what is the diferece with the Celestron NexStar 130SLT Computerized Telescope wich one is better
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
1449070
These are two different types of telescopes, but both are on the same mount. The 127 is a Maksutov design; the 130 is a Newtonian design. The 127 is better; it's better because you don't have to do something called collimation, which is where you have to adjust the mirrors so that they're in line with each other. If you search for collimation on YouTube, you'll see what that's all about. The 127 comes collimated from the factory, and you don't have to collimate it once you receive it.
1449071
the 127 is a maksutov style telescope and the 130 is a reflecting one. maksutovs achieve the same power as longer reflectors without being as big.
1510207
I called Celestron and yes they are identical. You are paying more for the "Comsos" brand. Get the InfiniView model and save money.
1537150
Here's a link to the users manual:http://www.celestron.com/c3/images/files/downloads/1265967994_44340manual5lan.pdf
1572479
This telescope works with either Mount but the az is better if you are not using it for the night sky and it's faster to point
1540433
The NexStar 130 SLT uses a 2" eyepiece so you would need an adapter as the camera is made for 1.25" eyepiece. You will also need a Windows or Mac computer as well of course.
85767
I'm pretty sure they are the same...the X2 "Shorty" Barlow...def worth it. The XT8 is a GREAT telescope.
580851
It should and the kit is listed as an accessory you may want to purchase: http://www.highpointscientific.com/celestron-nexstar-130-slt-computerized-telescope-31145?utm_source=google&utm;_medium=cse&utm_term=CEL-31145&gclid;=CKj5ve7Rz8ECFQcSMwodfG4A3Q
1636835
The GPS only captures time, date and location information so that you don't have to enter it manually. If you do have the GPS, make sure to enable the functionality through the NexStar menu. SkyQ Link allows the remote operation of the telescope but the alignment process still needs to be done manually. I agree with Doug, I would save my cash and get something more usefule like a Televue Barlow lens. You'll get more value out of it.In short, I find that Celestron makes good optical equipment and portable mounts but their ancillary products are yet to be desired. I have a few of these items and there aren't any that have been trouble free. Tech supports common boiler plate response is to 'replace' the item. The GPS only captures time, date and location information so that you don't have to enter it manually. If you do have the GPS, make sure to enable the functionality through the NexStar menu. SkyQ Link allows the remote operation of the telescope but the alignment process still needs to be done manually. I agree with Doug, I would save my cash and get something more usefule like a Televue Barlow lens. You'll get more value out of it.In short, I find that Celestron makes good optical equipment and portable mounts but their ancillary products are yet to be desired. I have a few of... » Read More The GPS only captures time, date and location information so that you don't have to enter it manually. If you do have the GPS, make sure to enable the functionality through the NexStar menu. SkyQ Link allows the remote operation of the telescope but the alignment process still needs to be done manually. I agree with Doug, I would save my cash and get something more usefule like a Televue Barlow lens. You'll get more value out of it.In short, I find that Celestron makes good optical equipment and portable mounts but their ancillary products are yet to be desired. I have a few of these items and there aren't any that have been trouble free. Tech supports common boiler plate response is to 'replace' the item. « Show Less
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.
162738
I am sorry, but I simply don't know. I reccomend you contact Celestron and get their reccos. Brgds, Geo
940201
From the research I have done, this is a better quality telescope than the PowerSeeker. The Celestron PowerSeeker series comes with extras (such as the Barlow lens), but the quality of the Celestron AstroMaster series is superior; that is why the AstroMasters cost more and come with less. At this price ($49.95 including shipping), it is a good buy. Good bye.
1253192
As I understand the tradeoff, the 10x42 L model uses superior optical glass and because of this, images seen through it are virtually free of chromatic aberration ("purple fringing") and also devoid of ghost images when viewing bright objects at night such as the Moon and Jupiter. On the other hand the 15x50 model, whose optics are again of very high quality, but not quite as high as the 10x42L's, gives you a larger image size--each object is larger because magnification is 50 percent greater. This makes the choice difficult, even a toss-up. For a thoughtful comparison of the different Canon binoculars, go to www.garyseronik.com. Gary is an associate editor of Sky and Telescope magazine and he is an expert on binocular observing--has a book on the subject in fact.
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
938787
I don't know the first thing about the celestron 6e so I can't compare the two. When it comes to light pollution the type of telescope won't make a difference anyway. There are only two solutions: 1) a filter for urban areas (I have one and the results were mixed at best), and 2) get yourself to the country! One thing I can say is that I live in a light polluted area too (downtown El Paso/Juarez) and I'm very happy with the xt10 -- but I'm much happier when I can lug the beast out to the desert.
1963963
Not sure. I used it for a Celestron NexStar 130 SLT Computerized Telescope.
2061055
Hello, First issue is the use of a reducer/corrector with a barlow multiplier. The two lenses are working against each other to no effect. Use the eyepiece alone or use it with the reducer corrector for lower power (wider fields of view) or use the eyepiece with the barlow for much higher power (smaller fields of view). If you have the Celestron Edge telescope I do not believe the reducer/corrector will work correctly. Hope this helps.
1496890
Absolutely and you will love the difference. My first telescope was the Walmart 70az and this was very worth the money.