How do these compare to Orion or Barska 20x80, for people who own them to? Sharpness, edges, AFOV, contrast, build quality, etc? Please be detailed.
85843
Sorry, I don't know how it compares to these other Binoculars. Mine is particularly bad. It arrived out of alignment and the chromatic aberration is extreme. Apparently it is a hit and miss with this one. I didn't expect much at the price but this example was horrendous. I would not buy again. I prefer not to play the lottery with optics. My suggestion is to try them first and then buy the same one you actually tried not take a chance that one in the box will be the same.
1149067
I would check out the AOC website for detailed specs. I like the 2ms response time and 20,000,000:1 contrast ratio. You can also view 4 screens at once if needed.
1031364
The center of the field is pretty sharp and astigmatism-free, though there is some distortion/coma toward the edges (these are not high-end optics). I'm pretty happy with them for extended objects and clusters. I had no problem seeing Jupiter's moons, and if you have a stable tripod you should be able to discern the presence of Saturn's rings.
2064281
I've owned Panny's 14mm, 20mm, and 25mm. The best bokeh is on the 20mm, followed closely by the 25mm. The 14mm is a distant third.
562383
The Edge HD scope has a flatter field meaning the stars will stay sharp all the way to the edge of the view. For general observing, I would say the CPC is plenty, if you want to get into astrophotography, I would personally prefer the Edge HD version as your photos will be sharper at the edges. There is a lot of info explaining the differences on Celestron's website, I would read all of it before deciding.
814095
I'm not sure, pretty wide field of view, but I will tell you they are the best I've ever owned. I've used other's that cost alot more money that were not as good. I have the 10x50's too. I give 5 plus star's for each!!!!!!!!
989235
Not at all. It's as simple as it gets. Just point, focus, and enjoy. Just make sure the table you use as a base is steady. I think Orion also has a 6" table top for around $270. One thing I always enjoy is to slowly scan parts of the sky that appear empty. I'm always amazed at how much more I can see with a little help. Your best first target, IMHO, is the moon when it's not full. Look along the transition from shadow to light. The 3D effect will blow you away!
2238328
I have a pair and use them almost every night since to gaze at the stars. The Moon will Fill up your view nicely. If you view say Jupiter with them it will appear quite small but if conditions are good you can actually make out Jupiter's moons even. Very good for starting Astronomy from a starter and will be used once I get a good scope also.
1754724
I own both and like them both. The Orion is easier to aim for me because the lack of the big round anchoring structure at the base of the Astroscan. If I was going to use a telescope for a child, the Astroscan is much more sturdier and the mirror is completely enclosed and safe from damage. The image quality and ability to use a variety of lenses is about the same for both.
1920901
I got the 46" 630 model and I absolutely LOVE it. Sharp incredible picture and there is hardly ANY glare whatsoever. You won't be able to say the same thing with the 650 or 750 model. With those models, you'll be frustrated whenever you want to watch TV during the daytime if there is any window in the room or at night if any inside lights are on, because those models' screens are so reflective and cause so much glare. The 630 model also comes on a swivel stand as well.
1046019
The link for the comparison at cameralabs.com is not applicable because it tested the Sigma 18-200 DC prior to the release of the OS version. The OS version is much better optically than its predecessor and also includes HSM (High Speed Motor). I have read test reviews and comparisons at other sites such as popphoto that indicate the Sigma is sharper and has less distortion than the Nikon 18-200 VR, but they also state it is slightly louder. I just received my Sigma 18-200 OS today and have done limited testing, but I can tell you the AF and OS noise are not bad (the OS chirps when it turns on and off). The Sigma AF is louder than my Nikon 18-135 (w/SWM), but quieter than the AF on my Nikon 50mm 1.8 prime (wo/SWM). The HSM AF seems just as fast as my Nikon lenses. The build quality feels better than the Nikon 18-135; the zoom is smooth and solid. The first things I tested today were barrel distortion and OS functionality. Barrel distortion is present at the wide end on ALL wide-range zooms, but the Sigma controls it better. The Sigma has noticeably less barrel distortion at 18mm than my Nikon. This benefit of the Sigma is moot really, because barrel distortion of both lenses can easily be corrected with software. The OS functions very well, I can shoot hand-held down to 1/10th of a second with no blur. I will post again after I have time to do more testing.
1570484
This is A heavy scope with a less than perfect center go gravity. I am using an alpena plastic with a fairly wide footprint. It's barely enough. It's plastic. it wiggles a lot when you focus or zoom. Do you own this scope now? Are thinking stars or on the ground. I would not recommend ultima 80 for astronomy. Blue shift issues. Works fine on the ground.
323130
I would say it is pretty close in terms of resolution and chromatic aberration. Maybe just a small difference between it and my Nightforce NXS 5.5-22X50 scopes. It seems to be built as well but you give up an illuminated reticle and zero stop but you are spending only half as much. I got mine from Amazon vendor LG Outdoors for just over $1200. At that price and the overall quality you can't go wrong. It is a little bit more difficult to find 34mm rings for the Bushnell than 30mm rings for the Nightforce.
938786
The 10 dob is a great scope. However if you find your light pollution is to much and want to head to a dark sky local you would be better served by the c6 or one of orions mac cas goto scopes.
962124
Items viewed on the Archos screen look great. However, they are not so sharp when I view them on my 46" HD TV - that may be because of the output resolution or simply because of the big screen size! I'm still testing.
177101
You can see them fairly clear, i'll put a link at the bottom of my comment to a guy who takes photo's with his 4se. Keep in mind, when you're looking through the scope, the view is not as fuzzy as his photos and video. You can't magnify much more than 150x with the 4se but you can see Saturn with it's rings, and Jupiter very clearly. I'm not sure what the other person is talking about the motors jumping, mine tracks beautifully. This is a great starter scope, but, I also agree there are way better ones out there. For a first scope just to get you familiar with the sky and Astronomy, the 4se works great. If you're like me though, you'll probably want something bigger and faster within a year. I'm actually thinking about selling my 4se to step up to a much higher end scope for Astrophotography. May I ask where you're from? https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7LIfGL0G50jj7sP_aktkHA
1841610
The optics are awful. I would think you'd have a difficult time resolving any sky features. Imaging looking through the bottom of a Coke bottle and trying to see clearly...binoculars would be better. Avoid any Barska (translates as "sucker!") product.