Help me choose please.

[Wolf873]

<p>Hi everyone,</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I am a newcomer to space and would like to get your opinions. I'm considering on purchasing a telescope that would allow me to observe the moon and, hopefully, other planets. Now, after googling around and going over some web-sites, I narrowed it down to these two scopes: Celestron Astromaster 114-EQ Reflector Telescope and Celestron PowerSeeker 127-EQ. Price wise they are out of my range, roughly around $150, but now I know these things don't come cheap and unfrotuantely these are the ones that are most preferrable under my current financial situation. I am no physicist or a mathematician but as I understand, Aperture size and Focal length are two key things to consider when buying scopes, but please do explain further since even now I'm bit unclear as to what to "truly" look for besides portability. Will either of these scopes also allow me to take snapshots? Lastly, if someone does recommend one over the other, I would also like to know what upgradable accessories I can buy that would enhance my experience, tech wise.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Thank you.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#3366ff"><em>The most merciful thing in this world is the human mind's inability to correlate all its contents.</em></font> </div>

 

[crazyeddie]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hi everyone,&nbsp;I am a newcomer to space and would like to get your opinions. I'm considering on purchasing a telescope that would allow me to observe the moon and, hopefully, other planets. Now, after googling around and going over some web-sites, I narrowed it down to these two scopes: Celestron Astromaster 114-EQ Reflector Telescope and Celestron PowerSeeker 127-EQ. Price wise they are out of my range, roughly around $150, but now I know these things don't come cheap and unfrotuantely these are the ones that are most preferrable under my current financial situation. I am no physicist or a mathematician but as I understand, Aperture size and Focal length are two key things to consider when buying scopes, but please do explain further since even now I'm bit unclear as to what to "truly" look for besides portability. Will either of these scopes also allow me to take snapshots? Lastly, if someone does recommend one over the other, I would also like to know what upgradable accessories I can buy that would enhance my experience, tech wise.&nbsp;Thank you.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by Wolf873</DIV></p><p>I don't recommend either one of these scopes, and ESPECIALLY not the Powerseeker. &nbsp;Both will probably leave you feeling frustrated and turned off to the hobby.</p><p>If you only have less than $150 bucks to spend, and you want to view the moon and planets, get an inexpensive refractor, such as this 70mm from Orion:</p><p><span style="font-family:LucidaGrande;font-size:11px;white-spacere" class="Apple-style-span">http://www.telescope.com/control/product/~category_id=refractors/~pcategory=telescopes/~product_id=09881</span></p><p>But if you can hold off and save your money, either one of these two scopes would be much better:</p><p>http://www.telescope.com/control/product/~category_id=dobsonians/~pcategory=telescopes/~product_id=09804</p><p>http://www.telescope.com/control/product/~category_id=dobsonians/~pcategory=telescopes/~product_id=09185</p><p>You might be better off just subscribing to <span style="font-style:italic" class="Apple-style-span">Sky and Telescope</span> magazine and buying a cheap pair of binoculars until you have the money to buy a decent telescope. &nbsp;If there's an astronomy club near you, join that, and use <span style="font-weight:bold" class="Apple-style-span">other</span> people's telescopes until you can afford your own.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Wolf873]

<p> if you can hold off and save your money, either one of these two scopes would be much better:<BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't recommend either one of these scopes, and ESPECIALLY not the Powerseeker. &nbsp;Both will probably leave you feeling frustrated and turned off to the hobby.If you only have less than $150 bucks to spend, and you want to view the moon and planets, get an inexpensive refractor, such as this 70mm from Orion: might be better off just subscribing to Sky and Telescope magazine and buying a cheap pair of binoculars until you have the money to buy a decent telescope. &nbsp;If there's an astronomy club near you, join that, and use other people's telescopes until you can afford your own.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by crazyeddie</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Well those two scopes are not completely out of the question, especially not the first one for $189. But what exactly is frutrating about either of the scopes that I mentioned? Aslo, the ones you mentioned, is there resolution any good, I mean nebulae or planets, how well do they appear under those?&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#3366ff"><em>The most merciful thing in this world is the human mind's inability to correlate all its contents.</em></font> </div>

 

[crazyeddie]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> if you can hold off and save your money, either one of these two scopes would be much better:&nbsp;Well those two scopes are not completely out of the question, especially not the first one for $189. But what exactly is frutrating about either of the scopes that I mentioned? Aslo, the ones you mentioned, is there resolution any good, I mean nebulae or planets, how well do they appear under those?&nbsp; <br /> Posted by Wolf873</DIV></p><p>Both of the scopes you are considering are the notorious "short-tube" reflectors, which have an abysmal reputation for poor-quality images. &nbsp;How do I know this? &nbsp;Consider their focal lengths: both have relatively long F/ratios. &nbsp;The only way a manufacturer can offer a long focal-length instrument with a very short optical tube assembly is to use a very fast F/4 mirror (which are difficult to make with an accurate optical curve) with a barlow lens, which is often made of plastic, that they build into either the secondary mirror holder or the eyepiece holder. &nbsp;This will almost always result in a poor instrument that is barely capable of low-to medium magnifications, before the inherent defects of this kind of design makes itself apparent. &nbsp;I've heard nothing but bad things about these kind of telescopes, and they ought to be banned.</p><p>Since you are a beginner, simple is best. &nbsp;Forget the fancy equatorial mounts and dreams of taking photographs through your telescope. &nbsp;Concentrate on a simple to use scope that is easy to point to objects you want to view. &nbsp;That demands a rugged, idiot-proof refractor on an alt-azimuth mount, or a dobsonian reflector. &nbsp;Refractors offer crisp, high-contrast views of the moon and planets, and can also be used for terrestrial viewing if you buy an optional image erector. &nbsp;But because of their limited aperture, they are not good for fainter objects. &nbsp;A 6" aperture dobsonian will outperform, in every way, any of the scopes you are considering, and show you much more. &nbsp;If you can't afford the 6", you might consider the 4.5", but six inches is really much better. &nbsp;These dobsonians don't have "short tubes" with built-in barlows to mess up your images, and they are easy to adjust. &nbsp;Trust me on this: you can't go wrong with a dobsonian as your first scope.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Trust me on this: you can't go wrong with a dobsonian as your first scope. <br />Posted by crazyeddie</DIV><br /><br />I agree 95% with that statement. However, my first scope was an Astroscan 2001, a 3.5" reflector, which looks like it's been run over by a truck. Many years of camping and hiking with it. I use it to this day for large comets, and solar projection. That's what I did for the Venus transit. A foot wide sun, with a pea sized venus made my view of that event unforgetable.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <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>

 

[crazyeddie]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I agree 95% with that statement. However, my first scope was an Astroscan 2001, a 3.5" reflector, which looks like it's been run over by a truck. Many years of camping and hiking with it. I use it to this day for large comets, and solar projection. That's what I did for the Venus transit. A foot wide sun, with a pea sized venus made my view of that event unforgetable.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Astroscans are nice little scopes, and rugged as hell, as you know. &nbsp;There is definitely a place for such scopes. &nbsp;Orion's 4.5" Starblast is very well-regarded, and I see they've come out with a 6" version I'm somewhat interested in:</p><p>http://www.telescope.com/control/product/~category_id=reflectors/~pcategory=telescopes/~product_id=09964</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Wolf873]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Both of the scopes you are considering are the notorious "short-tube" reflectors, which have an abysmal reputation for poor-quality images. &nbsp;How do I know this? &nbsp;Consider their focal lengths: both have relatively long F/ratios. &nbsp;The only way a manufacturer can offer a long focal-length instrument with a very short optical tube assembly is to use a very fast F/4 mirror (which are difficult to make with an accurate optical curve) with a barlow lens, which is often made of plastic, that they build into either the secondary mirror holder or the eyepiece holder. &nbsp;This will almost always result in a poor instrument that is barely capable of low-to medium magnifications, before the inherent defects of this kind of design makes itself apparent. &nbsp;I've heard nothing but bad things about these kind of telescopes, and they ought to be banned.Since you are a beginner, simple is best. &nbsp;Forget the fancy equatorial mounts and dreams of taking photographs through your telescope. &nbsp;Concentrate on a simple to use scope that is easy to point to objects you want to view. &nbsp;That demands a rugged, idiot-proof refractor on an alt-azimuth mount, or a dobsonian reflector. &nbsp;Refractors offer crisp, high-contrast views of the moon and planets, and can also be used for terrestrial viewing if you buy an optional image erector. &nbsp;But because of their limited aperture, they are not good for fainter objects. &nbsp;A 6" aperture dobsonian will outperform, in every way, any of the scopes you are considering, and show you much more. &nbsp;If you can't afford the 6", you might consider the 4.5", but six inches is really much better. &nbsp;These dobsonians don't have "short tubes" with built-in barlows to mess up your images, and they are easy to adjust. &nbsp;Trust me on this: you can't go wrong with a dobsonian as your first scope. <br /> Posted by crazyeddie</p><p>Astroscans are nice little scopes, and rugged as hell, as you know. &nbsp;There is definitely a place for such scopes. &nbsp;Orion's 4.5" Starblast is very well-regarded, and I see they've come out with a 6" version I'm somewhat interested in:</p><p>http://www.telescope.com/control/product/~category_id=reflectors/~pcategory=telescopes/~product_id=09964</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p></DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I trust you, but its just that any of these scopes might end up being my only scope for another 7+ years to come. It's quiet an expensive hobby, so I really need to make a firm decision as to which one to get. You strongly recommend getting a 6", so I'll look into it. Taking photos was something I really wanted as a feature, but I don't know what to get in order to take them, but that's not important. Also, could you direct me to any side pieces that I would need such as filters or another set of eye-pieces to see fainter objects?</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>how are those Starblast scope in comparison to the ones you mentioned?&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#3366ff"><em>The most merciful thing in this world is the human mind's inability to correlate all its contents.</em></font> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;I trust you, but its just that any of these scopes might end up being my only scope for another 7+ years to come. It's quiet an expensive hobby, so I really need to make a firm decision as to which one to get. You strongly recommend getting a 6", so I'll look into it. Taking photos was something I really wanted as a feature, but I don't know what to get in order to take them, but that's not important. Also, could you direct me to any side pieces that I would need such as filters or another set of eye-pieces to see fainter objects? <br />Posted by Wolf873</DIV><br /><br />If you have to wait 7 years, so be it. In the meantime, the filters you might buy now can stay with you in the future, so the money isn't wasted. But the money would be better spent on a better scope rather than filters. <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>

 

[Wolf873]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you have to wait 7 years, so be it. In the meantime, the filters you might buy now can stay with you in the future, so the money isn't wasted. But the money would be better spent on a better scope rather than filters. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>So, do you aslo recommend SkyQuest XT6?&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#3366ff"><em>The most merciful thing in this world is the human mind's inability to correlate all its contents.</em></font> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;So, do you aslo recommend SkyQuest XT6?&nbsp; <br />Posted by Wolf873</DIV><br /><br />I have no recommendations, only comments. I'm a meteor guy, which means no scope. My scope use is strictly a hobby. Listen to the scope people.... <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>

 

[TahaSiddiqui]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hi everyone,&nbsp;I am a newcomer to space and would like to get your opinions. I'm considering on purchasing a telescope that would allow me to observe the moon and, hopefully, other planets. Now, after googling around and going over some web-sites, I narrowed it down to these two scopes: Celestron Astromaster 114-EQ Reflector Telescope and Celestron PowerSeeker 127-EQ. Price wise they are out of my range, roughly around $150, but now I know these things don't come cheap and unfrotuantely these are the ones that are most preferrable under my current financial situation. I am no physicist or a mathematician but as I understand, Aperture size and Focal length are two key things to consider when buying scopes, but please do explain further since even now I'm bit unclear as to what to "truly" look for besides portability. Will either of these scopes also allow me to take snapshots? Lastly, if someone does recommend one over the other, I would also like to know what upgradable accessories I can buy that would enhance my experience, tech wise.&nbsp;Thank you.&nbsp; <br />Posted by Wolf873</DIV><br /><br />I have the Celestron Astromaster&nbsp;114 Alt-AZ which is the same series, even the&nbsp;exact same telescope except for the EQ and AZ and i would'nt recommend you to buy that telescope. The optics arnt that great im guessing because its a short-tube reflector as crazyeddie explained&nbsp;and the finderscope will really piss you off. The red dot washes out the stars except for the brighter few and the glass is blurry and scratched up. I wish I had gone for a 6 or 8" dobsonian which is the reason why I am saving up money once again.. lol

 

[crazyeddie]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;I trust you, but its just that any of these scopes might end up being my only scope for another 7+ years to come. It's quiet an expensive hobby, so I really need to make a firm decision as to which one to get. You strongly recommend getting a 6", so I'll look into it. Taking photos was something I really wanted as a feature, but I don't know what to get in order to take them, but that's not important. Also, could you direct me to any side pieces that I would need such as filters or another set of eye-pieces to see fainter objects?&nbsp;how are those Starblast scope in comparison to the ones you mentioned?&nbsp; <br /> Posted by Wolf873</DIV></p><p>A 6" dobsonian reflector has enough aperture to keep you busy for a long time, so I think you are better off waiting until you can afford to buy one, rather than wasting your money on a smaller scope that you will quickly grow out of. &nbsp;Scopes such as the Orion Starblast (and the Astroscan that Wayne mentioned) are wide-angle, low-power instruments that are good for "sweeping" the night sky for viewing star clouds and diffuse, wide nebula, but are not capable of high magnification. &nbsp;They make good "second" instruments to compliment a larger scope. &nbsp;Their only downside is that for them to perform at their best, they demand expensive, highly-corrected eyepieces that can cope with their fast focal ratios.</p><p>Snapshots of the moon and planets are possible with any telescope, if you own a digital camera. &nbsp;Photographs of anything else requires a huge investment in equipment, time, and patience. &nbsp;That's why you should not be thinking about photography until you've learned the basics of observing and know your way around the sky.</p><p>You only need 3 eyepieces: one each for low, medium, and high magnification. &nbsp;Or, two eyepieces and one good-quality barlow lens, which will double your range of magnifications. &nbsp;Plossls are good all-purpose eyepieces, and the ones that come with the Orion dobsonians are very good.</p><p>Most of my observing is of the moon and planets, and I rarely use filters. &nbsp;They are a nice accessory, but not necessary, especially for beginners. &nbsp;Spend your money instead on a good, adjustable observing chair. &nbsp;you'll be amazed at how much more comfortable your observing will be if you're relaxed and sitting down.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Wolf873]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A 6" dobsonian reflector has enough aperture to keep you busy for a long time, so I think you are better off waiting until you can afford to buy one, rather than wasting your money on a smaller scope that you will quickly grow out of. &nbsp;Scopes such as the Orion Starblast (and the Astroscan that Wayne mentioned) are wide-angle, low-power instruments that are good for "sweeping" the night sky for viewing star clouds and diffuse, wide nebula, but are not capable of high magnification. &nbsp;They make good "second" instruments to compliment a larger scope. &nbsp;Their only downside is that for them to perform at their best, they demand expensive, highly-corrected eyepieces that can cope with their fast focal ratios.Snapshots of the moon and planets are possible with any telescope, if you own a digital camera. &nbsp;Photographs of anything else requires a huge investment in equipment, time, and patience. &nbsp;That's why you should not be thinking about photography until you've learned the basics of observing and know your way around the sky.You only need 3 eyepieces: one each for low, medium, and high magnification. &nbsp;Or, two eyepieces and one good-quality barlow lens, which will double your range of magnifications. &nbsp;Plossls are good all-purpose eyepieces, and the ones that come with the Orion dobsonians are very good.Most of my observing is of the moon and planets, and I rarely use filters. &nbsp;They are a nice accessory, but not necessary, especially for beginners. &nbsp;Spend your money instead on a good, adjustable observing chair. &nbsp;you'll be amazed at how much more comfortable your observing will be if you're relaxed and sitting down.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by crazyeddie</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Thanks. I bought 6" already. In the review, if I remember correctly, someone mentioned that one might need a filter to observe the moon properly but I'll try it out first. I was thinking of buying those barlows shorty eye-pieces, would they be any good and how much different the view is using those?&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#3366ff"><em>The most merciful thing in this world is the human mind's inability to correlate all its contents.</em></font> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Thanks. I bought 6" already. In the review, if I remember correctly, someone mentioned that one might need a filter to observe the moon properly but I'll try it out first. I was thinking of buying those barlows shorty eye-pieces, would they be any good and how much different the view is using those?&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by Wolf873</DIV><br /><br />A lunar filter helps if you are looking at the full moon. It's quite bright, and causes the eye you look with to be quite unresponsive to light in the night environment for a while. It's not essential, though. Makes my head tilt over <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>