This is selling now on telescopes.com for $160. Comparing it to the Celestron 21061 Astromaster 70mm($122). Please advise :)
1732537
The 21061 will not pull in as much light and not match the magifixation the 114 can resulting in a lesser view. The 114 would be about the least focal length and apiture I would go.
72106
I just ordered the Celestron Nexstar SLT 130, as recommended by a friend who has been into astronomy for years..as a beginner myself I would definitely recommend this telescope...I've used it every night since I've gotten it...the computer makes it really easy to set up and find planets and stars right away!
1711121
Yes you see them great with this telescope, I've seen the moons of jupiter as well. Is it the clearest, no but in my opinion worth probably 150, so for the price it is excellent.
1537154
First, you might be able to get info and a new booklet from Celestron Tech, who have been very helpful tyo me in the past. If they can't help you, I may have the original instructions, and would copy them for you. Also, I'd be willing to answer questions because I've used them a lot. For starters, in case you have a Mac, you can download only a 100 or fewer pics to your computer at oncer, not the maximum on the scope. Glitch in program, written for PCs. Feel free to ask. Aloha, coni
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.
1469254
I use the 3 and higher for imaging Planets, thet 2X can be used for doubling the power at the eyepiece. The 127 eq is a great scope you should have lots of fun. I had a C5 at one time loved it.
1779087
Celestron 21061 AstroMaster 70 AZ Refractor Telescope Sold by Amazon.com LLC
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.
936066
I can't answer your question, but I can add that I tried the Celestron against this model and returned the Celestron. The Celestron had some difficulty stabilizing the image. Also, the software bundled with the AM Scope camera is pretty good.
1159085
The site http://www.garyseronik.com/?q=node/25 has a very nice comparison of all of Canon's IS binoculars for stargazing. In summary, these are not the authors favorites (he prefers the 10x42 Ls or 15x50) but they will certainly work. I am considering these due to their combination of high magnification, decent (not great) optics, and light weight.By going to a telescope (and I mean a decent sized reflector, not a tiny $50 refractor from a department store) you are not necessarily getting a large increase in magnification; it depends on the eyepiece being used. But you are getting a lot more light gathering power to see faint objects. Many people into stargazing will have both binoculars and a larger telescope. The site http://www.garyseronik.com/?q=node/25 has a very nice comparison of all of Canon's IS binoculars for stargazing. In summary, these are not the authors favorites (he prefers the 10x42 Ls or 15x50) but they will certainly work. I am considering these due to their combination of high magnification, decent (not great) optics, and light weight.By going to a telescope (and I mean a decent sized reflector, not a tiny $50 refractor from a department store) you are not necessarily getting a large increase in magnification; it depends on the eyepiece being used. But you are... » Read More The site http://www.garyseronik.com/?q=node/25 has a very nice comparison of all of Canon's IS binoculars for stargazing. In summary, these are not the authors favorites (he prefers the 10x42 Ls or 15x50) but they will certainly work. I am considering these due to their combination of high magnification, decent (not great) optics, and light weight.By going to a telescope (and I mean a decent sized reflector, not a tiny $50 refractor from a department store) you are not necessarily getting a large increase in magnification; it depends on the eyepiece being used. But you are getting a lot more light gathering power to see faint objects. Many people into stargazing will have both binoculars and a larger telescope. « Show Less
78396
Thank you for your response Darrell, this discussion board seems pretty much dead so I thought I would never get answered, but I did, and a great answer at that.I've been thinking about buying the Orion XT4.5 now, I'm aware the image will not be as great as the 8 inch but I'll still be able to see Saturn right? Would this be better than a refractor telescope? Sorry for all the questions! No more questions after this, I promise.
1300683
CELESTRON sells an inexpensive tripod for these binoculars at their main site. See the tripods at : http://www.celestron.com/browse-shop/astronomy/astronomy-binoculars/skymaster-20-100x70-zoom-binocular Its the main web site for CELESTRON binoculars. Its the Tripod, Photographic and Video item #93606 for $34.95 but appears to need the binocular tripod adaptor for $15.95
53207
I am very impressed with the focusing mechanism. It feels very quality and easy to fine tune to get a beautifully focused image to the most magnification the scope or sky conditions allow on any given night. It simply has not let me down in the least. Now can it be replaced or changed out? I am not sure 100% but doubt it. It is a knob the comes out the back of the telescope and isn't connected directly to the eyepiece like a crayford focuser in which you could just change it out. It seems to me to be a special focuser mechanism for this particular telescope. For me it hasn't at all been a thought in wanting to change it. You'd benefit more from buying a nicer diagonal or eyepieces. I doubt you will be disappointed with the focuser. I am going to try and attach a picture of the back of the telescope so you can see what I am trying to describe.
1856383
It is a hell of a great lens for its price. If you have extra money you can consider other lenses such as: Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S Zoom Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras (http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-17-35mm-Nikkor-Digital-Cameras/dp/B00005LEOS) again, if you have extra money. I have used both but I was happier with this 18-35mm lens because it's so light weight. Unless you have an old camera with not-so-great ISO performance or you like to do astrophotography, I think this lens can make many people happy.
1661999
Yes, but you need to be aware that there are limitations to ground-based telescopes, particularly small scopes like this one. With a 76mm aperture (diameter of the tube), the maximum usable magnification is something like 150x, give or take. The 300mm focal length determines the level of magnification you can get from each eyepiece (divide 300 by the eye piece focus, so 15mm eyepiece is 20x magnification). This scope comes with 10mm and 20mm pieces. A Barlow (check out "Celestron AstroMaster Accessory Kit Telescope" for a tidy kit) can double or triple the magnification. Planets are big, but they are still far away. Even at 50x (6mm eye piece or equivalent), Mars will still look like a large red star. Venus, in addition to being hard to view because of its position relative to the sun, is covered by a dense cloud layer; you can see that it is a disc rather than a distant star even at lower magnifications, but there isn't a lot of detail to see through a small (or large) scope. Jupiter is much larger and better for viewing as a result. At 50x, it will still be small, but it should be easily recognizable as the gas giant we know and love. You should even be able to see the four bright dots in a line that are the planet's four largest moons. At 100x, the banding in its clouds should be clear. Saturn is smaller and farther than Jupiter. Still, you can see that the shape is distorted. A little more power and the cause should be clear: the rings. With my larger scope at home, by 125x (doable on this scope with the right equipment) it is clear that the rings are spaced away from the planet. Uranus and beyond, though, are beyond the reach of this scope, at least if you wanted to see more than a dot. So, yes, you can see the closer planets, but you need to keep your expectations realistic. I'd strongly recommend a Barlow and a decent eye piece. There are a number of kits, some less than $50, that should do nicely in that regard. Even without, there is still quite a bit to view in the night sky.
844563
its a great deal in the price range and you should buy this product. i own this device, it will take you some time to familiarize yourself with different eyepieces and their focal lengths but you will enjoy it.
770255
I assume you are asking about the orion scope vs the celestron scope? I've no experience with the orion st, there's a comparison on cloudy nights' user forum. There is a lot of info there. I beive that is where I found a write up on what to expect from various size optics and focal lengths. I'm still happy with the astromaster. It has pretty good optics, but as many people have pointed out, the mount is a little flimsy.