my questions are:
1. I can't see the difference because I'm beginner or not much difference?
2. How much worth to keep 12"and Carry that heay telescope every time out from the basement?
Thanks for reading my post.
Cheers

You may want to try a couple of different targets, such as M81 and M82 for comparison. the 12 ought to show the galaxies a bit better. Also, try some brighter globular clusters, such as M13, or M92. More importantly, try them in darker skies than your backyard, if possible 


  • turtle86, ram812 and Pitu like this

#7 Keith Rivich

Keith Rivich

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,951
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2011
  • Loc: Cypress, Tx

Posted 24 July 2021 - 09:04 PM

The difference in the scopes will show itself when you start going after really faint, marginal DSO's. On the bright stuff...not so much. 

 

A good jump from a 10-12" scope would something in the 16-18" range. You will notice the difference.


  • Bill Jensen, turtle86, GUS.K and 2 others like this

#8 turtle86

turtle86

    Mr. Coffee

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,167
  • Joined: 09 Oct 2006

Posted 24 July 2021 - 09:30 PM

Hi guys.
I'm relatively new in astronomy and whatever I write might not make sense.
I owned two Meade lightbridge 10" and month ago I bought same Meade lightbridge 12"
Almost month I'm trying to see the difference comparing side by side looking in same object,same eyepieces but I can't see much difference between 2 telescope except when I have to take them out of my basement knowing that 12"it is lot more Heavier.
Object observed are
Ring Nebula, Dumbell Nebula, some of M clusters, Saturn and Jupiter. And of course Moon.
I live in Toronto so my "observatory" lol it is my backyard.
Also have light Shroud on both telescopes.
So my questions are:
1. I can't see the difference because I'm beginner or not much difference?
2. How much worth to keep 12"and Carry that heay telescope every time out from the basement?
Thanks for reading my post.
Cheers

 

Going from 10 to 12" isn't a big aperture jump to begin with, and it would be all the more difficult to discern a difference if you have significant light pollution.  I think the difference would be more apparent at a darker site, particularly with fainter extended objects.  

 

Since your 10" is a bit easier to get out than your 12", I would use the 10" more for backyard observing, and the 12" for observing at a dark site.  I have a 12.5" myself, and it's amazing how much deeper it goes at my dark site than in my backyard.


  • Bill Jensen, ram812 and Pitu like this

#9 MeridianStarGazer

MeridianStarGazer

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11,732
  • Joined: 01 Dec 2013
  • Loc: Southern Idaho

Posted 24 July 2021 - 09:55 PM

I'd much rather lift the 10". I've lifted both.

The difference in view can be noticeable, depending on the magnifications and what you aim it at, a nice difference, or not so much.

People cart the 12" around and tip and slide it into their mini-vans. If they are going to a dark site, they want the extra aperture. But depending on your vehicle and body, the 10" may be better for you.


  • rodrig02 and psandelle like this

#10 Redbetter

Redbetter

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11,121
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2016
  • Loc: Central Valley, CA

Posted 24 July 2021 - 10:06 PM

The difference in the scopes will show itself when you start going after really faint, marginal DSO's. On the bright stuff...not so much. 

This is the key to evaluating any incremental aperture upgrade.  It is at the margins where the smaller scope can not quite see or reveal something, while the larger one can be used for confirmation of things just glimpsed/suspected in the smaller scope..


  • Keith Rivich and Pitu like this

#11 RLK1

RLK1

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,404
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2020

Posted 24 July 2021 - 10:49 PM

Going from 10 to 12" isn't a big aperture jump to begin with, and it would be all the more difficult to discern a difference if you have significant light pollution.  I think the difference would be more apparent at a darker site, particularly with fainter extended objects.  

 

Since your 10" is a bit easier to get out than your 12", I would use the 10" more for backyard observing, and the 12" for observing at a dark site.  I have a 12.5" myself, and it's amazing how much deeper it goes at my dark site than in my backyard.

Having compared both my 10" f5 and 12.5" f5 at a dark sky site in the past, I felt disappointed in the views provided by the 10". It had the image scale of an ant and how one doesn't immediately recognize that in comparison to a 12.5" is perplexing to me to say the least. I really had to crank up the power on the 10" to provide what I would consider a reasonable rendition of commonly observed DSOs, especially with planetary nebulas. When Ed Ting calls the 12.5" the smallest of the large scopes, he does so for a reason. A 10" isn't in the same league with a 12.5", not even close...


  • siriusandthepup, grzesznypl and Pitu like this

#12 Keith Rivich

Keith Rivich

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,951
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2011
  • Loc: Cypress, Tx

Posted 24 July 2021 - 10:55 PM

Having compared both my 10" f5 and 12.5" f5 at a dark sky site in the past, I felt disappointed in the views provided by the 10". It had the image scale of an ant and how one doesn't immediately recognize that in comparison to a 12.5" is perplexing to me to say the least. I really had to crank up the power on the 10" to provide what I would consider a reasonable rendition of commonly observed DSOs, especially with planetary nebulas. When Ed Ting calls the 12.5" the smallest of the large scopes, he does so for a reason. A 10" isn't in the same league with a 12.5", not even close...

Very true when observing from a dark sky. My first jump in aperture was from an 8 to a 12.5". Big difference. The OP, however,  is observing from Toronto...not exactly a dark sky paradise! 


  • siriusandthepup, turtle86 and Pitu like this

#13 turtle86

turtle86

    Mr. Coffee

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,167
  • Joined: 09 Oct 2006

Posted 25 July 2021 - 08:44 PM

Having compared both my 10" f5 and 12.5" f5 at a dark sky site in the past, I felt disappointed in the views provided by the 10". It had the image scale of an ant and how one doesn't immediately recognize that in comparison to a 12.5" is perplexing to me to say the least. I really had to crank up the power on the 10" to provide what I would consider a reasonable rendition of commonly observed DSOs, especially with planetary nebulas. When Ed Ting calls the 12.5" the smallest of the large scopes, he does so for a reason. A 10" isn't in the same league with a 12.5", not even close...

 

From a dark site, I totally agree, but remember that the OP says he is a beginner and that he is observing in an urban area with a lot of light pollution.  Light pollution destroys contrast and would make a comparison somewhat difficult.  As Keith noted, the main difference would be seen with really faint, marginal DSO's, the very type of objects that would be most vulnerable to light pollution.

 

Back when I was starting out, I was struck by how M33 was very easy to spot in binoculars from a dark site, yet very hard to see in my 8" SCT from my light-polluted backyard.


  • Bill Jensen, psandelle, ShaulaB and 1 other like this

#14 Pitu

Pitu

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 20
  • Joined: 13 Dec 2020

Posted 25 July 2021 - 08:58 PM

Thanks everyone for yours advice and opinions.
Yes I observ from the city and very ligh pollute. Maybe if everything got OK Maybe 2 times I'll go to dark area.
I'll keep 12" for now.
Thanks again for the advice.
Cheers
  • turtle86, psandelle and grzesznypl like this

#15 turtle86

turtle86

    Mr. Coffee

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,167
  • Joined: 09 Oct 2006

Posted 25 July 2021 - 09:04 PM

Thanks everyone for yours advice and opinions.
Yes I observ from the city and very ligh pollute. Maybe if everything got OK Maybe 2 times I'll go to dark area.
I'll keep 12" for now.
Thanks again for the advice.
Cheers

 

You're very welcome!  I'm glad you're keeping the 12" for now.  Once you get to observe with it at a dark site, I think you'll be very happy with what it can do.


  • Pitu likes this

#16 Illinois

Illinois

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,298
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2006
  • Loc: Dixon, IL. Bortle 2 land in Wis.

Posted 26 July 2021 - 06:23 AM

I had 10 inch dobsonian and I like it very much then jump to 16 inch because I know that 12 inch is not that much difference. 12 inch is better than 10 inch in real dark clear sky to look for very faint galaxy or group of faint galaxies. If only one telescope for everything from deep sky to planetary then I pick a good 10” dobsonian.  Easy to carry and fit in car. 


Edited by Illinois, 26 July 2021 - 06:24 AM.

  • sopticals, Tom Stock and Pitu like this

#17 Pitu

Pitu

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 20
  • Joined: 13 Dec 2020

Posted 26 July 2021 - 08:37 AM

Funny thing. The older gentleman who sold me 12" it's retiring from this hobby. Also his friend probably the same age it's retiring From this hobby too and he have 16" lightbridge. Now we are trying to Negotiate I'm buying it from him the 16"
  • turtle86, psandelle and Tom Stock like this

#18 Darren Drake

Darren Drake

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,307
  • Joined: 09 Oct 2002
  • Loc: Chicagoland

Posted 26 July 2021 - 09:50 AM

Its funny that there is this thread and a 30 VS 25 thread right next to it here.  The % is exactly the same.  The larger aperture has exactly 44% more light than the smaller aperture. 


Edited by Darren Drake, 26 July 2021 - 11:57 AM.

  • Pitu likes this

#19 RLK1

RLK1

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,404
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2020

Posted 26 July 2021 - 11:33 AM

From a dark site, I totally agree, but remember that the OP says he is a beginner and that he is observing in an urban area with a lot of light pollution.  Light pollution destroys contrast and would make a comparison somewhat difficult.  As Keith noted, the main difference would be seen with really faint, marginal DSO's, the very type of objects that would be most vulnerable to light pollution.

 

Back when I was starting out, I was struck by how M33 was very easy to spot in binoculars from a dark site, yet very hard to see in my 8" SCT from my light-polluted backyard.

I'm not sure if people are simply trolling here or not, but I've already read the initial post in this thread and I know where the OP observes from so I don't need to have it repeated back to me in recurrent posts. Additionally, the OP subsequently states, in a later post, that perhaps he'll go to a dark sky site.  And, from my own post, I noted, "I really had to crank up the power on the 10" to provide what I would consider a reasonable rendition of commonly observed DSOs" so I'm not referring to "really faint, marginal DSO's, the very type of objects that would be most vulnerable to light pollution." I'm guessing I wasn't specific enough in describing the difference in image scale when I stated in reference to a 10 F5 that, "It had the image scale of an ant and how one doesn't immediately recognize that in comparison to a 12.5" is perplexing to me to say the least." Forgive me in not qualifying that further by not referring to the exact body part of an ant, in this case, its antennae(one).

And when Ed Ting states, for good reason, that the 12" is the smallest of the large scopes, he isn't referring to the physical aspects of a tube. But, speaking of tubes, which apparently are more of a concern in this thread, it should be noted that 12/12.5" scopes are available in truss designs and having both of these at one time or another, I'd much rather easily transport the latter than push a 10 reflector tube into the back of my SUV.  

In light of the above, it should now be obvious that when I stated,  "A 10" isn't in the same league with a 12.5", not even close...", I meant it...



#20 turtle86

turtle86

    Mr. Coffee

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,167
  • Joined: 09 Oct 2006

Posted 26 July 2021 - 12:15 PM

I'm not sure if people are simply trolling here or not, but I've already read the initial post in this thread and I know where the OP observes from so I don't need to have it repeated back to me in recurrent posts. Additionally, the OP subsequently states, in a later post, that perhaps he'll go to a dark sky site.  And, from my own post, I noted, "I really had to crank up the power on the 10" to provide what I would consider a reasonable rendition of commonly observed DSOs" so I'm not referring to "really faint, marginal DSO's, the very type of objects that would be most vulnerable to light pollution." I'm guessing I wasn't specific enough in describing the difference in image scale when I stated in reference to a 10 F5 that, "It had the image scale of an ant and how one doesn't immediately recognize that in comparison to a 12.5" is perplexing to me to say the least." Forgive me in not qualifying that further by not referring to the exact body part of an ant, in this case, its antennae(one).

And when Ed Ting states, for good reason, that the 12" is the smallest of the large scopes, he isn't referring to the physical aspects of a tube. But, speaking of tubes, which apparently are more of a concern in this thread, it should be noted that 12/12.5" scopes are available in truss designs and having both of these at one time or another, I'd much rather easily transport the latter than push a 10 reflector tube into the back of my SUV.  

In light of the above, it should now be obvious that when I stated,  "A 10" isn't in the same league with a 12.5", not even close...", I meant it...

 

My post was simply directed to your post #11, in which you, in responding to my earlier post, only mentioned your observing experience from a dark site, and didn't mention anything about making a comparison from a light-polluted site, which is what the OP was talking about.  I really have no idea of which posts from the OP you've read or haven't read and can only respond to what you actually wrote in your post.


  • Jon Isaacs likes this

#21 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 94,557
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 26 July 2021 - 12:22 PM

My post was simply directed to your post #11, in which you, in responding to my earlier post, only mentioned your observing experience from a dark site, and didn't mention anything about making a comparison from a light-polluted site, which is what the OP was talking about.  I really have no idea of which posts from the OP you've read or haven't read and can only respond to what you actually wrote in your post.

I have had my 12.5 inch for over 20 years, my 10 inch for 18 years.  Both of them have been all over the southwest. 

 

There's definitely a difference but I would say they are more the same than they are different.

 

Jon 


  • Doug Culbertson, turtle86, psandelle and 4 others like this

#22 RLK1

RLK1

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,404
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2020

Posted 26 July 2021 - 02:06 PM

My post was simply directed to your post #11, in which you, in responding to my earlier post, only mentioned your observing experience from a dark site, and didn't mention anything about making a comparison from a light-polluted site, which is what the OP was talking about.  I really have no idea of which posts from the OP you've read or haven't read and can only respond to what you actually wrote in your post.

Without wanting to belabor the point, I think it's axiomatic that I've read the OP's initial post since I've referred to it in mine. And, as noted in a prior post by another contributor,  and one in which you referenced  and repeated in yours, I obviously read the comment about observing differences in a dark sky relative to DSOs. 



#23 RLK1

RLK1

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,404
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2020

Posted 26 July 2021 - 02:09 PM

I have had my 12.5 inch for over 20 years, my 10 inch for 18 years.  Both of them have been all over the southwest. 

 

There's definitely a difference but I would say they are more the same than they are different.

 

Jon 

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. My experience is that they are more different, by a wide margin,  than they are similar...



#24 turtle86

turtle86

    Mr. Coffee

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,167
  • Joined: 09 Oct 2006

Posted 26 July 2021 - 03:21 PM

Without wanting to belabor the point, I think it's axiomatic that I've read the OP's initial post since I've referred to it in mine. And, as noted in a prior post by another contributor,  and one in which you referenced  and repeated in yours, I obviously read the comment about observing differences in a dark sky relative to DSOs. 

 

And yet you choose to belabor the point.



#25 RLK1

RLK1

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,404
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2020

Posted 26 July 2021 - 03:25 PM

And yet you choose to belabor the point.

Because some can't connect the dots...




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