What is the different between this ITEM and this Celestron NexStar 127SLT Mak Computerized Telescope (Black) ?
350920
It doesn't have the tripod and the computerized system that automatically points the telescope to various celestial objects. Also optically it is not Matsukov-Cassengrain.
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.
1779087
Celestron 21061 AstroMaster 70 AZ Refractor Telescope Sold by Amazon.com LLC
136997
I don't know but the one the I had worked great in day light or when you could still see with your eye, but in starlight it was junk. Sent it back.
1554883
Sorry Kevin, i am the wrong person. i bought this telescope for my son and he couldn't use it and i am stock now. I bought it cuz i thought it would be just easy. but i was wrong.
1496890
Absolutely and you will love the difference. My first telescope was the Walmart 70az and this was very worth the money.
254052
is this work with the Celestron NexStar 6SE? and would it gives better results than #93633-A (Celestron T-adapter for all Schmidt-Cassegrains)??
1066004
I think either one would do fine, IF you have a good tripod mount. You need to get one specifically designed for binoculars and for stargazing, not terrestrial viewing. The weight of the binoculars will get tiring fast. :-( Personally, if I were a beginner stargazer I would get a telescope. Better magnification and, due to the size of the optics, more light.
2199583
As far as I know there is not any REAL difference. I have had telescopes with a variety of colors but they have all been flat black on the inside keeping ambirnt light from entering through the side walls of the body.
1058013
The Dob will definitely give you more deep space objects than the refractor. I got my son one of those last Christmas. It is rather large in comparison to the refractor, but rotates well on its base. His is not computerized and he has gotten very adept at finding nebulae and Messier objects. I think the refractor is more for planets and moons in our close by system. Visual tracking is okay, remember that the image is reversed in the Dob.
2190258
This listing is for the Undercut version. That is the only way it is sold through Amazon. If you prefer the version without undercut please see telescopeadapters.com
2138739
When I purchased this telescope, it came with a 1.25" diagonal, and a 1.25" 40mm Plossel eyepiece. I strongly recommend you at least get the Celestron 2" eyepiece kit like I did. It is a great starter kit. I would advise against 1.25" eyepieces. With a telescope of this size and light gathering power, those are to small. You will also need to power it. To do this, you either need to get the AC power adapter from Celestron if you are going to be near an AC outlet, or the Celestron Power Tank like I did, for use in the field. Hope this helps. It is a fantastic telescope! I also got the new Celestron StarSense Auto Align camera, so the telescope is automatically aligned by it. When I purchased this telescope, it came with a 1.25" diagonal, and a 1.25" 40mm Plossel eyepiece. I strongly recommend you at least get the Celestron 2" eyepiece kit like I did. It is a great starter kit. I would advise against 1.25" eyepieces. With a telescope of this size and light gathering power, those are to small. You will also need to power it. To do this, you either need to get the AC power adapter from Celestron if you are going to be near an AC outlet, or the Celestron Power Tank like I did, for use in the field. Hope this helps. It is a fantastic telescope! I... » Read More When I purchased this telescope, it came with a 1.25" diagonal, and a 1.25" 40mm Plossel eyepiece. I strongly recommend you at least get the Celestron 2" eyepiece kit like I did. It is a great starter kit. I would advise against 1.25" eyepieces. With a telescope of this size and light gathering power, those are to small. You will also need to power it. To do this, you either need to get the AC power adapter from Celestron if you are going to be near an AC outlet, or the Celestron Power Tank like I did, for use in the field. Hope this helps. It is a fantastic telescope! I also got the new Celestron StarSense Auto Align camera, so the telescope is automatically aligned by it. « Show Less
1175354
I would advise you not to buy the 5-mp Celestron. The camera is good but the software does the images captured in Windows 8 .
1587272
Celestron has a list on their site. Check the mount you have, not the telescope.
2121603
Being the same size scope, the mount is driving the price and the 5se appears sturdier then the slt (I own the 5se that I got on Amazon). The 5se can also be set up as Equatorial using the built-in wedge (which is useful for astrophotography). If you don't need or want the wedge feature, bump up to the 6se if it fits within your budget. Also, Celestron lists the slt series as beginner telescopes and the se series as intermediate. I quick search on youtube will find several before-you-buy videos. Hope that helps.
1449069
The Maksutov also allows terrestrial viewing since it doesn't "flip" the image as does a reflector such as the 130SLT. On the downside, the 127 does have a slightly smaller aperture so it won't collect quite as much light (making viewing dimmer objects more difficult to see) but the difference is negligible: the 127 collects 329x of light compared to the human eye while the 130 collects 345x. In terms of useful magnification, the 127 range is 18-300x while the 130 is 19-307x - again, negligible difference. Because of its smaller tube, the 127 will be more portable but will most probably weigh more. The Maksutov also allows terrestrial viewing since it doesn't "flip" the image as does a reflector such as the 130SLT. On the downside, the 127 does have a slightly smaller aperture so it won't collect quite as much light (making viewing dimmer objects more difficult to see) but the difference is negligible: the 127 collects 329x of light compared to the human eye while the 130 collects 345x. In terms of useful magnification, the 127 range is 18-300x while the 130 is 19-307x - again, negligible difference. Because of its smaller tube, the 127 will be more portable but will most... » Read More The Maksutov also allows terrestrial viewing since it doesn't "flip" the image as does a reflector such as the 130SLT. On the downside, the 127 does have a slightly smaller aperture so it won't collect quite as much light (making viewing dimmer objects more difficult to see) but the difference is negligible: the 127 collects 329x of light compared to the human eye while the 130 collects 345x. In terms of useful magnification, the 127 range is 18-300x while the 130 is 19-307x - again, negligible difference. Because of its smaller tube, the 127 will be more portable but will most probably weigh more. « Show Less
1959651
If you are going to be a serious skywatcher/ stargazer, I would upgrade to a better telescope for sure. But if you bought the celestron firstscope for your children or grandchildren, just to get them interested in the universe around us, I would replace the lenses. Celestron may replace the broken lenses for you