Celestron astromaster 130eq md Vs Powerseeker 127EQ

[jobiwan kenobi]

Hello I recently brought a Celestron first scope and have really enjoyed it, but now I would like to try and see and do a little more than I can with the first scope. I'd like to attempt some photography and hope to see a little more.

I've been looking at the celestron astromaster 130eq md and the celestron powerseeker 127EQ,

I have read a few reviews but would really like to hear if anyone knows the advantages and disadvantages of each models. Or if anyone would recommend any other models at a similar price.

Many thanks

-Joe

[Dubbs75]

I had the Powerseeker 127 and though it was ok for visual I wouldn't recommend it for photography. Save longer so you can purchase a better scope.

[Cornelius Varley]

The Astromaster is a better telescope, or better yet the Skywatcher 130P (better made and better finderscope). The Powerseeker 127 isn't particularly good, the optical design of the 127 means that it is difficult to collimate (impossible to do with a laser) and is undermounted on an EQ1 mount.

Peter

[jobiwan kenobi]

Okay Cheers everyone given me something to think about maybe a little more research and a little more ££££.

Cheers

[Tribal-Wolf]

Save a bit more and get the Skywatcher 130P, better made scope than either of those.

[dag123]

Hi,

If you want something to aim at you can find examples of what I have managed to get out my Astromaster with a cheap webcam here.

http://stargazerslounge.com/imaging-tips-tricks-techniques/115493-embarrassing-jupiters-webcam-clinic-14.html

This thread contains an awful lot of photos of the same target by many differnt scopes. You will be able to see "great" photos taken by what many will say are "poor" scopes and "poor" photos taken by "better" scopes.

It will hopefully give you a good idea of what you might expect to achieve with whatever choice you make.

You will also be able to find similar threads on this forum for DS objects which have different equipment needs than planetary.

dag123

[Damo636]

I would stay well clear of the 127 EQ. It was the first scope I owned and it nearly turned me off astronomy!

[Mizar]

I've been comparing these two scopes also, and I notice they both have erect image optics. How is that possible for a reflector?

Also, the PowerSeeker 127EQ http://www.celestron...eker-127eq.html is only 20" long with 1000mm focal length, so no doubt it's one of those reflectors with a built-in Barlow lens. Yet they give you a 3x Barlow with it, which surely could not be used if you're already using a built-in one.

Neverminding that, the 4mm eyepiece already takes the scope up to maximum magnification, so the 3x Barlow would only be useful with the 20mm. These discrepancies, plus costs only $170, has got me thinking this is not a properly designed scope.

The AstroMaster 130EQ http://www.celestron...ster-130eq.html has the disadvantage of no finderscope, and would need a Barlow separately. It's a normal length 24" for a 650mm focal length. Yet is still erect image optics, interestingly.

The Skywatcher 130P no longer is sold, looks like.

[cantab]

A reflector can produce an upright image with a lens (bad) or a roof prism (better) placed before the eyepiece. Either way I'd say it's gimmicky.