new dobs

[toothferry]

Dobsonian buyers have a few more options, better features and new designs to choose from nowadays, just in time for brilliant fall stargazing. <br /><br />The Orions, in both Classic and Intelliscope formats, now feature a right-angle 50mm finder scope and a Crayford-style 'zero backlash' focuser, apparently without increasing their base price. That would run another $100 as accessories before this past month. BTW, Orion has also been offering a 12" classic and intelliscope Dobsonian now for a couple of months.. Tempting!<br /><br />Also, an exciting brand new line of "truss" Dobsonian line is out by Meade. Meade's Lightbridge available in 8" f/6, 10" f/5, 12.5" f/5, and 16" f/4.5. I'm surprised to see the 8" and 10" in truss design. It seems they should be too small to warrant the extra setup time. But all these models look way sharp, and the 16" looks to be very portable light bucket.. I mean 'bridge' <img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" /><br /><br />I'm an owner of an Orion 10" dob. With all the new stuff that out I'm tempted to 'upgrade'. I'm thinking that going from a 10" to 12" would be too subtle a difference to make another investment. The Meade 16" Lightbridge looks Most Tempting, but I'm concerned about truss designs in general. <br /><br />Do they always require collimation every time they are setup, and what are the drawbacks to truss designs in general?<br /><br />any suggestions or ideas about these scopes would be appreciated, thanks

 

[kyle_baron]

<i><br />Do they always require collimation every time they are setup, and what are the drawbacks to truss designs in general? </i><br /><br />Yes, you should collimate each time, because the trusses are disassembled and reassembled each time.<br />But, this is only a 2-3 minute operation with a barlowed laser. I have an 18" Obsession, and an 8" Orion. The Meade 16" would be a good jump in aperature for deep sky observing.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[toothferry]

for the Obsession, do you have to use a step stool to observe near zenith?

 

[kyle_baron]

Because I'm quite tall (6'5") I'm frequently on my "tippy toes", when observing near zenith. Anyone shorter would need a step stool. When looking at scopes, the manufacture usually gives eyepiece height. This is NOT the same as your height, unless your eyes are at the top of your head! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Some people have made this mistake, don't be one of them! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

That's what the third eye is for <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[toothferry]

I sense that I should not go larger than the 16" f/4.5, else I will need a step ladder to use it. BTW, do these offer decent high magnification views of planets? <br />

 

[kyle_baron]

Just some sugestions: Planets are plenty bright. You don't need a larger scope for planets or the moon. IIRC, Todd Gross (weatherman -astronromer) said the ideal size scope needed for planets, falls between 11-13". A 10" is close enough. Even my 8" gives excellent planetary views. Buy the larger scope for Deep Sky (faint fuzzies). And keep both scopes! I have the 2 scopes and an expensive 10x50 pair of binoculars. Some ameratures have even more! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>