Thanks for this video, very informative. At some stage I will probably be moving up from a 10 inch dob so videos like this are great and there is not enough of them on the net.
I upgraded from a 10" dob to a 16 a few years ago and to be honest the difference really isn't as mind blowing as I hoped it would be. There's a few objects that really popped in the 16 like the ring nebula because you can actually see a neon bluish-green color through the 16 and globulars are a little better, most notably M4. I find myself taking out the 10 more now because it's a solid tube and much easier to transport and set up vs. a 16 truss. The views are also satisfying. My friend has a 12 and I always liked his scope a lot. I've thought about selling both the 10 and 16 and buying a 12. It really is the best all-purpose size IMO. Now if you are lucky enough to live under dark skies and can just roll it out of the garage to observe, then get the biggest you can afford.
I'm a newbie backyard astronomer with a 10" Dobsonian that I've had about 3 weeks. My backyard south-facing patio is a decent place to see stars, but I haven't yet had a really clear dark night with it yet. I've seen the greatest hits: jupiter, saturn, orion nebula, andromeda, sirius, etc. I think I'll take it to a really dark area without lights next week. Time to upgrade the stock eyepieces!
Sir, I wish their were more side by side comparison vids like this one. The biggest question on most newbie astronomers minds is "What will i see with X, Y and Z size telescopes ?" "What more will i see, and what details will i see, if i buy Z instead of Y ?" or "Is it worth spending an extra $1000 on Z instead of Y for an extra couple inches of Aperture ?". IMO this vid is exactly the correct format to help newbies and not so newbies decide how much it's worth spending for the extra inches of aperture, so as to acquire the best "Dollar per inch of Aperture" Ratio, all other variables being equal. Thank You for a great vid sir! Wes, Liverpool, UK.
Awesome video! This is exactly what I needed as I want to go from 8 to either 12 or 16... Think it's gonna be the 16 now! Greetings from Germany and clear skies!
@@DakotaStarryNights Thnx, I lucked out. It fell out of the sky landed in my lap for a song..I'm jacked on deep sky. At present I'm talking with Eric Webster about building a 28" for me. Tough to find parts today though.. This covid shutdown knocked just about every industry on its backside...
I've had a 16" dob since 2001 and I love it. What makes the most difference in the image thru the eyepiece is how dark, transparent & steady the skies are. It's all about location & conditions. From a crappy location, a 16" will show a grey fuzzball a little larger than a 12" scope will. From a great location the 12" will show much more detail in a galaxy or nebula than a 16" will from the crappy location. On the best nights from our local dark sky spots in LA. & MS. I can barely see a dark lane in M31. From New Mexico Skies in Mayhill, NM at 7400' altitude, M31 looked like a black & white photo with incredible detail. It was better than a photo. Same with M51. Amazing detail all along the dark lanes in the spiral arms. Great transparency at that site. So far the best planetary views have been from home and local star parties. We get steady skies occasionally, sometimes perfect. I was able to view Mars during the 2003 opposition thru my 16" and a 20" set up next to mine on a night with perfect seeing. Later that night Saturn came up. The views of the planets thru both scopes was perfect. The only advantage I saw in the 20" was an image that was a little larger using the same eyepiece (Pentax 5.2XL). A 14" dob might be the sweet spot of manageability and not needing a ladder or step stool.
Perfect skies. Hmm you live at 20,000 feet? Sarcasm aside, I'm retiring and have found many near-dark sky sites around the country where I could live. Most of them are close to small cites shaded from city lights by low mountains.
@@toomanyhobbies2011 I was thinking the same thing myself! lol. I thought "my friend, unless you live on a orbiting satellite around Earth, the views are never going to be "perfect" from any location on Earth due to the atmosphere! But obviously I completely understood what he was trying to convey, that the views were amazing! I'd love to one day be able to go to the top of the tallest mountain in Chile and view the night skies many Blessings through a HUGE Telescope! Maybe, just maybe, one day it might happen...Wes.
Location means altitude and away from cities. Like 9000ft elevation. Although, the atmosphere is packed more at lower elevation, so my house at 2500 ft in the Socal High Desert is a lot better off than Los Angeles at sea level. But nothing beats CA Tejon Pass at night to see the center of the Milky Way light up.
In 1983 a friend of mine bought an Odessy 13.1 Dobsonian Telescope. We would drag that blue monster a few miles outside of town where the sky was pitch black. We'd look through that thing for hours and always be amazed at the things we could see. Such a huge step up from my 60mm refractor.
I remember when TeleVue first came out with the 13mm Nagler eyepiece...WOW! It was hard to believe that up to that point Erfles were the hottest wide field eyepiece (65 degree FOV) to own even though half the field was full of seagull stars.
Turning into my 60s now, I went back from 16" to 8" - just due to portability and easy usability. With a steady EQ-platform beneath and wide-angle-eyepieces is still exciting and very rewarding "being out there". CS to everybody.
Yeah, there's nothing like a scope you can just pick up and go. Large aperture is great only if you've got the dark skies and muscles to handle it. Thanks for posting.
Might’ve been a good idea to use an eyepiece in the 12 that gave the same image scale as the 16. The difference in resolving power would likely have been more evident.
...great video thanks for performing the comparison. ...I think the key is the giveaway reflexive thrill and wonder you displayed when the satellites cut across your views and that, after all, is what keeps me dragging out my 12" and being awestruck at the visible universe. You can't measure awe in inches...
As a life long amateur having 3-16” scopes my all time favorite is my 8” metal tube dob for use at home urban/rural skies and the 16 for taking to dark sites where it will be setup for 2 nights. The 8” dob blows away the 16” truss at home with slightly light polluted skies. My all time best observing session was in Utah desert with my 4.5” Astro-can (red ball scope) I ran through the Virgo galaxy chain it was unbelievable.
A guy can see a lot with a 6 and they are super portable. Charles Messier did his observing with a 100 mm (four-inch) refracting telescope from a Hotel in downtown Paris and cataloged over a hundred object! =)
You are absolute correct, 12" is the sweet spot. I have 12" trusstueb Dob which I stowed it away in a shed on top of my roof and wheeled it out on a dolly. Loved the apeture.
thank you sir! very very detailed and informative. my buddy and i are getting a 12 inch because of your video instead of a 8 or 10" (we both have grandchildren and cant wait to stargaze with them!) Keep them coming!
I never knew that you could see that much detail through an amateur scope, awesome. I couldn't see a whole lot through my Celestron CPC-800 other than a lot of smudges of galaxies and nebula unless it was pretty close. In result, I don't use eyepieces anymore and invested in a Hyperstar lens which makes my F16 scope into a F2. In result, I plug everything in, sit back and shoot 45-60 second images and display on my monitor.....amazing views even for non-processed images! I compared an image I took of the Dumbbell Nebula to one that was shot with a 16" Dob with a goto mount.....other than the image was slightly bigger, the clarity and immense amount of background stars with the Hyperstar lens out-did the 16". I do give credit for the Dob shot though, since imaging with a Dob is pretty difficult....I hope to one day move up to a 12" or 14" but I do like my Hyperstar, for I'm seeing things I've never imagined. Great Comparison! Clear Skies.
Thank You for this video, I’m sure there are lots of amateurs that have always wanted to do similar tests, just to satisfy that curiosity of “what if”.
Excellent video. I upgraded from an 8in GEM Newtonian to a 14in SkyWatcher goto Dob. I decided to go for the biggest aperture possible that I could still travel with and set up alone. The heaviest subcomponent of the 14in is 50lbs. I figured that was my weight limit. I have traveled with it to the High Sierra many times, and I definitely feel I made the right decision. The 16in lightest component is 75lbs, and that would have been a bit much.
I hope you didn't sell the 8in dobs. It's still good enough for most but the dimmest objects and is portable enough to take it anywhere. I think the 8in is in the sweet spot and I'd only get rid of it if I bought a mak. Which I won't because they're a lot more expensive.
@@yarpenzigrin1893 It is the classic clock drive German Equatorial Model 826. I learned a lot about how Celestial Mechanics worked because it has manual RA / Dec setting circles.
Excellent presentation but I never considered viewing the sky in SD. I usually visit for the Sturgis Rally, mainly to enjoy the riding. I would like to connect with your group the next time I'm there and see your setups. I've never owned a telescope or completed an astronomy class and to jump into a 16" is just nutty on my part but...I like it. Price point is about where I can deal with it but maybe there's a deal to get the price lower Being backordered tells me no way but I'll check. Another nutty idea. Track system using a hitch on an SUV or pickup and then out 4-6'. Assemble from the back of the SUV and then slide it out to desired location, lock it down with feet from the bar to the ground. Craziness but I work overseas and always looking for cool things to do when I retire in a couple years.
Badlands National Park usually has some kind of astromny program during the summer evenings. This year they're going to have their astromny festival July 29th to the 31st. Lot of telescopes and workshops. Clear skies!
Great comparison video. I think it was a pretty good representation of what each scope is capable of. I do sketching and astrophotography and have been considering buying a 12" dob for my visual and sketching while I use the 8" SCT or 6" Newtonian for imaging. I'd love to just go all out and get the 16, or even a 20 dob, but the 12 is currently at the upper limit of my budget.
Wish I could have been out there with ya. Great comparison, if you need to get rid of one you can send one my way. I'd be more than happy to help take one off your hands.
Not sure that was a meteor, and something else crept over the dumbell shortly after. Very clear well presented video,Thanks, Mike from never view land Manchester.
Thank you, thank you! Now you made me want a 16 inch! The side by side picture made the power of the 16 inch obvious. We would buy one for the things you can't compare or are barely visible. If you ever update this video, please look at the galaxies in Andromeda. I think that would be a better test of the relative power. Thanks again.
As always, great video, very informative. and a lot of effort clearly went into making it. The problem is the massive light pollution that is clearly taking over much of the United States. Because of this, I have three scopes ranging from 3" to 6", and no larger. My observing rig reflects a quest for mobility (and age!). But if my backyard was in South Dakota or Montana, I would own a 12" scope.
Agreed. If a guy doesn't have easy access to a good dark site to work the larger apertures then it's best to stick with the 3" to 8" range. And sadly light pollution is a growing problem even here in South Dakota.
@@DakotaStarryNights I currently live in Central Florida, where folks seem to LOVE Light Pollution. My dream is to visit a dark sky area with the ultimate mobile equipment: a Canon IS binocular with a collapsible monopod packed in a Pacific Design case. Thanks for the video.
Sounds about right. I have an 8" and a 14". Brightness on most objects is about the same, but everything is a bit sharper and more detailed through the 14". Though the biggest reward comes from the Abell catalog of Galaxy clusters, you can't really see them through the 8".
Very informative! Thanks for the look through some awesome scopes albiet vicariously with your night vision eyepiece. Regarding all the satellites, the past few years it seems that every time I put my eye to the telescope, I see a satellite when it used to happen only a few times per night. Am I the only one to notice this?
You're not alone. I would imagine with the reportedly 40,000 satellites total planed by SpaceX, along with "OneWeb and Amazon who also have plans for similar fleets of satellites", astronomy will never be the same.
Deep sky photography probably won't be affected too much because of the tiny angles of view. One should be able to remove occasional images distorted by passing satellites, but you will know in advance when a satellite will pass through your field of view, so you can avoid shooting at that time. Satellites will be a big problem for any wide-field photography and their paths will need to be subtracted from these images.
Back in the 80s I traded a C8 for a 16 " odyssey and I had a suburban so it was easy to take out I did find Stephens quintet one time and the extra aperture definitely helped
It’s amazing how quickly it got dark in this video. 5 minutes in and it’s pretty much just a silhouette. Very noticeable when you back it up from 5:25.
Used to own a 13" reflector on a Dobsonian mount and there was no place I could point it in a dark sky and not see something in the eyepiece. No matter how devoid of stars the area looked to my naked eye, through the eyepiece, there was always something.
Thanks for the great comparison video. I've been pondering making the jump to bigger aperture, and I think even with an ultralight a 16 inch is too much work for an urbanite like myself that gets out to darker skies 5-6 times a year. That and I don't know how I'd fit a big mirror box safely in my car. Hopefully when I retire I can move out into the country away from all this light pollution - but that's probably 25 years away so oh well.
And here I sit with my 6" Dobsonian. I'm just getting used to it, and don't have the funds to upgrade, so I will enjoy it as much as I can, while saving up for a 10" dob in the future.
probably 2 months with my 6" orion dobsonian, take it to the darkest spot you can and make sure its collimated efficiently, its actually insane what you can pick up with 6" of aperture, i can see the arms in pinwheel and bodes galaxies and with 10mm eyepiece and good seeing you can see saturns moons
Hi You mention a meteor going by but overlook an object that passes in a similar fashion (heading towards the right and upwards) out of the green area at the bottom of screen at exactly 06:38. Is this a comet or another meteor? It is going noticeably slower than the earlier meteor. Thanks Peter
I have 10" and 13.1" dobs. Definitely see more with the 13, but it's more work to move and operate than the 10. The 10" weighs 48 lbs and the 13 is 53 lbs, both fairly light. I couldn't imagine owning and using a 100+ lb dob unless I could keep it set up in an outdoor shed.
I bought myself the es 12" a few months ago. That thing is a beast ! Easy to carry out in my yard in france (50 meters). The only thing that concerns me is the humidity this winter. Any tips to handle this ? Cheers, David.
Congrats on your purchase! You could put the whole mirror box in a plastic bag and add a Desiccant dry Packet: www.amazon.com/Dry-Packs-Silica-Desiccant-Prevent-Corrosion/dp/B004N6JQFW Clear skies!
ill stick with my 6in reflector i can take it anywhere and have it set up in under 10min ready to go plus at 300 dollars if i break it when traveling its easily replaced but god id love a good 12-16in dob with tracking or go to functions
A decent Ritchie-Chretien of about 12" for about $3k. It really is amazing what's available now. 20 years ago you couldn't touch that for 10 or 15 thousand.
Really appreciate this video. I have one question, how do they compare for planetary viewing, particularly Jupiter? I've been using a 10" f/5 dob for a little while, and am starting to think seriously about getting the Hubble UL16 f/5. I'm more interested in planetary visual observing, than deep sky. Live on the outskirts of a large metro, and mostly observe from my backyard.
Hey Okie, For planetary visual work it's a long focal length refractor, hands down. There are a number of advantages such as the perfect collimation needed for high power viewing, quicker cool down, the long focal length, f/11 for example, allows for a larger focus zone, and the smaller column of air it looks through can cut pass subpar seeing, something in the 102mm to 120mm range. Here's a couple of work shops I did on the subject. czcams.com/video/KJ_4tKk6Cik/video.html and czcams.com/video/qLzgObWv9So/video.html Clear skies!
I started out with a Zhumell 10" dob. It was pretty decent for the money. So, while the ES 10" would be a good choice the 12 would show you a bit more and you'd still be in "the one that's used the most" category.
Go with the 12..I agree with the video guy..A twelve inch is great all round aperture. I started out with a 10" Lightbridge..I quickly traded in for the 12 inch
GREAT VIDEO !! Can you please tell me what eyepiece and any other tool ( night vision ) do you recommend to kind of get those views with a 10 inch dob. Thanks
I wonder how the dob 16 would compare to the Meade 16 ACF. A couple of advatages I can notice on the Meade are small and closed ota provides better handling and more protection of mirrors.
I really don't see how these two compare. They are total different in just about every regard. The Meade 16 ACF is primarily designed for a stationary application. The weight of the mount required to handle it along with the weight of the OTA makes really only suitable for an observatory. It is more than twice the focal length of the Hubble UL16 which limits it to narrow high power views. And it cost more than 14 times as much; and that's without the tripod. Thanks for posting. Clear Skies.
Refractor is sharper. But aperture [that is, photons] rule. The largest refractor is heavy and expensive. A 10 inch apo refractor...the TEC 10 inch SVT is 56,000 US dollars on sale. The reflector image is upside down. The refractor image is usually used with a diagonal and is backwards but not upside down.
Great video! I can definitely tell the difference in your comparison. I'm pretty new to all of this. I used 15 x 70 binos for about 6 months, then got an 8 inch dob and have enjoyed that for the past year. I've got the fever and would like to make a big step up to a 16 or 20". My question is whether or not to continue with a manual point and shoot set up or get something with a goto type system for tracking. Seems like manual tracking of planets can be a real PITA when done at higher magnifications. I do like star hopping and finding things on my own though but I can't deny the convenience of having a computer find something for me occasionally. These systems can dramatically raise the purchase price, is it worth it? Oh, and as a side story. My son and I took the 8" dob out to a dark sky area near Ft. Davis, Texas last May. I found the pinwheel, whirlpool and sombrero galaxies and Omega Centauri that night, it was pure euphoria and I was hooked from that point on.
If you intend to move up to a 16" or 20" it will be very expensive and very heavy with built-in tracking. Planetary work does involved high power and benefits greatly with tracking as you've pointed out. But it should also be noted that planetary work requires steady skies, good seeing, which due to the larger column of air a 16"or 20" look through make it very challenging on most nights. For that a smaller aperture refractor, 102-120mm scope is best. Go-to/tracking mounts for this size aperture are readily available and affordable compared to the type required to handle a 16" or 20". Which is why I have a 102mm ED f/11 for planets and the Moon. The 102mm puts up awesome views of those targets. The UL16 is strictly for going deep and for that it can't be beat. On the Moon and planets it does poorly due to the upper atmospheric turbulence out here. It's really great that you're acquiring targets on your own! It's the absolute best way to learn the night sky and share that knowledge with your son. The go-2 systems take the joy of discover out of the experience, with is one of the best parts of astronomy, and soon starts to feel like the remote on the TV. Your also tend to spend less time on any one target. Which means you miss a lot of the finer details and acquired skill necessary to see them. Sure it can take a bit longer to find an object, but once you've found it it yours and you've got bragging rights. There is an alternative for tracking that doesn't involved a built-in system for dobs. An equatorial platform will provide tracking for dobs and as a separate component is more portable. Clear skies!
Technology won't help you see anything better. I choose to go low-tech with good optics, basically an SCT with encoders and an NGC-MAX computer. This is a good tracking setup for long exposure photography, simplified polar alignment and manual object location using the NGC-MAX. I normally don't use the computer, instead using a start chart and the combination of the red dot, an 80mm pointing scope with a 2" narrow field eyepiece, and finally a wide angle 2" eyepiece through the SCT. That method is fun because it orients me to the night sky and allows me to find very small objects manually.
Great video for sure - for me as a complete noob - I would like to see the comparisons with something I can understand - what detail of Saturn or Jupiter would be improved, could I see Pluto with any type of interesting detail?
Hi John, Typically large aperture like the 16" is at a disadvantage when it comes to the high power views required for planets. Eight inches and under will do better on most nights. The reasons for this can be found here on Dakota Starry Nights: czcams.com/video/KJ_4tKk6Cik/video.html That said, a couple of weeks ago I had the UL16 out a Badlands dark site, and by chance, I turned it to Jupiter. I usually don't even bother to look at planets with it as I have more suitable refractors for that job. But as luck would have it, at that moment we were experiencing excellent seeing and above average transparency, rare for South Dakota. The resolution put out by the 16 was nothing short of amazing. Nine of Jupiter's belt zones were clearly visible, including the Great Red Spot. It was stunning. But that's only when conditions are perfect. And that doesn't happen very often. But even then, to answer your other question, Pluto will only appear as very small shinny disk with no determinable detail. Clear skies.
Hi, that was very informative Thanks a lot. I have been using a 8" reflector since 10 yrs and I'm trying to go for a bigger aperture now, im so excited abt the 16 ", I want to know about the feasibility of using motor mounts, would the vibration from the motor be a concern or not. Will I be able to do away with constant realigning with manual mounts. Would they automatically follow the star/planet? Would be really helpful to hear your thoughts. Thanks!
Hi Sachin, vibration from a motor used for tracking would depend on the motor and the gears used. I have motorized a dob in the past: czcams.com/video/2NAlyq0Rf20/video.html But all you would really need is an Equatorial Platform which will allow the dob to follow DSO's or planets. There's a lot of information online on how to build one; or you could buy one ready made. Congrats on making the jump from 8" to a 16"! You're sure going to notice a difference!
So I would like to get a Dobsonian for Outreach, -- and I was planning to get a 12" just because it will be simpler to carry (and I have a sedan) but it seems that the camera could be a better idea. Any inputs on that?
A 12" dob is the sweet spot for aperture and portability as you have stated; especially if you opt for one of the ultra light designs. Though I'm not sure what you mean by "the camera". If you are referring to the night vision monocular seen in the video, then it is most definitely a better idea. Be advised it's not a camera. It is a PVS14, used by the military and available to US citizens, which connects to a TeleVue eyepiece. However, you would still need a short focal length telescope of 8" or above. A 12" dob and PVS14 will give you views of nebulous objects comparable to apertures of 20 inches, as seen in the video. Here's a video workshop I did on Night Vision Astronomy: czcams.com/video/6usKtqpVMi8/video.html Clear skies!
hey i found a 10"dobsonian for 700 dollars, is it worth it and can you see jupiters red spot and saturns cassini division with your eyes from the eyepiece?,and what about nebulae and star clusters can you see them with your eyes or do you need a camera?
Well, for me it was the 16" all the way. I know it now so the 12" would always nag at me saying "you can see more, in closer, with a 16" Thanks for a great video comparison.
Finally! Finally! Finally a f*ck1n simple video showing how it looks like to watch deep sky objects live view through the telescope! Ok it's a camera, but it's still pretty similar with eyes, because there's no long exposition. Thank you very much! All the videos on yt are only about long exposition or live stackings or idiots saying: without long exposition you will barely see anything BUT I JUST WANTED TO SEE THE F*CKIN SAME!
Thank you for your great contribution making this video. You got me really interested in NV! I am also considering getting the UL16 Hubble Optics tel. and wanted to ask if the setup is as easy as the maker states? Do you need to break it down into smallest pieces or can you transport it as a couple of bigger "modules"?
It's a truss dob which means you disconnect the trusses from the secondary cage and mirror box. I transport it in three pieces. The secondary cage, mirror box inside the rocker box and the truss poles. To move it to the car, I put the rocker box in first. Then I carry the mirror box to the car and set it in the rocker box; followed by the truss poles and secondary cage. It's all very portable this way and manageable weight wise. FYI: Our club has a 16" conventional truss dob but it hasn't been pulled out in three years due to the size and weight. Nobody want's to hassle with it.
Is it portable enough to be used as carry on luggage for international flights? I don't mind paying overweight fees but not sure what to fit the components in. I know the 12" truss of Hubble Optics has a backpack it fits in but what about the 16?
@@buttlesschap I would think not. The poles, mirror box and secondary cage would be too much. They would make you check it in. The 12" Hubble truss as I understand it can fit in a backpack or suite case. Though I'd check their website for measurements and the airlines for what's allowable. Cheers!
Any comparison like this is going to be a compromise of sorts. Do you keep the eyepiece the saem? Or different ones for the same magnification? Or do you try to match exit pupil? Each is a valid comparison, which will yield different results. And if you look at telescopes on a small increment scale, there won't be much difference 8 to 10, 10 to 12, 12 to 15, etc, but there si a big difference between an 8 and a 15. In spite of this, this video is still valuable to anyone considering the options.
Thanks for the great video. One question--how is to hand guide each scope? Are you finding you have to put a lot more effort into keeping things centered in the 16" or is it so natural, you don't even thing about it once you get the hang of it? I wonder because I'll be moving up from an 8" SCT. Thanks.
If you haven't already watch it, I cover how to move these ultra lights at the end of my review of the UL16. czcams.com/video/4FuGniNZlg4/video.html But yeah, it's really not all that difficult once you get the hang of it as you've said. My favorite eyepiece for the UL 16 is the Televue 35mm Panoptic. Great image scale and wide enough where you don't have to keep moving the dob every 30 seconds. There are other eyepieces that work well too. 100 degree eyepieces work but due to the fast focal ratio of the UL16 you notice the coma in the eyepiece more. In the pan's 68 degree FOV coma is not as noticeable. Or other well corrected low power eyepieces in that FOV range. Thanks for posting. :)
@@DakotaStarryNights Would a coma corrector, such as the TV Paracorr-2, eliminate the coma you described as apparent in the UL16 -- eliminate it enough to be able to enjoy the benefits of a 100 degree AFOV EP?
@@gregorystevens5173 The TV Paracorr-2 is one of the best made. So, if doesn't do the trick none of them will. That said, 100 degrees is a chuck of sky. So, maybe not the entire FOV, but enough I would imagine to satisfy. Cheers!
After observing skies thru the years of varying aperture scopes, I've found that observing under poor urban skies, larger aperture scopes seem to magnify mushy skies, and aren't that great. Now take a large aperture scope and compare the views thru a smaller scope under truly dark skies and the larger scope will totally dominate. Yet, one would have to ask themselves...how often do I observe from truly dark skies? and will a larger scope be worth the hundreds of $$$ more? Thanks for the excellent video!
thanks for comparison.I would have a question,going from celestron C9.25 to dobsonian,but cant decide between 12" F5 and 12" F4. what is more suitable,F5 or F4? Its only visual use,as its portable sumerian alkaid dobson.
The suitability in this case is more of a personal preference. The f4 should be shorter and easier to get to the eyepiece. But it will also have a bit more coma as compared to the f5. With the UL16 I went with the f4.5 to reduce the height of the eyepiece, which was more important to me. Thanks for posting.
Did you do any basic visual observing without the night scope? I’d be interested to know how the dobs compare in that regard. I may buy a night scope down the road, but I’m not there yet! Thanks for the detailed comparison, and thanks for all the other great videos you’ve posted!!
Yes I did compare the two without night vision. But it is really difficult to get any real-time video without night vision. And to do long exposure photography isn't representative of what a guy would see; and now you're talking astrophotography. That said, the difference between a 16" and 12" isn't jaw dropping. However, night vision is. So, it's best to keep the 12" and save up for a PVS14 night vision monocular. Otherwise you'll end up chasing the next step up to a 20" then 24" ect. I would have been just as happy with the 12" so long as I have NV. But sure, it doesn't hurt to have the extra 4", just not necessary if you have NV.
I believe it captures IR wavelength light in addition to visible light. It is also more sensitive to light than the human eye; our eyeballs work really well in bright light, but not so well in dim light.
I believe they do. Not sure how effective it is. But there is an option to add weights for a proper balance. I used 2 or 3 pound dumbbell weights with a large washer. Their weight kit however is not expensive so that might be preferred by some. Thanks for posting.
Do you have any comparison between the ultralight style Dobs and say, a Skywatcher Flextube? I've got the Skywatchers in 8 and 12" apertures. The 12" is a heavy beast (not like my 12" LX200 is though), but it's as simple as plop down, extend the poles, check collimation, done. Fits into a Honda Civic (and probably even smaller cars than that). And, at 5'8" I don't need a step stool at zenith. Yes, Dob's hole is a thing to contend with but I've had some of my best views of objects while dead overhead, so I'm willing to tolerate it. I agree that if I'm to go larger, and 16" is the logical next leap, I'll need to go ultralight... but am I going to find the setup to be a royal pain? Weight doesn't bother me so much. Thanks!
Hey there Blue, I wouldn't classify setting up the UL16 a royal pain. But it's a truss dob and like all of them requires some assembly that I can put together in under 20 minutes; but not as quick as one that is preassembled, such as your Skywatcher 12. The main advantage here is the lighter weight compared to traditional dobs. But the Skywatcher Flextube has a quicker set up. Cheers!
seems that with all the improvements they have made with electronics there should be a way to improve the optics. Would plastics could they make a lens
I wouldn't think plastics would be better. Not sure if you could get the mirror coating to stick. Then there's the thermodynamics equation to consider. And for making a refracting telescope it would more than likely be inferior and I doubt any one would buy one because it's plastic. The single greatest improvement in amateur astronomy for visual work is night vision, a major game changer. If you ever get the chance to look through a fast telescope with night vision you'll know why.
A bit of history...Two years ago I bought my ES 16" Dob after seeing your review of the ES 12" Dob and I've loved it ever since! I'm wondering if you're using the 35mm Pan more than the 55 Plossl these days. Better image quality with the Pan? Afocally, you're giving up a lot of speed.
Yes, I tend to use the 35mm Pan more for the increase image scale a little better correction. It's just seems perfect for the UL16. I've got the f4.5 version. On extended objects, like the North America Nebula and Veil, I use the 55mm Plossl to get them in the FOV.
I've seen lots of PVS-14 users going to Pans. For NV afocal, do you think an Explore Scientific 34mm (or 40mm) 68° would be comparable? They're on sale :)
@@ScrapYardThing One reason guys are using pans for NV is the adapter that is made for Tele Vue by TNVC Night Vision. So the adapter works with Tele Vue eyepieces and maybe with the ES 34mm. Now seeing how the ES 34 is 68 degrees it could be a clone of the Tele Vue Pan. So it might hookup with the adapter and be worth a try.
@@DakotaStarryNights Very good point. I have the Tele Vue/TNVC adapter, which fits only my Meade 56mm Plossl (plus my 15mm DeLite). Yes, I am no stranger to clones! Luckily, Tele Vue's Dioptrx adapter DEA-0001 fits just about any brand eyepiece with a rim for rubber eye cups...except my Explore Scientific EPs (burn). However, Novograde has a great afocal camera adapter that firmly grips onto just about any eyepiece, even spotting scopes. novagrade.com/shop/camera-adapter/ It has T2 threads, into which a T2/ENVIS step ring www.rafcamera.com/adapter-t2f-to-m30-3x0-8m connects to your PVS-14. I think I'm gonna roll the dice and get the ES 34mm. BTW, love your videos. They often come just before a major astro-buy. Your Intro to NV was a biggie! Thanks
Thanks for this comparison. I guess I will go directly to a 20" Hubble optics.
:)
Thanks for this video, very informative. At some stage I will probably be moving up from a 10 inch dob so videos like this are great and there is not enough of them on the net.
@@damienk2372 Glad you found it useful!
@@damienk2372 Exactly my sentiments too sir!
This video definitely favors the 16". The 12" views were ok, much better than in an 8", but the 16" was just so rich and satisfying.
I upgraded from a 10" dob to a 16 a few years ago and to be honest the difference really isn't as mind blowing as I hoped it would be. There's a few objects that really popped in the 16 like the ring nebula because you can actually see a neon bluish-green color through the 16 and globulars are a little better, most notably M4. I find myself taking out the 10 more now because it's a solid tube and much easier to transport and set up vs. a 16 truss. The views are also satisfying. My friend has a 12 and I always liked his scope a lot. I've thought about selling both the 10 and 16 and buying a 12. It really is the best all-purpose size IMO. Now if you are lucky enough to live under dark skies and can just roll it out of the garage to observe, then get the biggest you can afford.
I'd have to agree, a light weight 12" dob is hard to beat. Like they say, the best telescope is the one you use the most. :)
thanks, I changed my mind and dream about 12", not 10"
@@user-gc1up4yy2h лол также. Смешно что есть ещё один человек который думает о том же что и ты, да ещё в примерно в то же время
I'm a newbie backyard astronomer with a 10" Dobsonian that I've had about 3 weeks. My backyard south-facing patio is a decent place to see stars, but I haven't yet had a really clear dark night with it yet. I've seen the greatest hits: jupiter, saturn, orion nebula, andromeda, sirius, etc. I think I'll take it to a really dark area without lights next week. Time to upgrade the stock eyepieces!
Sir, I wish their were more side by side comparison vids like this one. The biggest question on most newbie astronomers minds is "What will i see with X, Y and Z size telescopes ?" "What more will i see, and what details will i see, if i buy Z instead of Y ?" or "Is it worth spending an extra $1000 on Z instead of Y for an extra couple inches of Aperture ?". IMO this vid is exactly the correct format to help newbies and not so newbies decide how much it's worth spending for the extra inches of aperture, so as to acquire the best "Dollar per inch of Aperture" Ratio, all other variables being equal. Thank You for a great vid sir!
Wes, Liverpool, UK.
Glad you found it useful! Thanks for posting.
There are many comparisons available, but few are videos like this one.
@@toomanyhobbies2011 I couldn't agree more my friend! Wes.
Sooooo... What you're saying, is upgrade to an Observatory with a 10 foot mirror. Got it!
Yup. Now how can I mirror a satellite dish?! The curve and focal point is already done!!
20 foot or 30 foot
Awesome video! This is exactly what I needed as I want to go from 8 to either 12 or 16... Think it's gonna be the 16 now! Greetings from Germany and clear skies!
One of the best, most informative plain and simple no BS videos I've seen on Y/T.
Exactly what I've been looking for as I research Dobs..
Thank you! I'm glad it's helpful.
@@DakotaStarryNights I ended up getting an 18" Webster. Ii opened a whole new world of astronomy...
@@RSTI191 That's a great scope! I looked at those but it was way out of my price range. Big congrats on that one!
@@DakotaStarryNights
Thnx, I lucked out.
It fell out of the sky landed in my lap for a song..I'm jacked on deep sky.
At present I'm talking with Eric Webster about building a 28" for me.
Tough to find parts today though..
This covid shutdown knocked just about every industry on its backside...
Great comparison!
Thank you very much for the effort.
I've had a 16" dob since 2001 and I love it. What makes the most difference in the image thru the eyepiece is how dark, transparent & steady the skies are. It's all about location & conditions. From a crappy location, a 16" will show a grey fuzzball a little larger than a 12" scope will. From a great location the 12" will show much more detail in a galaxy or nebula than a 16" will from the crappy location. On the best nights from our local dark sky spots in LA. & MS. I can barely see a dark lane in M31. From New Mexico Skies in Mayhill, NM at 7400' altitude, M31 looked like a black & white photo with incredible detail. It was better than a photo. Same with M51. Amazing detail all along the dark lanes in the spiral arms. Great transparency at that site. So far the best planetary views have been from home and local star parties. We get steady skies occasionally, sometimes perfect. I was able to view Mars during the 2003 opposition thru my 16" and a 20" set up next to mine on a night with perfect seeing. Later that night Saturn came up. The views of the planets thru both scopes was perfect. The only advantage I saw in the 20" was an image that was a little larger using the same eyepiece (Pentax 5.2XL). A 14" dob might be the sweet spot of manageability and not needing a ladder or step stool.
Perfect skies. Hmm you live at 20,000 feet? Sarcasm aside, I'm retiring and have found many near-dark sky sites around the country where I could live. Most of them are close to small cites shaded from city lights by low mountains.
@@toomanyhobbies2011 I was thinking the same thing myself! lol. I thought "my friend, unless you live on a orbiting satellite around Earth, the views are never going to be "perfect" from any location on Earth due to the atmosphere! But obviously I completely understood what he was trying to convey, that the views were amazing! I'd love to one day be able to go to the top of the tallest mountain in Chile and view the night skies many Blessings through a HUGE Telescope! Maybe, just maybe, one day it might happen...Wes.
Location means altitude and away from cities. Like 9000ft elevation. Although, the atmosphere is packed more at lower elevation, so my house at 2500 ft in the Socal High Desert is a lot better off than Los Angeles at sea level. But nothing beats CA Tejon Pass at night to see the center of the Milky Way light up.
In 1983 a friend of mine bought an Odessy 13.1 Dobsonian Telescope. We would drag that blue monster a few miles outside of town where the sky was pitch black. We'd look through that thing for hours and always be amazed at the things we could see. Such a huge step up from my 60mm refractor.
13 inches of aperture was huge back then. Not too many around. Must have be awesome!
I remember when TeleVue first came out with the 13mm Nagler eyepiece...WOW!
It was hard to believe that up to that point Erfles were the hottest wide field eyepiece (65 degree FOV) to own even though half the field was full of seagull stars.
Turning into my 60s now, I went back from 16" to 8" - just due to portability and easy usability. With a steady EQ-platform beneath
and wide-angle-eyepieces is still exciting and very rewarding "being out there". CS to everybody.
Yeah, there's nothing like a scope you can just pick up and go. Large aperture is great only if you've got the dark skies and muscles to handle it. Thanks for posting.
I've never moved a 16" dob in my life, I find my 8" is about the max I can comfortably carry around. Good for you transporting your 16"!
thank you, and thank you for contributing locally
Great Video! Very useful for appreciate more my Lightbridge 12" actual telescope! TKS!
Remarkable explanation of nuances between 12 and 16.
Dakota, very interesting comparison and very useful. Thank you
You're welcome. Clear skies!
Dakota, thank youa lot for all your comments and videos. Always you say very interesting things like in this video. Ricardo Calderon
Love your channel. Always super informative!
Thank you!
Thank you from Alaska! Excellent video! :)
Might’ve been a good idea to use an eyepiece in the 12 that gave the same image scale as the 16. The difference in resolving power would likely have been more evident.
Well done really good comparison 👍🏼
Awesome! Great comparison / contrast!
Thanks Scott! Got some of last night's workshop in there too. :)
Terrific video. Thanks.
Super comparison ! Greetings from Poland
Great video, it's obvious you enjoy your time looking at the sky.
Regards from North East Scotland 👍🏻
Thanks!
...great video thanks for performing the comparison.
...I think the key is the giveaway reflexive thrill and wonder you displayed when the satellites cut across your views and that, after all, is what keeps me dragging out my 12" and being awestruck at the visible universe. You can't measure awe in inches...
You got that right. Thanks for posting.
Really nice job demoing these.
Thanks for the tip. You know your stuff amazing videos.
Wow! Thank you for making this video!
:-)
As a life long amateur having 3-16” scopes my all time favorite is my 8” metal tube dob for use at home urban/rural skies and the 16 for taking to dark sites where it will be setup for 2 nights.
The 8” dob blows away the 16” truss at home with slightly light polluted skies.
My all time best observing session was in Utah desert with my 4.5” Astro-can (red ball scope) I ran through the Virgo galaxy chain it was unbelievable.
I'd agree.👍 16 for a good dark site and an 8 for urban/rural skies.
Great Job showing the comparison.
Happy to hear you found it useful!
Great comparison, thanks for the video
You're welcome. :)
satellite whizzing by at 11:45 ;) Awesome vid! I got a 6 inch newtonian. im impressed just by that aperture! Makes me want to go bigger!
A guy can see a lot with a 6 and they are super portable. Charles Messier did his observing with a 100 mm (four-inch) refracting telescope from a Hotel in downtown Paris and cataloged over a hundred object! =)
You are absolute correct, 12" is the sweet spot. I have 12" trusstueb Dob which I stowed it away in a shed on top of my roof and wheeled it out on a dolly. Loved the apeture.
Yeah, 12 is the sweet spot. Thanks for posting.
Very informative!
thank you sir! very very detailed and informative. my buddy and i are getting a 12 inch because of your video instead of a 8 or 10" (we both have grandchildren and cant wait to stargaze with them!) Keep them coming!
Love the images of the 16
Thanks. She's a beauty alright. Clear Skies!
I never knew that you could see that much detail through an amateur scope, awesome. I couldn't see a whole lot through my Celestron CPC-800 other than a lot of smudges of galaxies and nebula unless it was pretty close. In result, I don't use eyepieces anymore and invested in a Hyperstar lens which makes my F16 scope into a F2. In result, I plug everything in, sit back and shoot 45-60 second images and display on my monitor.....amazing views even for non-processed images! I compared an image I took of the Dumbbell Nebula to one that was shot with a 16" Dob with a goto mount.....other than the image was slightly bigger, the clarity and immense amount of background stars with the Hyperstar lens out-did the 16". I do give credit for the Dob shot though, since imaging with a Dob is pretty difficult....I hope to one day move up to a 12" or 14" but I do like my Hyperstar, for I'm seeing things I've never imagined. Great Comparison! Clear Skies.
I too didn't think it was possible. But a PVS14 has brought me back to visual work. Before I used to just image.
Thank You for this video, I’m sure there are lots of amateurs that have always wanted to do similar tests, just to satisfy that curiosity of “what if”.
Glad to be of help. :)
Excellent video. I upgraded from an 8in GEM Newtonian to a 14in SkyWatcher goto Dob. I decided to go for the biggest aperture possible that I could still travel with and set up alone.
The heaviest subcomponent of the 14in is 50lbs. I figured that was my weight limit. I have traveled with it to the High Sierra many times, and I definitely feel I made the right decision. The 16in lightest component is 75lbs, and that would have been a bit much.
I hope you didn't sell the 8in dobs. It's still good enough for most but the dimmest objects and is portable enough to take it anywhere. I think the 8in is in the sweet spot and I'd only get rid of it if I bought a mak. Which I won't because they're a lot more expensive.
@@yarpenzigrin1893 Still have it. Its a classic Meade from 1983. The mirror is in ok shape. I will need to recoat it at some point.
@@aemrt5745 That's a classic. I bet it will serve for many more years if you restore it.
@@yarpenzigrin1893 Yep. It has been quite the workhorse. I am the original owner, and got it when I was 14.
@@yarpenzigrin1893 It is the classic clock drive German Equatorial Model 826. I learned a lot about how Celestial Mechanics worked because it has manual RA / Dec setting circles.
Great video. Thanks
Cool!
Having Dakota clear nights beats the light pollution in many other places! Envious! Twelve or sixteen...whatever it takes! Subscribed!
Dark skies definitely makes a difference. Gives a guy about another inch or two of aperture. Thanks for subscribing! Clear skies.
Bigger aperture is always better... Great video
Nice, BTDT It was nice when I lived somewhere I could actually use a telescope and enjoy it. Awesome hobby
Thanks for posting. Clear Skies!
Get in the car and take a drive...simple
David Olson just a 4 hr drive. Simple
Excellent presentation but I never considered viewing the sky in SD. I usually visit for the Sturgis Rally, mainly to enjoy the riding. I would like to connect with your group the next time I'm there and see your setups. I've never owned a telescope or completed an astronomy class and to jump into a 16" is just nutty on my part but...I like it. Price point is about where I can deal with it but maybe there's a deal to get the price lower Being backordered tells me no way but I'll check. Another nutty idea. Track system using a hitch on an SUV or pickup and then out 4-6'. Assemble from the back of the SUV and then slide it out to desired location, lock it down with feet from the bar to the ground. Craziness but I work overseas and always looking for cool things to do when I retire in a couple years.
Badlands National Park usually has some kind of astromny program during the summer evenings. This year they're going to have their astromny festival July 29th to the 31st. Lot of telescopes and workshops. Clear skies!
Great comparison video. I think it was a pretty good representation of what each scope is capable of.
I do sketching and astrophotography and have been considering buying a 12" dob for my visual and sketching while I use the 8" SCT or 6" Newtonian for imaging. I'd love to just go all out and get the 16, or even a 20 dob, but the 12 is currently at the upper limit of my budget.
Wish I could have been out there with ya. Great comparison, if you need to get rid of one you can send one my way. I'd be more than happy to help take one off your hands.
Well, I've got other projects in mind to fund. So, I'm might be selling the ES12 on Cloudy Nights next month. Just not sure yet.
Not sure that was a meteor, and something else crept over the dumbell shortly after. Very clear well presented video,Thanks,
Mike from never view land Manchester.
Thank you!
Love this! Wisconsin here. Rural Fond du Lac.
Thanks! Fond du Lac downtown looks a lot like Rapid City, Sd, without the lake of course. 😄
Thank you, thank you! Now you made me want a 16 inch! The side by side picture made the power of the 16 inch obvious. We would buy one for the things you can't compare or are barely visible. If you ever update this video, please look at the galaxies in Andromeda. I think that would be a better test of the relative power. Thanks again.
Thanks Harry! Glad you found it useful. 🙂We'll keep Andromeda in mind for the next one.🔭
@@DakotaStarryNights I screwed up. I meant the Virgo galaxies. Those are faint and hard to see in an eight inch.
Great! One of the rare persons showing us live view of deepsky not just planets or processed/still images of DSOs
00:42 LMAO WTF!?
Anyway, great review. Well done!
As always, great video, very informative. and a lot of effort clearly went into making it. The problem is the massive light pollution that is clearly taking over much of the United States. Because of this, I have three scopes ranging from 3" to 6", and no larger. My observing rig reflects a quest for mobility (and age!). But if my backyard was in South Dakota or Montana, I would own a 12" scope.
Agreed. If a guy doesn't have easy access to a good dark site to work the larger apertures then it's best to stick with the 3" to 8" range. And sadly light pollution is a growing problem even here in South Dakota.
@@DakotaStarryNights I currently live in Central Florida, where folks seem to LOVE Light Pollution. My dream is to visit a dark sky area with the ultimate mobile equipment: a Canon IS binocular with a collapsible monopod packed in a Pacific Design case. Thanks for the video.
Good video.
Sounds about right. I have an 8" and a 14". Brightness on most objects is about the same, but everything is a bit sharper and more detailed through the 14". Though the biggest reward comes from the Abell catalog of Galaxy clusters, you can't really see them through the 8".
That's helpful. I'm moving up from an old 8" SCT.
Very informative! Thanks for the look through some awesome scopes albiet vicariously with your night vision eyepiece. Regarding all the satellites, the past few years it seems that every time I put my eye to the telescope, I see a satellite when it used to happen only a few times per night. Am I the only one to notice this?
You're not alone. I would imagine with the reportedly 40,000 satellites total planed by SpaceX, along with "OneWeb and Amazon who also have plans for similar fleets of satellites", astronomy will never be the same.
Deep sky photography probably won't be affected too much because of the tiny angles of view. One should be able to remove occasional images distorted by passing satellites, but you will know in advance when a satellite will pass through your field of view, so you can avoid shooting at that time.
Satellites will be a big problem for any wide-field photography and their paths will need to be subtracted from these images.
Now we need a comparison with the different bortal zones.
Back in the 80s I traded a C8 for a 16 " odyssey and I had a suburban so it was easy to take out I did find Stephens quintet one time and the extra aperture definitely helped
bet skies were darker back in 80. BTW Nice catch on the quintet.
It’s amazing how quickly it got dark in this video. 5 minutes in and it’s pretty much just a silhouette. Very noticeable when you back it up from 5:25.
Used to own a 13" reflector on a Dobsonian mount and there was no place I could point it in a dark sky and not see something in the eyepiece. No matter how devoid of stars the area looked to my naked eye, through the eyepiece, there was always something.
Yeah, so much to see, so little time to see it.
Excellent video
16” is the best
I have 15” obsession and even planets ore great too
Good choice!
Thanks for the great comparison video. I've been pondering making the jump to bigger aperture, and I think even with an ultralight a 16 inch is too much work for an urbanite like myself that gets out to darker skies 5-6 times a year. That and I don't know how I'd fit a big mirror box safely in my car. Hopefully when I retire I can move out into the country away from all this light pollution - but that's probably 25 years away so oh well.
8in telescope, CMOS camera, hydrogen alpha filter.
And here I sit with my 6" Dobsonian. I'm just getting used to it, and don't have the funds to upgrade, so I will enjoy it as much as I can, while saving up for a 10" dob in the future.
probably 2 months with my 6" orion dobsonian, take it to the darkest spot you can and make sure its collimated efficiently, its actually insane what you can pick up with 6" of aperture, i can see the arms in pinwheel and bodes galaxies and with 10mm eyepiece and good seeing you can see saturns moons
@@Smile4Luyten Nice. I'm in about a Bortle 6 area. I'm hoping to travel to a dark sky site very soon.
Hi
You mention a meteor going by but overlook an object that passes in a similar fashion (heading towards the right and upwards) out of the green area at the bottom of screen at exactly 06:38. Is this a comet or another meteor? It is going noticeably slower than the earlier meteor. Thanks Peter
I have 10" and 13.1" dobs. Definitely see more with the 13, but it's more work to move and operate than the 10. The 10" weighs 48 lbs and the 13 is 53 lbs, both fairly light. I couldn't imagine owning and using a 100+ lb dob unless I could keep it set up in an outdoor shed.
My thoughts exactly.
I bought myself the es 12" a few months ago. That thing is a beast ! Easy to carry out in my yard in france (50 meters). The only thing that concerns me is the humidity this winter. Any tips to handle this ? Cheers, David.
Congrats on your purchase! You could put the whole mirror box in a plastic bag and add a Desiccant dry Packet:
www.amazon.com/Dry-Packs-Silica-Desiccant-Prevent-Corrosion/dp/B004N6JQFW Clear skies!
This might seem ignorant, but what are those spots that pop up like stars twinkling in and out at around 7:00
Looks at his 8" Dobsonian - "You piece of trash!"
Looks at his 6” dobsonian - “😭”
Love these videos, I'm just curious to know what would something like that 16" cost? I'm sure they're expensive. Thanks for the video
You can check their website for the latest pricing: www.hubbleoptics.com/UL16.html
In this video I'm using the f/4.5 version.
ill stick with my 6in reflector i can take it anywhere and have it set up in under 10min ready to go plus at 300 dollars if i break it when traveling its easily replaced but god id love a good 12-16in dob with tracking or go to functions
A decent Ritchie-Chretien of about 12" for about $3k. It really is amazing what's available now.
20 years ago you couldn't touch that for 10 or 15 thousand.
Really appreciate this video. I have one question, how do they compare for planetary viewing, particularly Jupiter?
I've been using a 10" f/5 dob for a little while, and am starting to think seriously about getting the Hubble UL16 f/5. I'm more interested in planetary visual observing, than deep sky. Live on the outskirts of a large metro, and mostly observe from my backyard.
Hey Okie, For planetary visual work it's a long focal length refractor, hands down. There are a number of advantages such as the perfect collimation needed for high power viewing, quicker cool down, the long focal length, f/11 for example, allows for a larger focus zone, and the smaller column of air it looks through can cut pass subpar seeing, something in the 102mm to 120mm range.
Here's a couple of work shops I did on the subject. czcams.com/video/KJ_4tKk6Cik/video.html and czcams.com/video/qLzgObWv9So/video.html
Clear skies!
I'm hesitating between the Explore Scientific 10' and 12'. I must say the images provided by the 12' are quite impressive :-)
I started out with a Zhumell 10" dob. It was pretty decent for the money. So, while the ES 10" would be a good choice the 12 would show you a bit more and you'd still be in "the one that's used the most" category.
Go with the 12..I agree with the video guy..A twelve inch is great all round aperture. I started out with a 10" Lightbridge..I quickly traded in for the 12 inch
GREAT VIDEO !!
Can you please tell me what eyepiece and any other tool ( night vision ) do you recommend to kind of get those views with a 10 inch dob. Thanks
I was using a TeleVue 35mm Panoptic. For a brighter view with the 10" you can try a TeleVue 55mm Plossl eyepiece.
Defentley 16"!!
Greetings From Denmark
I wonder how the dob 16 would compare to the Meade 16 ACF. A couple of advatages I can notice on the Meade are small and closed ota provides better handling and more protection of mirrors.
I really don't see how these two compare. They are total different in just about every regard. The Meade 16 ACF is primarily designed for a stationary application. The weight of the mount required to handle it along with the weight of the OTA makes really only suitable for an observatory. It is more than twice the focal length of the Hubble UL16 which limits it to narrow high power views. And it cost more than 14 times as much; and that's without the tripod. Thanks for posting. Clear Skies.
Great video. OK, I have a sort of basic question. Which is better for clarity, a reflector or a refractor? Which of them turns the image upside down?
Refractor is sharper. But aperture [that is, photons] rule. The largest refractor is heavy and expensive. A 10 inch apo refractor...the TEC 10 inch SVT is 56,000 US dollars on sale.
The reflector image is upside down. The refractor image is usually used with a diagonal and is backwards but not upside down.
Great video! I can definitely tell the difference in your comparison. I'm pretty new to all of this. I used 15 x 70 binos for about 6 months, then got an 8 inch dob and have enjoyed that for the past year. I've got the fever and would like to make a big step up to a 16 or 20".
My question is whether or not to continue with a manual point and shoot set up or get something with a goto type system for tracking. Seems like manual tracking of planets can be a real PITA when done at higher magnifications. I do like star hopping and finding things on my own though but I can't deny the convenience of having a computer find something for me occasionally. These systems can dramatically raise the purchase price, is it worth it?
Oh, and as a side story. My son and I took the 8" dob out to a dark sky area near Ft. Davis, Texas last May. I found the pinwheel, whirlpool and sombrero galaxies and Omega Centauri that night, it was pure euphoria and I was hooked from that point on.
If you intend to move up to a 16" or 20" it will be very expensive and very heavy with built-in tracking. Planetary work does involved high power and benefits greatly with tracking as you've pointed out. But it should also be noted that planetary work requires steady skies, good seeing, which due to the larger column of air a 16"or 20" look through make it very challenging on most nights. For that a smaller aperture refractor, 102-120mm scope is best. Go-to/tracking mounts for this size aperture are readily available and affordable compared to the type required to handle a 16" or 20".
Which is why I have a 102mm ED f/11 for planets and the Moon. The 102mm puts up awesome views of those targets. The UL16 is strictly for going deep and for that it can't be beat. On the Moon and planets it does poorly due to the upper atmospheric turbulence out here.
It's really great that you're acquiring targets on your own! It's the absolute best way to learn the night sky and share that knowledge with your son. The go-2 systems take the joy of discover out of the experience, with is one of the best parts of astronomy, and soon starts to feel like the remote on the TV. Your also tend to spend less time on any one target. Which means you miss a lot of the finer details and acquired skill necessary to see them. Sure it can take a bit longer to find an object, but once you've found it it yours and you've got bragging rights.
There is an alternative for tracking that doesn't involved a built-in system for dobs. An equatorial platform will provide tracking for dobs and as a separate component is more portable. Clear skies!
Technology won't help you see anything better. I choose to go low-tech with good optics, basically an SCT with encoders and an NGC-MAX computer. This is a good tracking setup for long exposure photography, simplified polar alignment and manual object location using the NGC-MAX.
I normally don't use the computer, instead using a start chart and the combination of the red dot, an 80mm pointing scope with a 2" narrow field eyepiece, and finally a wide angle 2" eyepiece through the SCT. That method is fun because it orients me to the night sky and allows me to find very small objects manually.
Great video for sure - for me as a complete noob - I would like to see the comparisons with something I can understand - what detail of Saturn or Jupiter would be improved, could I see Pluto with any type of interesting detail?
Hi John, Typically large aperture like the 16" is at a disadvantage when it comes to the high power views required for planets. Eight inches and under will do better on most nights. The reasons for this can be found here on Dakota Starry Nights: czcams.com/video/KJ_4tKk6Cik/video.html
That said, a couple of weeks ago I had the UL16 out a Badlands dark site, and by chance, I turned it to Jupiter. I usually don't even bother to look at planets with it as I have more suitable refractors for that job. But as luck would have it, at that moment we were experiencing excellent seeing and above average transparency, rare for South Dakota. The resolution put out by the 16 was nothing short of amazing. Nine of Jupiter's belt zones were clearly visible, including the Great Red Spot. It was stunning. But that's only when conditions are perfect. And that doesn't happen very often. But even then, to answer your other question, Pluto will only appear as very small shinny disk with no determinable detail. Clear skies.
Hi, that was very informative Thanks a lot. I have been using a 8" reflector since 10 yrs and I'm trying to go for a bigger aperture now, im so excited abt the 16 ", I want to know about the feasibility of using motor mounts, would the vibration from the motor be a concern or not. Will I be able to do away with constant realigning with manual mounts. Would they automatically follow the star/planet? Would be really helpful to hear your thoughts. Thanks!
Hi Sachin, vibration from a motor used for tracking would depend on the motor and the gears used. I have motorized a dob in the past: czcams.com/video/2NAlyq0Rf20/video.html But all you would really need is an Equatorial Platform which will allow the dob to follow DSO's or planets. There's a lot of information online on how to build one; or you could buy one ready made. Congrats on making the jump from 8" to a 16"! You're sure going to notice a difference!
So I would like to get a Dobsonian for Outreach, -- and I was planning to get a 12" just because it will be simpler to carry (and I have a sedan) but it seems that the camera could be a better idea. Any inputs on that?
A 12" dob is the sweet spot for aperture and portability as you have stated; especially if you opt for one of the ultra light designs. Though I'm not sure what you mean by "the camera". If you are referring to the night vision monocular seen in the video, then it is most definitely a better idea. Be advised it's not a camera. It is a PVS14, used by the military and available to US citizens, which connects to a TeleVue eyepiece. However, you would still need a short focal length telescope of 8" or above. A 12" dob and PVS14 will give you views of nebulous objects comparable to apertures of 20 inches, as seen in the video. Here's a video workshop I did on Night Vision Astronomy: czcams.com/video/6usKtqpVMi8/video.html Clear skies!
hey i found a 10"dobsonian for 700 dollars, is it worth it and can you see jupiters red spot and saturns cassini division with your eyes from the eyepiece?,and what about nebulae and star clusters can you see them with your eyes or do you need a camera?
At the pt you need a one foot mirror or bigger, get the mirror and make your own mount to suit you and save the money.
Well, for me it was the 16" all the way. I know it now so the 12" would always nag at me saying "you can see more, in closer, with a 16"
Thanks for a great video comparison.
You're welcome!
"At the end of the day..." Awesome
Finally! Finally! Finally a f*ck1n simple video showing how it looks like to watch deep sky objects live view through the telescope! Ok it's a camera, but it's still pretty similar with eyes, because there's no long exposition. Thank you very much! All the videos on yt are only about long exposition or live stackings or idiots saying: without long exposition you will barely see anything BUT I JUST WANTED TO SEE THE F*CKIN SAME!
Thank you for your great contribution making this video. You got me really interested in NV!
I am also considering getting the UL16 Hubble Optics tel. and wanted to ask if the setup is as easy as the maker states? Do you need to break it down into smallest pieces or can you transport it as a couple of bigger "modules"?
It's a truss dob which means you disconnect the trusses from the secondary cage and mirror box. I transport it in three pieces. The secondary cage, mirror box inside the rocker box and the truss poles. To move it to the car, I put the rocker box in first. Then I carry the mirror box to the car and set it in the rocker box; followed by the truss poles and secondary cage. It's all very portable this way and manageable weight wise. FYI: Our club has a 16" conventional truss dob but it hasn't been pulled out in three years due to the size and weight. Nobody want's to hassle with it.
Is it portable enough to be used as carry on luggage for international flights? I don't mind paying overweight fees but not sure what to fit the components in. I know the 12" truss of Hubble Optics has a backpack it fits in but what about the 16?
@@buttlesschap I would think not. The poles, mirror box and secondary cage would be too much. They would make you check it in. The 12" Hubble truss as I understand it can fit in a backpack or suite case. Though I'd check their website for measurements and the airlines for what's allowable. Cheers!
Any comparison like this is going to be a compromise of sorts. Do you keep the eyepiece the saem? Or different ones for the same magnification? Or do you try to match exit pupil? Each is a valid comparison, which will yield different results. And if you look at telescopes on a small increment scale, there won't be much difference 8 to 10, 10 to 12, 12 to 15, etc, but there si a big difference between an 8 and a 15. In spite of this, this video is still valuable to anyone considering the options.
Eyepiece, camera and PVS14 settings, as mentioned in the video, were the same. Clear skies.
Thanks for the great video. One question--how is to hand guide each scope? Are you finding you have to put a lot more effort into keeping things centered in the 16" or is it so natural, you don't even thing about it once you get the hang of it? I wonder because I'll be moving up from an 8" SCT. Thanks.
If you haven't already watch it, I cover how to move these ultra lights at the end of my review of the UL16. czcams.com/video/4FuGniNZlg4/video.html
But yeah, it's really not all that difficult once you get the hang of it as you've said. My favorite eyepiece for the UL 16 is the Televue 35mm Panoptic. Great image scale and wide enough where you don't have to keep moving the dob every 30 seconds. There are other eyepieces that work well too. 100 degree eyepieces work but due to the fast focal ratio of the UL16 you notice the coma in the eyepiece more. In the pan's 68 degree FOV coma is not as noticeable. Or other well corrected low power eyepieces in that FOV range. Thanks for posting. :)
@@DakotaStarryNights Would a coma corrector, such as the TV Paracorr-2, eliminate the coma you described as apparent in the UL16 -- eliminate it enough to be able to enjoy the benefits of a 100 degree AFOV EP?
@@gregorystevens5173 The TV Paracorr-2 is one of the best made. So, if doesn't do the trick none of them will. That said, 100 degrees is a chuck of sky. So, maybe not the entire FOV, but enough I would imagine to satisfy. Cheers!
After observing skies thru the years of varying aperture scopes, I've found that observing under poor urban skies, larger aperture scopes seem to magnify mushy skies, and aren't that great.
Now take a large aperture scope and compare the views thru a smaller scope under truly dark skies and the larger scope will totally dominate.
Yet, one would have to ask themselves...how often do I observe from truly dark skies? and will a larger scope be worth the hundreds of $$$ more?
Thanks for the excellent video!
My experience as well.
thanks for comparison.I would have a question,going from celestron C9.25 to dobsonian,but cant decide between 12" F5 and 12" F4. what is more suitable,F5 or F4? Its only visual use,as its portable sumerian alkaid dobson.
The suitability in this case is more of a personal preference. The f4 should be shorter and easier to get to the eyepiece. But it will also have a bit more coma as compared to the f5. With the UL16 I went with the f4.5 to reduce the height of the eyepiece, which was more important to me. Thanks for posting.
Did you do any basic visual observing without the night scope? I’d be interested to know how the dobs compare in that regard. I may buy a night scope down the road, but I’m not there yet! Thanks for the detailed comparison, and thanks for all the other great videos you’ve posted!!
Yes I did compare the two without night vision. But it is really difficult to get any real-time video without night vision. And to do long exposure photography isn't representative of what a guy would see; and now you're talking astrophotography. That said, the difference between a 16" and 12" isn't jaw dropping. However, night vision is. So, it's best to keep the 12" and save up for a PVS14 night vision monocular. Otherwise you'll end up chasing the next step up to a 20" then 24" ect. I would have been just as happy with the 12" so long as I have NV. But sure, it doesn't hurt to have the extra 4", just not necessary if you have NV.
Dakota Starry Nights Good point on the PSV14 + 12” vs the 16”. Thanks!
What's the deal with using night vision?
I believe it captures IR wavelength light in addition to visible light. It is also more sensitive to light than the human eye; our eyeballs work really well in bright light, but not so well in dim light.
Really like your videos! Do you know if the ES12 Dob has a clutch now?
I believe they do. Not sure how effective it is. But there is an option to add weights for a proper balance. I used 2 or 3 pound dumbbell weights with a large washer. Their weight kit however is not expensive so that might be preferred by some. Thanks for posting.
@@DakotaStarryNights Thank You!
Awesome
**Definitely** worth going from 12 to 16 inches.
I did that and my g/f has never been happier......... ;)
That only works if your g/f can handle it. It can be a lot heavier, especially if it's an "old school" design. :D
for how much did you buy it and where?
Do you have any comparison between the ultralight style Dobs and say, a Skywatcher Flextube?
I've got the Skywatchers in 8 and 12" apertures. The 12" is a heavy beast (not like my 12" LX200 is though), but it's as simple as plop down, extend the poles, check collimation, done. Fits into a Honda Civic (and probably even smaller cars than that). And, at 5'8" I don't need a step stool at zenith. Yes, Dob's hole is a thing to contend with but I've had some of my best views of objects while dead overhead, so I'm willing to tolerate it.
I agree that if I'm to go larger, and 16" is the logical next leap, I'll need to go ultralight... but am I going to find the setup to be a royal pain? Weight doesn't bother me so much. Thanks!
Hey there Blue, I wouldn't classify setting up the UL16 a royal pain. But it's a truss dob and like all of them requires some assembly that I can put together in under 20 minutes; but not as quick as one that is preassembled, such as your Skywatcher 12. The main advantage here is the lighter weight compared to traditional dobs. But the Skywatcher Flextube has a quicker set up. Cheers!
seems that with all the improvements they have made with electronics there should be a way to improve the optics. Would plastics could they make a lens
I wouldn't think plastics would be better. Not sure if you could get the mirror coating to stick. Then there's the thermodynamics equation to consider. And for making a refracting telescope it would more than likely be inferior and I doubt any one would buy one because it's plastic. The single greatest improvement in amateur astronomy for visual work is night vision, a major game changer. If you ever get the chance to look through a fast telescope with night vision you'll know why.
Good point. Problem is that I don't live in the Dakotas.
A bit of history...Two years ago I bought my ES 16" Dob after seeing your review of the ES 12" Dob and I've loved it ever since! I'm wondering if you're using the 35mm Pan more than the 55 Plossl these days. Better image quality with the Pan? Afocally, you're giving up a lot of speed.
Yes, I tend to use the 35mm Pan more for the increase image scale a little better correction. It's just seems perfect for the UL16. I've got the f4.5 version. On extended objects, like the North America Nebula and Veil, I use the 55mm Plossl to get them in the FOV.
I've seen lots of PVS-14 users going to Pans. For NV afocal, do you think an Explore Scientific 34mm (or 40mm) 68° would be comparable? They're on sale :)
@@ScrapYardThing One reason guys are using pans for NV is the adapter that is made for Tele Vue by TNVC Night Vision. So the adapter works with Tele Vue eyepieces and maybe with the ES 34mm. Now seeing how the ES 34 is 68 degrees it could be a clone of the Tele Vue Pan. So it might hookup with the adapter and be worth a try.
@@DakotaStarryNights Very good point. I have the Tele Vue/TNVC adapter, which fits only my Meade 56mm Plossl (plus my 15mm DeLite). Yes, I am no stranger to clones! Luckily, Tele Vue's Dioptrx adapter DEA-0001 fits just about any brand eyepiece with a rim for rubber eye cups...except my Explore Scientific EPs (burn). However, Novograde has a great afocal camera adapter that firmly grips onto just about any eyepiece, even spotting scopes.
novagrade.com/shop/camera-adapter/
It has T2 threads, into which a T2/ENVIS step ring
www.rafcamera.com/adapter-t2f-to-m30-3x0-8m
connects to your PVS-14. I think I'm gonna roll the dice and get the ES 34mm. BTW, love your videos. They often come just before a major astro-buy. Your Intro to NV was a biggie! Thanks
Kick Ass video may I say !!!!