I like the xt10, but i am thhinking about the goto celestron 6e. I live in a light poluted area (dallas). Thoughts?
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.
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.
938788
Get the xt10, it's a big light gathering bucket, a bit heavy and all manual operation but you'll see more and learn more about where things are in the sky, the cons of the go to 6E seem to much trouble to get to first base viewing. This thing is just aim a view!
813697
Not familiar with the Celestron product, but I don't think the military zoom will work for you. It is good for up close looks. Not impressed for distances, you will need a tripod for it too.
2225541
Long exposures with this telescope would be frustratingly difficult. Spend more money and move into the professional series of scopes with massive equatorial mountings and move to a location where light pollution is minimal. Your camera is a good choice, though.
870187
I like the Celestron Power tank myself. I put it under the scope so I don't have wires to trip over, plus the tank has some lights that are useful. I charge it once a month. I'm not sure you need 5a for this mount. Amazon sells Celestron 18778 AC Adapter (Black) for $19 if you want to go that way.
1546504
I have bought 2 deluxe Celestron units and both had LCD issues and had to be returned. I am waiting to get a third.
43019
In my opinion you need a better range of optics. There is very little light gathering ability difference between x40 and x42. I would recommend the 8x40 and 10x50's. I know, the 10x50 are heavier but they also are better in low light. You never know when you are going to see something that is a once-in a lifetime occurence. I think it is worth the weight.
1699050
I don't know for certain, since I haven't used the illuminated version. But I would check the reviews of that particular model very carefully, and make sure that you can adjust the brightness all the way down. A common complaint with illuminated gear is that the brightness may be adjustable, but that even a the lowest setting it is still too bright. I can tell you that I've never been tempted by the illuminated version because I've never had a problem seeing the crosshairs on the regular version, and I've used it everywhere from city center sidewalk astronomy to radically dark skies deep in the Mojave desert. It seems to me that for bright stuff you don't need illlumination, and that for dim stuff the illumination might compete with the faint light from the target, BUT take that with a huge grain of salt since I am basically speaking from ignorance.
1981175
Exactly. But it's still worth it. The user interface on Celestron scopes is worse than archaic. It's actually inexcusable. This speeds up alignment a lot.
53823
I did a search at Amazon for the 44302-B and it appears to be a new model listed for $105.09!! As opposed to $40 for the other one. Not a lot of details,though. Look at the Celestron web site.
43864
sorry, but mine never worked, i brought it overseas and never got it replaced by Celestron, bad luck i guess
1540431
I know I have a celestron 4se computerized and it worked beautifully. It's a little difficult for the settings to get color but once you do, you will be amazed.
1510210
It looks to be the same as Cosmos, but I also have the Celestron. It all depends on what you plan on really using it for!
1664769
I have not seen the Simmons. I am very pleased with my Celestron up thru 40X or maybe 45X. Above that, the optics are not as clear, and detail is not much more visible, even though the image is larger. Most of my useage is 1.5-2 miles looting at wildlife. At shorter ranges, the higher magnification would probably be adequate as well, that's just not what I use it for. Moon shots are impressive!
2210046
Bill, yours is a dud. Mine is rather accurate and isn't plagued by your technical issues. I can find galaxies that aren't visible to the naked eye with it quickly. That said, I actually don't own a Celestron telescope currently but instead those from other manufacturers. However, that isn't because I've experienced serious quality issues with Celestron scopes in the past.
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 .
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.
1310869
I could not get my Celestron XCel series 2X Barlow to focus. It was way beyond the focuser's travel and others have noted this but apparently Orion's Shorty 2X Barlow will work with this telescope as well as GSO 2x barlow from Agena AstroProducts. The useful magnification on this telescope is 200X but that is probably counting on optimum conditions. For planetary views with average conditions with a 100mm telescope, magnification of 100X to 120X are probably expected to be the clearest.