I need an answer quick!

[atticus808]

before i make a decision<br />http://www.telescopes.com/products/Celestron_FirstScope_70_EQ_Refractor_5916.html#<br /><br />http://www.telescopes.com/products/Meade_114EQ-AST_Short_Tube_EQ_Reflector_31198.html#<br /><br />which scope should i decide on?<br />for the product description for the 70 EQ, it says you can view galaxies and sarclusters and nebulaes, but under the product attributes, it says you can't, i don't get it<br />and how often must you adjust the optics for the reflector?

 

[atticus808]

well i also want to see galaxies and more deep sky objects<br />how poor is the optical quality? since i'm a beginner, is it bad enough so i would be able to notice anything bad?<br />and how often would i have to align the optics and how hard is it exactly?<br />would there be instructions with the package showing me how to align the optics?<br />thank you

 

[atticus808]

thank you for the reply and the quickness of it<br />i think i am settling for the Celestron 114 EQ Shortube Newtonian Reflector<br />i read some pretty good reviews about it<br />what are your thoughts on it?

 

[atticus808]

if you were a beginner<br />what would you rate the images you get from 1-10?<br />http://www.telescopes.com/products/Celestron_FirstScope_114_EQ_Short_Newtonian_Reflector_5936.html<br />those people seem pretty happy with their purchase <br /><br />i am also considering the 70 EQ cause you suggested it, but would galaxies and nebulaes be visible as a smudge at least? <br /><br />i can't decide cause i want to see galaxies and nebulaes and planets, but the refractor offers clear pictures of planets and star clusters, but the reflector offers galaxies and nebulaes as well as planets, but the planets won't be as clear, and like you said the optics will need to be collimated frequently

 

[atticus808]

alright<br />i think i'm going for the 70 EQ<br />the Orion just seems to big for me<br />and it's a reflector so it will probably require collimation right?<br />so yeah, the 70 EQ is probably my final choice<br />thank you<br />the problem is i read that the instruction manual on how to set it up is not clear, uh oh

 

[lampblack]

For some reason, I'm reminded of a decision that my wife and I faced when we got married. We knew we wanted a queen-sized mattress -- and it came down to a choice between an inexpensive mattress (one one hand) and a relatively expensive mattress that strained our budget to the point that the seams were showing (on the other).<br /><br />We went with the more expensive mattress, on the premise that it made no sense to cut corners on something we knew we'd have to live with for at least 10 or 15 years.<br /><br />I'm guessing that the same principle likely applies to telescopes. It doesn't pay to cut corners, especially if you know you're going to be using the scope for awhile.<br /><br />Identify the very best scope that you believe you can afford. And then buy a scope one notch better than that.<br /><br />Of course, I've never actually bought a telescope myself. But if and when I do, this is the approach I plan to take. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[atticus808]

ok<br />so i looked at the Celestron 90 EQ Refractor<br />it would cost around 80 more than the 70 EQ<br />the 70 EQ aperture is 2.8 inches<br />and the 90 EQ aperture is 3.5 inches<br />which one would be the better choice? <br />i don't want a reflector