Drug stores here tend to have random garbage products near the toys, the "as seen on TV" aisle, and the greeting cards. Pretty sure the intent is "oh crap I forgot a gift". Or to promote caving to nagging children. Or both.
I got one of these pieces of trash for my eleventh birthday. It was a bit depressing. But, it brought me closer to the stars. It taught me about what could be. I followed that to the point where I am now, thousands of dollars later and taking my children on a tour of the seeable universe. That garbage started that. Never underestimate the power of a drug store science toy in the hands of the right child
I'm glad it worked for you, but my experience was thinking I was no good when something cheap wouldn't work right. Granted, I might have had a better perspective if my mother hadn't kept telling me, "A bad workman always blames his tools."
Observatory employee A: What's that noise coming from our dumpster area? Observatory employee b: it's ok, it's just Scott Manley searching through our dumpster again.
@@spiritas5372 Depends on what you're imaging. It's true they're no good for anything that requires a long exposure, but bright objects like the moon and planets that can be taken with short exposures should image fairly well.
@@spiritas5372 You should explain why - because the target rotates during long exposures, even if the target is tracked, but a dob is certainly good enough for short exposures. An aligned equatorial mount driven at 1 revolution per sidereal day is a bit beyond the average beginner!
@@ahaveland Not necessarily. I'm currently building one with an Arduino, stepper motor and a couple of gearboxes plus some bits of hardware. Total cost for parts was under $100 so far. Eventually I want to make it self-aligning with a couple more steppers, GPS, compass and gyroscopes.
William Macgregor I do think that sometimes cheaply made products are so bad they in fact offer no value - and a person should always get some kind of value for their money. Looking at the moon with my own eye still renders a better image than using the $5 telescope he explored in the video.
I first saw this video 1.5 years ago and the idea of a backpack telescope intrigued me. I was getting into hiking and didn’t know such a thing existed. I now have 3 telescopes including a big dob and have been totally taken with the hobby. This one video changed my life and introduced me to amateur astronomer. I am absolutely hooked! Thanks Scott!
“Because I’m a bit of a space nerd, if you haven’t noticed” As he sits in front of a vinyl LP collection bigger than the library I used when working at a community broadcaster just before CD’s came out and still bigger than the CD collection that same broadcaster had when we switched to downloadable sample content straight from the record distributors. Just how far does your Nerdy McNerd Nerd stretch Mr Manley?
That vinyl collection was no doubt part of the reason this video kept reminding me of the ones where some audiophile compares a cheap Crosley record player with their Audio Technica turntable.
Robert Price no way, are you sure? I can see a chrome tremolo, chrome tuning heads and strings. Can only see 1 pick up but I imagine there is another 1 or 2 white ones washing out with the pick guard. Guessing it’s a Fender Squire.
"There's a lot of cheap telescopes that would show you glorious pictures of the nebula which you can't really take unless you have the Hubble Space Telescope". Don't know why but I laughed SO hard at this part.
Can confirm, my father has some milspec binos from Vietnam-Cambodia era and although they are not as magnifying as a proper Tele, they have come in handy for watching eclipses, since they have obscuring filters that you just snap in front of the lenses
Robert that is correct. Good sky grade binoculars will give you vivid views of Orion Nebula, the Moon, Andromeda, full constellations, you can tell the planets are blobs-not stars (about it) but with steady arms or a camera tripod you can see the four largest moons of Jupiter. Much less skill and patience required. Some telephoto cameras do quite well with planets, but you are looking at a digital video image, not direct optics. I carry binoculars whenever i take my telescope out (about three nights a week but I live on a mountain 10 miles from the middle of nowhere in a national forest) Cheap refractors ($50-100) are however how children should start. Keeps them from believing they are being tricked by Masons at NASA and PhotoShop into believing the planets are actually round objects millions upon millions of km/miles away.
Couldn’t agree more. I’m an avid amateur astronomer and space nut as most others on here. Growing up when I first took an interest in astronomy I didn’t know what to get. My great uncle and aunt who build there own telescopes and buy their van based on if it can fit there biggest telescope when they travel to their club locations (awesome!) had me start out with just a good pair of binoculars. That way I could see the moon and many other planets to a certain degree and learn where everything was. If I was to of bought a big telescope that cost much more and really didn’t catch the “fever” for astronomy so to speak like I did the telescope would of gone to waste. Totally believe beginners should use a good pair of binoculars to start out. Thanks!
@@jpardoa94: Having less magnification actually is a feature when you are just starting, since with a larger field of view it's easier to find the things that you want to look at. That's why you typically have a finder scope attached to your telescope, to provide a larger field of view for aiming purposes than the main telescope does.
Yep, I once bought a Vivitar camera and it was a piece of junk. They sucker you in cause they have low prices, but the quality is so bad you can't really use them for anything.
They never actually *made* anything themselves, it was all contract made overseas, by various makers... they did sell some decent prime telephoto lenses in the mid 70s, but most of their stuff was "C" or "B" quality. I had a 600mm f/8 from them, with a Pentax K mount adapter, that I used with my Pentax MX in the late 70s btw, the founders died, and the name was sold by the estate, its been resold a few times, wikipedia says its now owned by Sakar International who's big into junky stuff sold at mass market retailers
@@geepeerces Ah okay, thanks for the info. Alot of companies actually do the same thing, have someone else make a product, and they simply stick their brand on it. Polaroid is a company that used to exist, but they too went bankrupt. However, the Polaroid brand name still exists so companies can make a product and stick the "Polaroid" name on it. I guess they feel people will buy a product if it has a recognizable name on it, as opposed to one that doesn't.
I still remember one of my earliest telescopes: i think it might have come from SEARS, and it was cheap as dirt. It also had a plastic eye piece lens, and when i told my father that my xmas gift was crappy( i couldn't say 'crappy' to him when i was 12) , he was upset and wanted to have a look thru it, and to his credit, he admitted it was of poor quality. It was a, maybe a 3' reflector and my binocs had a much more enjoyable image. I soon saved my money and purchased a Tasco 9te2 refractor. A good little scope. Its difficult to explain to a novice that 'power isn't that important, and that objective size and quality are much more important! i always recommend they get a pair of binoculars and get familiar with the night sky first, but most don't listen.
i'd read that when i first started. luckily i have means so i just went and splurged on a $700 setup (130mm reflector with parabolic mirror). even then i can see why magnification isn't super important. even at the maximum magnification my lenses can reach (250x or thereabouts), i can only see jupiter as a brownish blob with a few bands. certainly nothing like the magnificent photos from hubble.
I have an opposite sort of story: a telescope that my uncle bought at Sears about a million years ago. He gave it to me when he moved away, and even though the images were all clear, for years I thought it was junk because it had a small lens and I couldn't see all the nebulae etc. But then I actually started learning astronomy and looking through other scopes, and I discovered that the optics in that old scope are very high quality! I still have it, because it has its uses.
You'd spend more on all the cameras to take the images to the computer which would also be more expensive than the 500 dollar telescope just to make the comparison.
@@merendell For comparison under equal conditions, all setups would be allowed to use 100 cameras and a super computer. It's not the fault of the cheap telescopes that the big one can't make much use of it. 😁
@@PaulPaulPaulson You actually can't use computers for optical interferometry, it has to be done with actual optical hardware. You basically just need a single camera at the end then, after you've merged all the beams. Setting up a proper optical interferometer with 100 telescopes would probably cost you like $10 million though. Maybe more. There's a reason there are only like 2 places in the world using optical interferometry, it's waaaaaay harder than radio.
@@ScientistDog Well, if you melt it it just ends up in the trash slightly faster than it would have otherwise. That said, it's only 50mm aperture, so there's not a whole lot of light being gathered, and you can partially block the objective if you're still worried about melting something.
@@RoyontheHill Well, sleepib did mention to use it as a projector. Implying the image is supposed to be projected on a screen behind it, not your retina. But yeah, all that light focused through plastic lenses is going to make it melt in no time.
Children get excited and bored of things very fast. 20 bucks is the perfect price to pay for a telescope that child might use 3 times before getting bored. They will pick it up again when they're in their mid teens to look in windows...
They might do that with the $50 scope. The $5 scope is so bad that they might use it once or twice then throw it in the trash. What child is going to pursue astronomy if unable to see the craters on the moon with their first scope. Even Galileo had better optics.
@@buggsy5 You're right, I was given a similar quality telescope when I was around 6 and ended up as an electrician. More seriously, that vivitar is good enough for something that's probably going to end up broken in a couple weeks anyway.
I know you're quoting a meme, but Scott's been a DJ for a long time and only recently were non-vinyl alternatives even viable or commonly available. Vinyl really sucks in some ways, but it's also very easy for DJ's to manipulate, which is why it was popular for so long in the electronic music scene. Most electronic music before 2005 or so was only available on vinyl. If you've been DJing for more than 10 years, you have a vinyl collection, and not really by choice. Lord knows I'd like to get rid of mine, but digital versions of these tracks don't exist and I've been lazy about ripping them.
Funny and informative, he actually explains a lot of the stuff that others take for granted: why is coated optics important, what is the difference exactly between a cheap and an expensive eye piece, etc. Very helpful!
I do teach historic astronomy to kids and adults, using graduations of cheap scopes that are optically equivalent to those used between 1500 and 1750AD. Cheaper refractors and AZ mount long tube reflectors (usually 114x900mm and 60x400mm) for the Newton variants. You'll be amazed what you can see in a very dark deep country winter night. They do a marvelous image of Orion, Venus phases, Jupiter and the kids can see Saturn is Saturn. The simple cheap scopes are also easier for the novice to control. Then I show them my current scopes.
Hagledesperado. We know the specs on the telescopes of those eras. We know the relative dimensions and the quality of the early lenses for the refractors. The size and quality of the Newtonian mirrors. Some artifacts still exist. Then it is a matter of finding scopes on the market that approximate these measures. The views should match. Optics is math and quality of lens and mirror.
I love space, physics and astronomy. I didn't bother going to Argos, I did a lot of research over many months and went to my local astronomy shop and bought a Skywatcher 200p on an EQ5 mount without the digital auto finder and later bought some really nice Vixen eyepieces for the DSO's I've always wanted to see. I also got a entry level DSLR (Canon) to take some amazing shots of Mars, Jupiter, Orion Neb and Andromeda amongst others. Dustbin Reflector's are amazing.
@@joelsfallon I really want a comparison with private space based telescope. The atmosphere ruins the quality of shots regardless of how many fancy lenses and mirrors you use.
This isn't the same Vivitar brand that were known for their quality camera lenses years ago, especially the original Series 1 range. It's such a shame the name is being put on such crappy products now.
for 5 bucks, I got a set of glass lenses and some tube-pieces from the hardware store, some black pasteboard and even a sheet of sun-filter. It's a great little telescope to observe the Moon or the Sun. I've been able to see sunspots with it.
Thanks for the suggestion on the 70mm travel scope I have been thinking about getting one for a while and wasn't sure. But after your view that has convinced me. Thanks again
Damn right. An engaging and determined personal interest in any field of science can bring up their grades across the board, not just science classes. If you don't have $5, take the kid to a local planetarium or a skywatching meetup some summer night.
@Alex Rowland To get inside and attend attractions/events, yes, but most (all?) of them have astronomy club meet ups on clear summer nights that can be attended for free. If there isn't one near you, there's probably at least a skywatchers/astronomy club somewhere in your vicinity.
@@lucasthompson1650 Thanks for responding, that's great to know! I live in the desert of southern Utah, so it would be a great place for an astronomy club, I'll have to see if there's any close by.
Hah! LOL I have the _exact_ same $5 piece of junk telescope! I bought it exactly under the same conditions: it was a drugstore, it was MSRP $20 but discounted 50% (don't think I got to pay only $5 though), and the review is very accurate in all aspects! In the end, it's indeed pretty much a worthless piece of equipment, because it has lots of magnification you can't really use; and the mount is so flimsy your breath makes it oscillate, thus adjusting _anything_ throws _everything_ off. Plus, there's chromatic aberration in the image like it was made by a game developer from 2013, and (the aperture being too small) the image is too _dark_ to really see anything you can't see with the naked eye (so lots of stuff); and having relatively highly magnified dark invisible stuff isn't of much use. Unfortunately, getting it to sharp focus is also quite the challenge, with the gossamer web mount and flimsy telescope body, so in the end, the image can't really be brought to actual focus, although sometimes part of the image will seem focused, but not all of it (the lenses in it are nothing good, the eyepiece one is plastic). That noticeably blurry picture that was shown is pretty much a good indication of what you can get it to do, except in person it's a bit worse, because it never stops moving altogether, so on top of the blurriness and aberration, it's always wobbling-it can get frustrating. In the end, this telescope is a mild scam: Putting it near checkout lines, highly discounted, at ridiculously low prices, in venues in which you have no business buying optical equipment (like drugstores), and also targeting people who themselves have no business buying optical equipment, but might want to surprise a niece, or a grandson-all that is part of the con-it's a bit like the "speakers in a van" con (a scam that, incredibly, just won't die), in which the trickster drives around in a van, approaching people in traffic lights and offering supposedly high-end speakers (in reality, total crap) at impossibly low prices. Considering I bought this telescope almost ten years ago (and it was in the U.S.), and they're still making and selling it today, the 4-9 bucks-learning fee that you pay is enough to sustain the enterprise. 😂
Actually, far from being highly dispersive, fluorite crystal is prized for its extremely low dispersion (overall), in addition to its unusual partial dispersion characteristics (different from that of glass, and higher only between certain wavelengths) that together with appropriate mating glass elements allows for much greater correction of chromatic aberration than without fluorite. In fact, it is possible to achieve near-apochromatic performance using only one fluorite element and one ideally-matched glass element, which makes for fairly affordable and compact "fluorite doublet" refractors. Their affordability is helped by the development of new optical glasses (e.g. O'Hara FPL-53) that have very nearly the same properties as fluorite but are only a fraction of the cost. These glasses generally have fluorite as one ingredient, but are otherwise glass rather than crystal.
@@GlowingSpamraam Lol, well maybe you want to go back and forth between looking at 10 different things. Or you want to invite 9+ friends to a telescope party?
When you said 100mm, twice the aperture (11:02) I immediately thought; "That is a bit misleading" and then you immediately followed up with 4 times the light gathering capability! Spot on mate. Lots of people don't understand ratios in areas (or volume for that matter). Great to hear someone properly explaining himself. Thanks for all the great videos.
I have this very telescope (under a different brand) somewhere. Bought for about £5 in a book shop. I've seen metallic hydrogen act more stable than that tri-pod!
Just wanted to say thank you for doing this comparison. I was planning on getting the more expensive one at a later date, but you showed here that the mid-grade ($50) one is more than great for someone starting out in astronomy. Grabbed the 70mm one you recommended as well as the phone mount because why not? $66 on amazon currently. Still getting the better one, but I figured to start now I can get the travel scope!
for $5... the aluminium in the tripod could probably be repurposed ( depending on the profile ) if you are a handy type of person. In a lot of cases getting extruded aluminium section is more expensive than one hopes. the optics could be taped to a dslr for various 'lofi artsy' effects ( best in low light ) should one desire. And the main body might make a decent water bong, which you can trade with the neighbourhood kids for some pokemon or whatnot. So while poor telescope experience, it might not be a 'bad deal' all in all. Thanks again for the vid !
My first scope as a kid was a Meade Model 277 Comet Seeker. I was like 6 and it survived my childhood, which in itself is amazing. I took some nice pictures of the eclipse with it this week.
I suggest that people buy a 6” dodsonian reflector for their first telescope if they want to see anything outside of our solar system. Orion sells them for about $300. I started with an 8” and eventually graduated to a 12”. Worth every penny.
if you know you're going to be into astronomy that's not a bad first purchase. But for most folks who are mostly just curious, something in the $20-$100 range is probably a better idea, you're not out so much.
I just bought my first telescope. I ordered an 8" dobsonian and the company messed up and sent me a 12". I called them and they let me keep it. Cant wait to try it out.
@@NuclearHotdogsWOT wow that is fantastically generous of them. that should be great for taking pictures of bright objects like planets, maybe even the orion nebula.
Scott, could you please make a video explaining all the numbers you just used? What do the length and diameter of a telescope actually do? What is apature? Why is there a difference in how big certain lenses are? Why does magnification not mean anything? You are the perfect person to answer these questions! I'd really love a video with some diagrams and equations!
Aperture is the diameter of the primary lens of the telescope. Logically, the larger that diameter is, the more light enters the telescope at once, giving better details and brighter images. Therefore, aperture matters much more than simply the magnification you are viewing an object at. The focal length of a telescope is the distance between the primary lens and its focal point (the light is refracted in a conical shape, eventually intersecting at the focal point), and the magnification is calculated by dividing the focal length of the eyepiece you are using into the focal length of the telescope.
magnification only matters if your telescope is high quality enough to actually see details, otherwise you'll just get a blurry mess no matter how good you are at focusing. there's a rule for effective magnification vs aperture but i forgot what it is, but generally the wider the aperture the greater its angular resolution and the finer details it can make out. i have a 130mm reflector and at best i can make out a few bands on jupiter. can kinda see the red spot even with the image magnified to fill up the lens.
Apature is the diameter of the objective lens (the big one at the front) or the primary mirror (depending on the design of the telescope) and directly determines how much light the telescope can gather -- the bigger the better, the more light that is gathered the more detail you can see. The focal length is the distance between the objective lens (or primary mirror) and the focal plane (the point where the image is focused at). The focal length determines the "zoom" level of the telescope (or more precisely the angular size of the resulting image). Camera lenses are sold based on their focal length, I have for example a 100 mm - 300 mm zoom lens and that determines the angular size of the resulting image. Imagine taking a camera and setting it up to take a picture of a wall, with one lens it will image a 10' by 10' area of the wall, then you change to a lens with a longer focal length and now you can only image a 4' by 4' area of wall. Magnification is a product of the focal length. The moon, for example, has an angular resolution of about 31 arc-minutes. If you look at it with a telescope that has a 2 degree field of view the moon will only take up a quarter of the width of the image (or 1/16th of the whole image). If you use a telescope with a longer focal length that has a 1/2 degree field of view the moon would take up the whole image. With a telescope, you can use different eye pieces to change the magnification, but all they do is limit the amount of the image gathered by the telescope that you can see -- it's analogous to using digital zoom in a camera. It doesn't show you any more detail, it just makes the detail bigger. So to go back to the earlier example of a telescope with a 2 degree field of view, rather than changing to a telescope with a longer focal length you can just change the eyepiece so that the moon fills the whole frame, but it would so by only showing 1/16th of the image gathered by the telescope. BTW: When I changed from using 35 mm film to a digital camera body the image sensor in my digital camera is smaller than 35 mm film which has effectively increased the magnification of my lenses, but it's done so in the same manner as changing the eye piece in a telescope. For my camera the effect is minimal and the benefits of it being a digital camera far outweighs the minor loss of image quality. So, if you want to be able to see more detail (i.e. have a better image, not just a bigger one) you need to get a telescope with a bigger objective lens (primary mirror) so that it gathers more light and if you want to focus on a smaller piece of space you need a telescope with a longer focal length. See, magnification isn't a factor.
You should be able to do far better than that. That is a 5" aperature and you should be able to see Cassini's Division under good seeing conditions and a good ring tilt. The basic rule is that more than 20x/inch aperture is seldom useful and 20x only when the atmosphere is quite steady. Average seeing is more like 5x to 12x. So, with your scope, look for magnifications in the range of 25x to 60x. Go higher if the conditions are steady. You didn't mention the focal length, but many reflectors of such small diameter are f/8 or f/10. That would put your focal length somewhere in the 1000 to 1300 mm range. That means a 25 mm eyepiece will give you somewhere around 40x to 52x. You might be able to use a 15 mm eyepiece occasionally. There is an exception to the rule when you are just trying to split double stars. There you are not looking for detail, so a lot of blur is acceptable. I have used as much as 50x on such occasions, but the stars are pretty dim.
I have a 10" Skywatcher. Great engine. But I have a question : how far can you zoom ? When I go up to 200x, the picture is blurry, and I don't know if it's because of the limit of the dobson, the 3x barlow lens I use, a bad alignement of the mirrors or something else.
@@acHe607 your maximum useful magnification would be 50x your telescopes aputere in inches, but bare in mind, just because your your telescope can theoretically go that far, as you have encountered, it isn't always good, magnification isn't all that important, you want to use an eyepiece that frames your target nicely because the more your magnification goes up, the more light loss and detail loss
I own one of the very few 100/1000 Triplet Skywatcher prototypes. It's a proud possession that is being used as meant. It's absolutely amazing! Pinpoint sharp and no CA.
I used to have a spotter scope that was used at a gun range to spot bullet holes in the distant targets so you could score yourself, and also for watching wildlife, and it also doubled as a nice scope that you could keep in your car. It even had a mount that you clipped onto the edge of your car window so you could use your car as a tripod of sorts. Plus the image went through a prism and was non-reversed. They maybe aren't the best for astronomy, but they're better than that Vivitar and actually useful for terrestrial observing as well.
Before I knew anything about digital cameras or Vivitar I bought a cheap ま20 pounds Vivitar camera. Really poor, even for the money. Later, on the DSLR video guide TH-cam channel, I saw Simon Cade review a Vivitar camcorder and literally throw it in the trash. It's not a fait accompli that if something is ridiculously cheap, it's gonna be awful, because companies like Casio make awesome ten dollar watches. And Greggs pies. But Vivitar seem to wear their consistent and utter crapness like a badge of honour. A brand to be avoided, even if you're short of cash.
@@GreenMorningDragonProductions -bear in mind that “Vivitar” today is just some bullshit distributor of Chinese crap who bought rights to the defunct name. In the 1970’s, Vivitar sold reasonably decent 35mm camera lenses, not as good as Nikon or Canon, but usable enough for amateurs.
Mr. Manley, I'm an adult but thanks to this video I now want to become you when I grow up. You're so professional and thorough about your hobbies! This video is fascinating. If I'm ever fortunate enough to buy a telescope I'll take your advice in mind.
That Vivitar Telescope at 0:48 has been in production for more than 20 years and it looks like it's the same one I had (under a different brand) when I was a 12 year old kid. I'm 30 now.
Wow! I'm so happy I've seen this in time! I was almost ready to buy a 5$ telescope... It seems it would have been the worst financial venture! Now I can buy a 5$ microscope with this saving!
$5 telescope made a valuable teaching tool for those of us without the optic know-how. You did well at using its faults to explain the better parts of quality scope optics. Thanks!
My first telescope was a $360 Lanson. I still remember seeing my first hazy view of Saturn, just a blurry blow with rings. But i knew at that point I was hooked. It's amazing what one can see with even a very basic piece bought for $50.
It looks like an Orion skyview pro 100. Not sure if they still sell those. 100mm f6 achromat, will have considerable chromatic abberation on bright objects, and there are filters that help with that at the expense of varying degrees of yellow tint to the image, the most expensive option, the baader semi apo having a slight yellow green tint but not as strong as basic minis violet fringe killers. A basic light yellow filter also helps a bit as well. The best being a Stack of fringe killer and neodymium filter, which the semi apo combines in one filter. The SVP mount is big enough for visual use with an 8" Newtonian, and I actually used mine to image with an 8" f4 and 80mm f11 refractor as guide scope back in the day. I had purchased the SVP127 which is also no longer sold as a package, which was a 5" maksutov Cassegrain f12. I got the 80mm f11 as a celestron nexstar 80gtl 2004 $149 Costco special , and purchased a baader bracket dovetail adapter, surplus tasco starguide 4 tripod (same as nexstar 4/5 tripod), and made me a decent etx125 substitute with the 127 on the nexstar mount. Then I bought the 8"f4 optical tube from Hardin (no longer selling consumer scopes, these were made by GSO in Taiwan), a guide scope rings set from Orion to use the 80mm as a guide scope, and a 12mm plossl XY adjustable reticle eye piece (so you can move the reticle around to line up with the best guide star) and I used that set up for film astrophotography for a while. This was 2004/2005. It was the maximum for the mount, but I had no problems, and also later on bought a 2" cg5 tripod used which improved stability, and adapted my smaller (astroview/omni cg4) class Hardin star hoc mount to work with the SVP tripod (1.75"), which made it the equivalent to the omni cg4 (which was not out yet). Having friends in an observing group where the smallest big scope was 12" and we had an 18" and sometimes a 28" out there, I quickly realized that hearing all the oohs and ahhs and calling out if they would still be on it in 3-4 minutes when my exposure was done, made me realize that autoguiding and your own dob as a visual scope was really the way to go. Also because when I finally got my DSLR (Nikon d50 2006) I discovered that digital is less forgiving of guide errors than film. This was back in the days of the Orion catalog, and before Orion sold any goto scopes other than the intelliscope push to system, which was also available as an add on to the skyview pro. The 100f6 was also available on the smaller astroview mount which is adequate for it, and the 127 mak is still sold that way From my greater experience learned since then, and 5 years (part of it as top dog) sales at opt 2006-2011 I would personally suggest the celestron omni 102 f9.8 scope if one was to get a 4" refractor as their main scope. F9.8 has much less false color, while f6 excells for wide field (extreme wide field in the realm of 15-25x binoculars or wider with the widest 2" eps), there is the color I talked about earlier, which is far reduced at f9.8 (f10 basically) Orion (these at least) and celestron scopes are both made by synta, the omni mount is the same as the astroview BUT it comes with a 1.75" steel tube tripod that the bigger SVP mount comes with, so it is very stable. The series also includes a 120 mm f8.3 refractor which is at the limit for that mount but still useable, a 150mm f5 reflector which a buddy of mine did some decent astrophotography with when he hacked the dual axis drive controller for autoguider capability. Also a fine visual scope (I had bicoastal pair of Hardin 6-5 equivalents for a while) . There was, maybe still is, a 6" 150mm f5 short tube refractor in the series as well, but I would only suggest that be used as a low power wide field deep space scope due to excessive false color and mount loading making it not a good high power instrument. Refractors are heavier than reflectors when they get that big. The omni 102 long tube refractor is excellent for all uses in its class, excelling in planetary and lunar, and with 2" eyepieces can still show some wide field views, and in fact, refractors offer the best contrast on open star clusters even in the city they can be seen better than other designs that have central obstructions. And I. Dark skies the clusters are amazing. And one of the best views of m101 (a large faint spiral galaxy) was in a 4" refractor in dark skies. The extra contrast helped bring the spirals out The scope is also in the under $500 range. I did use my star hoc on 1.75 tripod a couple times with the 8"f4 visually and it worked well, and recently put a c8 on my current astroview on a 2" tripod and it was rock solid, so I know that omni mount is no slouch. c8 is lighter than 8" newtonians and much shorter, so I wouldn't suggest putting a longer than f4 8" on one, for that size (f5 f6) you want to go with a CG5/SVP.
That $5 toy looks almost 100% like the one I got about 20 years ago for christmas. Mine is from Bresser and was sold in Germany. So these things seem to never die out. Ah and it was not that cheap at that time. Tripod died after days and was fixed with a keyring, but the lenses are made of glass at least.
2:50 Back in 1997, I bought the big brother of this cheap telescope for DM 100 (ca $50 or €45 nowadays), and it didn't even have the aluminium tripod; my tripod is made from wobbly wood. But because my balcony is slightly wobbly as well, I'm used to it.
How many of these can you buy for the price of 1 James Webb? Oh yes, and please can you compare an image taken from this compared with one from the Webb. I appreciate that I may have to wait 10 years for this episode to come out...
125 or better and 900mm FL will let you see the Cassinni Divisions in the rings. Plossl eyepieces are your best next step too. 4mm and 10mm for a 125x900 make good views. Lower than 4 you get fuzz.
From a photography nerd: Flourite (CaF2) lens elements are *not dispersive* (13:25) - rather the opposite - they exhibit low dispersion (variation in refractive index versus frequency) and are therefore used for certain elements in the optical path in order to improve overall chromatic abberation. As they are more expensive they are only used judiciously. Coating improves contrast - but is not as necessary for single element designs. Baffling also improves contrast by reducing veiling glare.
And fluorite lens elements are rarely used in telescopes nowadays, much more common are elements made of fluoride containing glass like S-FPL53 from Ohara.
We have the same finderscope . I also purchased a 90 deg finderscope to replace the straight one. I also 3d printed my prime focus adapter for the webcam I'm using for astrophotography.
The only places I have seen inches used is for objective diameter and eyepiece body diameter. I have never seen eyepiece focal lengths listed in inches.
Just to be clear for the ones that would not understand the joke : NEVER LOOK AT THE SUN (with an instrument not explicitely made for this purpose, unless you explicitely do not want to enjoy looking at anything anymore).
Once took department store scope and added a decent eye piece from an old celestron sporting scope and mounted it on a photo tripod. It gives good low power viewing and nobody steals it.
I received this exact same Vivitar as a gift when i was 12; I remember breaking the tripod after a few days. I used it to view the moon handheld after that, like an ultra-telephoto binocular for one eye.
I got to use an observatory once the size of a building to peer at Saturn and I have to say, I'll never forget that day. It was quite magical to be able to see the rings with decent clarity. Sadly, they've since torn that observatory down.
Thanks for the info! It will help while shopping for my son’s first scope! Also: 1)That’s a really nice couch. 2)That’s got to be a literal ton of vinyl. 3)LEGO gift bag? What’s in the bag‽. Edit: Ninjago set 👍 my boy approves. 4)You play? I’m new to the channel and will have to look that up 🎸.
If you are looking into a beginner scope I would recommend looking at the celestron 127eq Newtonian. It's cheap but you can also get some nice views of many objects. The mount and tripod are a bit on the cheaper side, but it's nice enough that you will be well rewarded with a bit of patience
That is the model I was looking at. what do you think of it? Is it a good starter scope and what else would you suggest getting with it that it may not have?
gregg4164 I have this telescope and as a beginner in astronomy, I think it is great! It has a sturdy tripod, it comes with an equatorial mount, it is a reflector so it has a large aperture allowing it to collect a lot of light which gives you nice detail, and it has a nice focal length of around 660 mm so you can get good magnification. You can get great views of the moon, Jupiter and it’s moons, and Saturns rings and even a few of its moons on a clear night. This telescope is wonderful out of the box, but I found it works especially well with an Orion moon filter and a 3.6 mm eyepiece on Amazon (total cost about $30). I have had incredible closeups of the moon with extraordinary detail with that combination, and I was able to make out the bands and spot on Jupiter. I have to say this is a great telescope for beginners, and for a good price too. I definitely recommend this telescope! Hope this helps!
HashtagCatsInSpace never bought a filter for anything don’t know why. Otherwise not many complaints great for beginners may want to consider upgrading the mount and lenses.
I had that exact same telescope when I was a child, in the 1985... Some things never change ! I barely was able to see saturn's rings with it, and it was super blurry.
Just reassembled the achromatic doublet in my ancient telestar. I took it apart when I was a kid and didn't put it back together cleanly or correctly. I also had it stored outside and dirt-daubers had built nests in the tube. It's gunna be stored inside from now on.
If I build a telescope using several hundred pounds of spinning liquid mercury can I say I have an 100,000$ telescope?
Liquid mirror telescopes are pretty cool, slightly limiting that you can only really point it directly up though
Yes, you have my permission.
You better get on that shit now cody,
Im waiting to see you upload a video with a bad mercury pun
Oh, wait. what if you made an alloy that solidifies in room temperature and then you can stop the spinning ;)
@ or why not just spin the room?
Chromatic aberration lets you see the Moon in color.
It's a feature, not a bug.
Poor alignment of the optics in the cheap refractor gives you red fringes on one edge of the Moon, blue on the other. All for no extra cost!
See the redshift and blueshift of the universe, exaggerated for clarity!
@@MyRadDesign Red on one side, blue on the other? that means you can use 3d glasses and see the moon in 3d!
@@amyshaw893 profile pic is accurate
demonic_pug watches 0__0 no thats an actual image of saturn’s moon titan
As a person who doesn't live in the US, I have to say that a telescope is the last thing I would expect to buy at a drugstore.
Yeah in Europe you would just get one fron Aldi.
Many drug stores here have much stuff. If you're curious look for a picture of a CVS pharmacy.
@@SamiiYou But you can order one from lidl.
Drug stores here tend to have random garbage products near the toys, the "as seen on TV" aisle, and the greeting cards. Pretty sure the intent is "oh crap I forgot a gift". Or to promote caving to nagging children. Or both.
@@adriantp_ In Denmark it is just skin products, sunscreen maybe shampoo and cheap glasses.
The $5 telescope is actually free: you are paying for the packaging. :-)
That makes sense because it's the only component there that has a use.
And the "tripod"
Gewel ✔️
😀😀😀😀
everything is free if nobody catches you
I got one of these pieces of trash for my eleventh birthday. It was a bit depressing. But, it brought me closer to the stars. It taught me about what could be. I followed that to the point where I am now, thousands of dollars later and taking my children on a tour of the seeable universe. That garbage started that. Never underestimate the power of a drug store science toy in the hands of the right child
While this is true, it can be a hobby killer for many kids that would otherwise be interested in astronomy
I'm glad it worked for you, but my experience was thinking I was no good when something cheap wouldn't work right. Granted, I might have had a better perspective if my mother hadn't kept telling me, "A bad workman always blames his tools."
@@charimuvilla8693 thank god i got a Celestron first scope as my first
@@icomeinpeace2717 Perhaps it wasn’t God that you had to thank, but more like your dad or somebody real. 👺
@@nixl3518 or myself
1:20 I would like a Hubble Space Telescope please. A carrier bag as well, thanks
new or used? i know a guy that has one slighty used, one owner.
Good luck finding an 8 foot telescope on sale.
The carrier bag for the Hubble Space Telescope is included! Bonus large, orange, external fuel tank and two solid rocket boosters. Fuel is extra.
How much is packaging?
@@JustSomeCanuck Oh, I'm sorry. The Hubble Space Telescope travel kit has been discontinued.
Observatory employee A: What's that noise coming from our dumpster area?
Observatory employee b: it's ok, it's just Scott Manley searching through our dumpster again.
Manley: Oh what a hunk of man he is LOL.
Can we see some pictures you took with your water heater, Scott?
Probably doesn't have any as dobs are great for visual but not for photography.
@@spiritas5372 Depends on what you're imaging. It's true they're no good for anything that requires a long exposure, but bright objects like the moon and planets that can be taken with short exposures should image fairly well.
@@spiritas5372 You should explain why - because the target rotates during long exposures, even if the target is tracked, but a dob is certainly good enough for short exposures.
An aligned equatorial mount driven at 1 revolution per sidereal day is a bit beyond the average beginner!
@@ahaveland Not necessarily. I'm currently building one with an Arduino, stepper motor and a couple of gearboxes plus some bits of hardware. Total cost for parts was under $100 so far. Eventually I want to make it self-aligning with a couple more steppers, GPS, compass and gyroscopes.
@@stamasd8500 I'm building one too with arduino, gps, steppers and all 3D printed gears. Hardly a beginner project though!
He spent the first half of the video insulting a children's toy that cost $5
It was hilarious. I actually have one of those it works ok on a good day Haha.
William Macgregor I do think that sometimes cheaply made products are so bad they in fact offer no value - and a person should always get some kind of value for their money.
Looking at the moon with my own eye still renders a better image than using the $5 telescope he explored in the video.
Remember, the original retail price was 20$.
LOL Cant wait to see it, haven't pressed play yet.
Google 'chutiya'. He is one.
I first saw this video 1.5 years ago and the idea of a backpack telescope intrigued me. I was getting into hiking and didn’t know such a thing existed. I now have 3 telescopes including a big dob and have been totally taken with the hobby. This one video changed my life and introduced me to amateur astronomer. I am absolutely hooked! Thanks Scott!
Vivitar : "We don't like the term chromatic aberration, We would prefer to call it an RGB upgrade to your experience, Thank you".
RGB = Power
it's an NTSC telescope!
Telescopes by Razer
Linus Tech Tips: These telescopes increase performance.
No, RGB is short for red, green, blue, when discussing chromatic aberration.
“Because I’m a bit of a space nerd, if you haven’t noticed”
As he sits in front of a vinyl LP collection bigger than the library I used when working at a community broadcaster just before CD’s came out and still bigger than the CD collection that same broadcaster had when we switched to downloadable sample content straight from the record distributors.
Just how far does your Nerdy McNerd Nerd stretch Mr Manley?
Oh, he used to be a DJ as well, so of course he would have a huge LP collection...
That vinyl collection was no doubt part of the reason this video kept reminding me of the ones where some audiophile compares a cheap Crosley record player with their Audio Technica turntable.
To be fair, his entire TH-cam channel is about being a nerd...
For one thing, that guitar is actually a video game controller.
Robert Price no way, are you sure? I can see a chrome tremolo, chrome tuning heads and strings.
Can only see 1 pick up but I imagine there is another 1 or 2 white ones washing out with the pick guard.
Guessing it’s a Fender Squire.
"There's a lot of cheap telescopes that would show you glorious pictures of the nebula which you can't really take unless you have the Hubble Space Telescope". Don't know why but I laughed SO hard at this part.
Same. Well i got a good chuckle out of it, at least.
I think I know. It was a joke! ;-) ;-) :-D
nah, I think some of those pictures (at least in visible spectrum) could be taken by something cheaper: like the VLT or Keck telescope
best thing is that he did not even moved a muscle well saying that lol
666Tomato666 That sentence made me actually LOL. Not everyday you get to say that ...
"I'm a bit of a nerd..." said, straightfaced while sitting in front of about 12-1500 records
Hmm, it seems like theres a bit more than just 12 records...
@@oy3930 He's "DJ Scott Manley"
@@oy3930 Of course he meant 12 (hundred) to 15 (hundred) :)
@@Bunny99s i know, i was simply joking around :)
@TJ Thunder That comment made me far more happy than it should have
"The kind you put field artillery on" It's five minutes later and I can't stop laughing
my mount and tripod cost $500 and i'm pretty sure a howitzer is an optional attachment. the legs are steel tubes probably 3 inches thick.
You'd be better off with a reasonable pair of binoculars than that cheap telescope.
Can confirm, my father has some milspec binos from Vietnam-Cambodia era and although they are not as magnifying as a proper Tele, they have come in handy for watching eclipses, since they have obscuring filters that you just snap in front of the lenses
Robert that is correct. Good sky grade binoculars will give you vivid views of Orion Nebula, the Moon, Andromeda, full constellations, you can tell the planets are blobs-not stars (about it) but with steady arms or a camera tripod you can see the four largest moons of Jupiter. Much less skill and patience required. Some telephoto cameras do quite well with planets, but you are looking at a digital video image, not direct optics. I carry binoculars whenever i take my telescope out (about three nights a week but I live on a mountain 10 miles from the middle of nowhere in a national forest)
Cheap refractors ($50-100) are however how children should start. Keeps them from believing they are being tricked by Masons at NASA and PhotoShop into believing the planets are actually round objects millions upon millions of km/miles away.
Couldn’t agree more. I’m an avid amateur astronomer and space nut as most others on here. Growing up when I first took an interest in astronomy I didn’t know what to get. My great uncle and aunt who build there own telescopes and buy their van based on if it can fit there biggest telescope when they travel to their club locations (awesome!) had me start out with just a good pair of binoculars. That way I could see the moon and many other planets to a certain degree and learn where everything was. If I was to of bought a big telescope that cost much more and really didn’t catch the “fever” for astronomy so to speak like I did the telescope would of gone to waste. Totally believe beginners should use a good pair of binoculars to start out. Thanks!
I was thinking this too! My Dad's sixty-year-old field glasses can give a better view of the Moon than that Vivitar. Not as steady, though.
@@jpardoa94: Having less magnification actually is a feature when you are just starting, since with a larger field of view it's easier to find the things that you want to look at. That's why you typically have a finder scope attached to your telescope, to provide a larger field of view for aiming purposes than the main telescope does.
"Vivitar" is one of those zombie brands that used to be a reputable company that made cameras & lenses. The name was sold off when they went bankrupt.
I have a zoom lens from them made in 1978. At the time it was very nice quality.
yup now they are in the cheapo section at target up front for all your cheap phone supply needs lol.
Yep, I once bought a Vivitar camera and it was a piece of junk.
They sucker you in cause they have low prices, but the quality is so bad you can't really use them for anything.
They never actually *made* anything themselves, it was all contract made overseas, by various makers... they did sell some decent prime telephoto lenses in the mid 70s, but most of their stuff was "C" or "B" quality. I had a 600mm f/8 from them, with a Pentax K mount adapter, that I used with my Pentax MX in the late 70s
btw, the founders died, and the name was sold by the estate, its been resold a few times, wikipedia says its now owned by Sakar International who's big into junky stuff sold at mass market retailers
@@geepeerces Ah okay, thanks for the info.
Alot of companies actually do the same thing, have someone else make a product, and they simply stick their brand on it.
Polaroid is a company that used to exist, but they too went bankrupt.
However, the Polaroid brand name still exists so companies can make a product and stick the "Polaroid" name on it.
I guess they feel people will buy a product if it has a recognizable name on it, as opposed to one that doesn't.
I prefer gravitational lensing for my telescopes.
Tricky to set up in the garden though...
True, but have you checked the price on mass these days? Who can afford it?
@@outsider344 your mum
The Virtual Scotsman you ruined this golden thread
gravitational lensing caused by the mass of yo mama
I still remember one of my earliest telescopes: i think it might have come from SEARS, and it was cheap as dirt. It also had a plastic eye piece lens, and when i told my father that my xmas gift was crappy( i couldn't say 'crappy' to him when i was 12) , he was upset and wanted to have a look thru it, and to his credit, he admitted it was of poor quality. It was a, maybe a 3' reflector and my binocs had a much more enjoyable image. I soon saved my money and purchased a Tasco 9te2 refractor. A good little scope.
Its difficult to explain to a novice that 'power isn't that important, and that objective size and quality are much more important! i always recommend they get a pair of binoculars and get familiar with the night sky first, but most don't listen.
i'd read that when i first started. luckily i have means so i just went and splurged on a $700 setup (130mm reflector with parabolic mirror). even then i can see why magnification isn't super important. even at the maximum magnification my lenses can reach (250x or thereabouts), i can only see jupiter as a brownish blob with a few bands. certainly nothing like the magnificent photos from hubble.
I have an opposite sort of story: a telescope that my uncle bought at Sears about a million years ago. He gave it to me when he moved away, and even though the images were all clear, for years I thought it was junk because it had a small lens and I couldn't see all the nebulae etc. But then I actually started learning astronomy and looking through other scopes, and I discovered that the optics in that old scope are very high quality! I still have it, because it has its uses.
That $5 telescope would probably work better as a potato cannon than a telescope.
Makes you wonder why the produce this , just more for the land fill I guess
Shouldn't it be a hundred 5 dollar telescopes vs. ten 50 dollar telescopes vs. one 500 dollar telescope? Interferometry ftw! 😉
@Lord Hosk I'm out of duct tape, will have to wait until monday to buy new one.
You'd spend more on all the cameras to take the images to the computer which would also be more expensive than the 500 dollar telescope just to make the comparison.
@@merendell For comparison under equal conditions, all setups would be allowed to use 100 cameras and a super computer. It's not the fault of the cheap telescopes that the big one can't make much use of it. 😁
@Charles Yuditsky I wonder if you could make lenses from scotch tape 🤔
@@PaulPaulPaulson You actually can't use computers for optical interferometry, it has to be done with actual optical hardware. You basically just need a single camera at the end then, after you've merged all the beams. Setting up a proper optical interferometer with 100 telescopes would probably cost you like $10 million though. Maybe more. There's a reason there are only like 2 places in the world using optical interferometry, it's waaaaaay harder than radio.
turn it into a sun projector. That's what I did with some $5 binoculars. Might be good enough to see some sunspots.
I tried that last week and I'm still seeing high quality images of the sun too this day... please make it go away.
That's not a very good idea considering it uses plastic lenses, even the tube is plastic.
@@ScientistDog Well, if you melt it it just ends up in the trash slightly faster than it would have otherwise. That said, it's only 50mm aperture, so there's not a whole lot of light being gathered, and you can partially block the objective if you're still worried about melting something.
@@ScientistDog dude don't look at the sun .
@@RoyontheHill Well, sleepib did mention to use it as a projector. Implying the image is supposed to be projected on a screen behind it, not your retina. But yeah, all that light focused through plastic lenses is going to make it melt in no time.
Children get excited and bored of things very fast.
20 bucks is the perfect price to pay for a telescope that child might use 3 times before getting bored.
They will pick it up again when they're in their mid teens to look in windows...
They might do that with the $50 scope. The $5 scope is so bad that they might use it once or twice then throw it in the trash. What child is going to pursue astronomy if unable to see the craters on the moon with their first scope. Even Galileo had better optics.
20 bucks would be better spent going to an observatory and getting a great view of the sky.
the best function of my first telescope was to pound a concussion into a neighbor kid with the eyepiece (made of steel back then).
@@buggsy5 You're right, I was given a similar quality telescope when I was around 6 and ended up as an electrician. More seriously, that vivitar is good enough for something that's probably going to end up broken in a couple weeks anyway.
What? Telescopes are for looking at stars? I thought they were only built to look in peoples windows. Ive been using it wrong this whole time..
The two things that really drew me to vinyl were the expense and the inconvenience.
I know you're quoting a meme, but Scott's been a DJ for a long time and only recently were non-vinyl alternatives even viable or commonly available. Vinyl really sucks in some ways, but it's also very easy for DJ's to manipulate, which is why it was popular for so long in the electronic music scene. Most electronic music before 2005 or so was only available on vinyl. If you've been DJing for more than 10 years, you have a vinyl collection, and not really by choice. Lord knows I'd like to get rid of mine, but digital versions of these tracks don't exist and I've been lazy about ripping them.
I first got into vinyl, because it's a shit ton better than cassettes.
@@eNons3nse wait, he's been a DJ?
@@GewelReal Yea, he is a DJ.
Funny and informative, he actually explains a lot of the stuff that others take for granted: why is coated optics important, what is the difference exactly between a cheap and an expensive eye piece, etc. Very helpful!
As sketchy as the $5 Vivitar is, it is MILES better than the one used by Galileo!
Is the mile the SI unit for telescope quality?
If Galileo can do all that science with his crummy telescope, then it's good enough for the kids.
I do teach historic astronomy to kids and adults, using graduations of cheap scopes that are optically equivalent to those used between 1500 and 1750AD. Cheaper refractors and AZ mount long tube reflectors (usually 114x900mm and 60x400mm) for the Newton variants.
You'll be amazed what you can see in a very dark deep country winter night. They do a marvelous image of Orion, Venus phases, Jupiter and the kids can see Saturn is Saturn. The simple cheap scopes are also easier for the novice to control.
Then I show them my current scopes.
Is this something you assume, or something you know?
Hagledesperado. We know the specs on the telescopes of those eras. We know the relative dimensions and the quality of the early lenses for the refractors. The size and quality of the Newtonian mirrors. Some artifacts still exist. Then it is a matter of finding scopes on the market that approximate these measures. The views should match. Optics is math and quality of lens and mirror.
Cardboard boxes are just low-tech fairings
r/Showerthoughts
And foam is just a lowtech Payload adaptor
Soda cans are just low-tech cryogenic fuel tanks...
“Because I might ruin my five-dollar telescope” is not a reason I have ever heard for anything before, and I’m delighted.
And it has worse optics than something he found in the trash ...
When my finders scope is bigger than the telescope
I love space, physics and astronomy. I didn't bother going to Argos, I did a lot of research over many months and went to my local astronomy shop and bought a Skywatcher 200p on an EQ5 mount without the digital auto finder and later bought some really nice Vixen eyepieces for the DSO's I've always wanted to see. I also got a entry level DSLR (Canon) to take some amazing shots of Mars, Jupiter, Orion Neb and Andromeda amongst others. Dustbin Reflector's are amazing.
The moon pic on the 5$ telescope box is from the far side 😂
It was on the Chang-e.
Haha it is to
At least it's not pluto
Wow the Vivitar scope can see that! Sold!!
.. you don't know where I'm setting up my scope.
You space nerds with the not-a-water-tanks, first starhopper and now a telescope.
Please do a more detailed picture benchmark with all your telescopes, that would be so awsome! :)
Next video $50,000 vs $500,000 telescope! 22” RCT with all the bells vs 1 meter planewave observatory grade RCT
@@joelsfallon I really want a comparison with private space based telescope. The atmosphere ruins the quality of shots regardless of how many fancy lenses and mirrors you use.
OOOOOH I had that exact Vivitar telescope a few years ago! The memories! The hazy, poorly focused memories! XD
Hazy and poorly focused...
You sure weren't just drunk at the time...? haha ;)
@@GenoLoma I mean, I probably was, but I remember that telescope being t r a s h all the same XD
@@lanceleone2704 hahahaha 👌
This isn't the same Vivitar brand that were known for their quality camera lenses years ago, especially the original Series 1 range. It's such a shame the name is being put on such crappy products now.
Now you can have the 1993 version of the Hubble telescope in your very own home.
Scott is a space nerd?!?!
EDIT: Would love to look through that vinyl collection :)
Who Knew?
I’ll bet there’s a Proclaimers album in there?
It’s all polka music.
for 5 bucks, I got a set of glass lenses and some tube-pieces from the hardware store, some black pasteboard and even a sheet of sun-filter. It's a great little telescope to observe the Moon or the Sun. I've been able to see sunspots with it.
Cool
next video:
*$5mln rocket vs a $50mln and $500mln rocket*
Davide D'ippolito Electron vs F9 vs what?
@@tinldw the 3rd rocket can be the shuttle (around 450mln/mission)
Davide D'ippolito but you can't get it anymore
@@tinldw it was a joke...
Problem 1) The Getaway. How are you going to steal one? LOL
Thanks for the suggestion on the 70mm travel scope I have been thinking about getting one for a while and wasn't sure. But after your view that has convinced me. Thanks again
Hey now! if that $5 scope sparked some kids interest in astronomy, that's $5 very well spent.
BTW that moon shot @13:55 was gorgeous!
Not to mention it was the other way round compared to the others.
Damn right. An engaging and determined personal interest in any field of science can bring up their grades across the board, not just science classes.
If you don't have $5, take the kid to a local planetarium or a skywatching meetup some summer night.
Lucas Thompson Do planetariums not charge for entrance? There’s none around me, and I haven’t been to one since I was a kid.
@Alex Rowland To get inside and attend attractions/events, yes, but most (all?) of them have astronomy club meet ups on clear summer nights that can be attended for free. If there isn't one near you, there's probably at least a skywatchers/astronomy club somewhere in your vicinity.
@@lucasthompson1650 Thanks for responding, that's great to know! I live in the desert of southern Utah, so it would be a great place for an astronomy club, I'll have to see if there's any close by.
What a strange place to put a water tank
I have a 24" refractor in my laundry room. But I can't use it because some plumber put it in line with my water supply.
If you are referring to the "Phillips" package, I think that is a box of florescent lamps.
@@DistracticusPrime You do mean that in terms of the OTA length, right? :D
Hah! LOL I have the _exact_ same $5 piece of junk telescope! I bought it exactly under the same conditions: it was a drugstore, it was MSRP $20 but discounted 50% (don't think I got to pay only $5 though), and the review is very accurate in all aspects!
In the end, it's indeed pretty much a worthless piece of equipment, because it has lots of magnification you can't really use; and the mount is so flimsy your breath makes it oscillate, thus adjusting _anything_ throws _everything_ off. Plus, there's chromatic aberration in the image like it was made by a game developer from 2013, and (the aperture being too small) the image is too _dark_ to really see anything you can't see with the naked eye (so lots of stuff); and having relatively highly magnified dark invisible stuff isn't of much use.
Unfortunately, getting it to sharp focus is also quite the challenge, with the gossamer web mount and flimsy telescope body, so in the end, the image can't really be brought to actual focus, although sometimes part of the image will seem focused, but not all of it (the lenses in it are nothing good, the eyepiece one is plastic). That noticeably blurry picture that was shown is pretty much a good indication of what you can get it to do, except in person it's a bit worse, because it never stops moving altogether, so on top of the blurriness and aberration, it's always wobbling-it can get frustrating.
In the end, this telescope is a mild scam: Putting it near checkout lines, highly discounted, at ridiculously low prices, in venues in which you have no business buying optical equipment (like drugstores), and also targeting people who themselves have no business buying optical equipment, but might want to surprise a niece, or a grandson-all that is part of the con-it's a bit like the "speakers in a van" con (a scam that, incredibly, just won't die), in which the trickster drives around in a van, approaching people in traffic lights and offering supposedly high-end speakers (in reality, total crap) at impossibly low prices. Considering I bought this telescope almost ten years ago (and it was in the U.S.), and they're still making and selling it today, the 4-9 bucks-learning fee that you pay is enough to sustain the enterprise. 😂
Did you try looking through it at Earth?
my poor grandfather bought me one a couple years ago for something like 40 dollars
As a first scope I would suggest 70x15 binoculars. Good for the Moon, Pleiades, birds, deer etc :-)
Do you mean 15x70?
This was so much fun!
I had that vivitar when I was 8. I'm currently looking at $500 telescopes.
Actually, far from being highly dispersive, fluorite crystal is prized for its extremely low dispersion (overall), in addition to its unusual partial dispersion characteristics (different from that of glass, and higher only between certain wavelengths) that together with appropriate mating glass elements allows for much greater correction of chromatic aberration than without fluorite.
In fact, it is possible to achieve near-apochromatic performance using only one fluorite element and one ideally-matched glass element, which makes for fairly affordable and compact "fluorite doublet" refractors. Their affordability is helped by the development of new optical glasses (e.g. O'Hara FPL-53) that have very nearly the same properties as fluorite but are only a fraction of the cost. These glasses generally have fluorite as one ingredient, but are otherwise glass rather than crystal.
Takahashi fluorite doublet ?
But if you were able to get 10 $5 telescopes and collect data with them would they be more effective than 1 $50 telescope?
I suspect the hardware and software to point them in the same direction and combine details would cost a lot more than the telescopes.
No, nothing really useful you could do with 10 shitty telescopes, unless you just want to look at 10 different things at the same time.
Daniel Jensen ahh yes with my 10 eyes
In the simpsons putting multiple megaphones in line worked. I dont see why this wouldnt
@@GlowingSpamraam Lol, well maybe you want to go back and forth between looking at 10 different things. Or you want to invite 9+ friends to a telescope party?
I still have my first telescope.
My father built it.
The objective lens was a reject from the star-tracker guidance system of the Snark missile.
Are you kidding? How did he got that lens?
@@curbowman buy or make it diy
I own several up to a 10 inch reflector but the telescope that I use most often is an old Celestron 60 mm. It's handier!
When you said 100mm, twice the aperture (11:02) I immediately thought; "That is a bit misleading" and then you immediately followed up with 4 times the light gathering capability! Spot on mate. Lots of people don't understand ratios in areas (or volume for that matter). Great to hear someone properly explaining himself. Thanks for all the great videos.
This is wonderful. Please do more videos about telescopes.
Scott Manley channeling his inner AvE and doing a BOLTR video ;)
If he had filmed the video overhead on a chipboard workbench, he could do a decent Big Clive impression as well.
Scott needs to work on his unboxing action - this was very tame, needs more mini-chainsaw.
@@quaidbergo While watching the unboxing, I was inwardly wishing that SM would toss the contents across the table and yell 'TIME!'
@@craigeaton5510 Keep your scope looking nice.
I have this very telescope (under a different brand) somewhere. Bought for about £5 in a book shop.
I've seen metallic hydrogen act more stable than that tri-pod!
thanks for the laugh
I recently had a Takahashi FS128, mint condition, bought in march 99 for £5000 brand new.
I have a WO FLT-132 that I got for a good price, but I am not very happy with it. I should have just shelled out for a Takahashi or Astro-Physics.
I have three Taks myself, a TSA-120, TOA-150 and an FSQ-106EDXIV. They are magnificent scopes!
Nice, I decided to get a premium mount before optics. Now that I have a Mach1 its time to get some high end scopes. :)
Taks are fantastic scopes indeed. Owned a couple of little ones (60 and 85mm) which were physics-defyingly sharp for their size.
Just wanted to say thank you for doing this comparison. I was planning on getting the more expensive one at a later date, but you showed here that the mid-grade ($50) one is more than great for someone starting out in astronomy. Grabbed the 70mm one you recommended as well as the phone mount because why not? $66 on amazon currently. Still getting the better one, but I figured to start now I can get the travel scope!
Your coffee is getting cold 😱
Appears that I have Hubble right in my back yard. My orion nebula shots came out quiet nice. 😜
for $5... the aluminium in the tripod could probably be repurposed ( depending on the profile ) if you are a handy type of person. In a lot of cases getting extruded aluminium section is more expensive than one hopes. the optics could be taped to a dslr for various 'lofi artsy' effects ( best in low light ) should one desire. And the main body might make a decent water bong, which you can trade with the neighbourhood kids for some pokemon or whatnot. So while poor telescope experience, it might not be a 'bad deal' all in all. Thanks again for the vid !
Lol
555
Woah, yes I did think it was a water tank. I feel so ashamed of myself.
I confess I never even saw the not-a-watertank. I was too busy looking at the state of his outdoors.
Sean C To me it just blended into the wall, but at second look it seemed more like a section of a rocket like the Nexø II experiment from last year.
My first scope as a kid was a Meade Model 277 Comet Seeker. I was like 6 and it survived my childhood, which in itself is amazing. I took some nice pictures of the eclipse with it this week.
11:17 - What field artillery do you use that would fit on a mount that small?
a pistol
I suggest that people buy a 6” dodsonian reflector for their first telescope if they want to see anything outside of our solar system. Orion sells them for about $300. I started with an 8” and eventually graduated to a 12”. Worth every penny.
if you know you're going to be into astronomy that's not a bad first purchase. But for most folks who are mostly just curious, something in the $20-$100 range is probably a better idea, you're not out so much.
I just bought my first telescope. I ordered an 8" dobsonian and the company messed up and sent me a 12". I called them and they let me keep it. Cant wait to try it out.
@@NuclearHotdogsWOT wow that is fantastically generous of them. that should be great for taking pictures of bright objects like planets, maybe even the orion nebula.
@@NuclearHotdogsWOT very very nice upgrade
@@NuclearHotdogsWOT whats the brand?
Scott, could you please make a video explaining all the numbers you just used? What do the length and diameter of a telescope actually do? What is apature? Why is there a difference in how big certain lenses are? Why does magnification not mean anything? You are the perfect person to answer these questions! I'd really love a video with some diagrams and equations!
Aperture is the diameter of the primary lens of the telescope. Logically, the larger that diameter is, the more light enters the telescope at once, giving better details and brighter images. Therefore, aperture matters much more than simply the magnification you are viewing an object at. The focal length of a telescope is the distance between the primary lens and its focal point (the light is refracted in a conical shape, eventually intersecting at the focal point), and the magnification is calculated by dividing the focal length of the eyepiece you are using into the focal length of the telescope.
Aperture was an underground lab that focused on the squishy sciences. IIRC, they were the first to land a portal on the moon's surface.
magnification only matters if your telescope is high quality enough to actually see details, otherwise you'll just get a blurry mess no matter how good you are at focusing. there's a rule for effective magnification vs aperture but i forgot what it is, but generally the wider the aperture the greater its angular resolution and the finer details it can make out. i have a 130mm reflector and at best i can make out a few bands on jupiter. can kinda see the red spot even with the image magnified to fill up the lens.
Apature is the diameter of the objective lens (the big one at the front) or the primary mirror (depending on the design of the telescope) and directly determines how much light the telescope can gather -- the bigger the better, the more light that is gathered the more detail you can see.
The focal length is the distance between the objective lens (or primary mirror) and the focal plane (the point where the image is focused at). The focal length determines the "zoom" level of the telescope (or more precisely the angular size of the resulting image). Camera lenses are sold based on their focal length, I have for example a 100 mm - 300 mm zoom lens and that determines the angular size of the resulting image.
Imagine taking a camera and setting it up to take a picture of a wall, with one lens it will image a 10' by 10' area of the wall, then you change to a lens with a longer focal length and now you can only image a 4' by 4' area of wall. Magnification is a product of the focal length.
The moon, for example, has an angular resolution of about 31 arc-minutes. If you look at it with a telescope that has a 2 degree field of view the moon will only take up a quarter of the width of the image (or 1/16th of the whole image). If you use a telescope with a longer focal length that has a 1/2 degree field of view the moon would take up the whole image.
With a telescope, you can use different eye pieces to change the magnification, but all they do is limit the amount of the image gathered by the telescope that you can see -- it's analogous to using digital zoom in a camera. It doesn't show you any more detail, it just makes the detail bigger.
So to go back to the earlier example of a telescope with a 2 degree field of view, rather than changing to a telescope with a longer focal length you can just change the eyepiece so that the moon fills the whole frame, but it would so by only showing 1/16th of the image gathered by the telescope.
BTW: When I changed from using 35 mm film to a digital camera body the image sensor in my digital camera is smaller than 35 mm film which has effectively increased the magnification of my lenses, but it's done so in the same manner as changing the eye piece in a telescope. For my camera the effect is minimal and the benefits of it being a digital camera far outweighs the minor loss of image quality.
So, if you want to be able to see more detail (i.e. have a better image, not just a bigger one) you need to get a telescope with a bigger objective lens (primary mirror) so that it gathers more light and if you want to focus on a smaller piece of space you need a telescope with a longer focal length. See, magnification isn't a factor.
You should be able to do far better than that. That is a 5" aperature and you should be able to see Cassini's Division under good seeing conditions and a good ring tilt.
The basic rule is that more than 20x/inch aperture is seldom useful and 20x only when the atmosphere is quite steady. Average seeing is more like 5x to 12x. So, with your scope, look for magnifications in the range of 25x to 60x. Go higher if the conditions are steady.
You didn't mention the focal length, but many reflectors of such small diameter are f/8 or f/10. That would put your focal length somewhere in the 1000 to 1300 mm range.
That means a 25 mm eyepiece will give you somewhere around 40x to 52x. You might be able to use a 15 mm eyepiece occasionally.
There is an exception to the rule when you are just trying to split double stars. There you are not looking for detail, so a lot of blur is acceptable. I have used as much as 50x on such occasions, but the stars are pretty dim.
Great video! I had a 8'' skywatcher dobson and I recommend it for initiation.
my first I think was a 5 or 6" reflector, on an equatorial, took ages to set up.
I have a 10" Skywatcher. Great engine. But I have a question : how far can you zoom ? When I go up to 200x, the picture is blurry, and I don't know if it's because of the limit of the dobson, the 3x barlow lens I use, a bad alignement of the mirrors or something else.
@@acHe607 can you adjust the focus?
@@acHe607 your maximum useful magnification would be 50x your telescopes aputere in inches, but bare in mind, just because your your telescope can theoretically go that far, as you have encountered, it isn't always good, magnification isn't all that important, you want to use an eyepiece that frames your target nicely because the more your magnification goes up, the more light loss and detail loss
@@TheMhalpern I try. When I don't use the barlow, I can see a clear dot. But with the barlow, impossible.
I own one of the very few 100/1000 Triplet Skywatcher prototypes. It's a proud possession that is being used as meant. It's absolutely amazing! Pinpoint sharp and no CA.
I used to have a spotter scope that was used at a gun range to spot bullet holes in the distant targets so you could score yourself, and also for watching wildlife, and it also doubled as a nice scope that you could keep in your car. It even had a mount that you clipped onto the edge of your car window so you could use your car as a tripod of sorts. Plus the image went through a prism and was non-reversed. They maybe aren't the best for astronomy, but they're better than that Vivitar and actually useful for terrestrial observing as well.
Title: Scott Manley shuts down vivitar
Before I knew anything about digital cameras or Vivitar I bought a cheap ま20 pounds Vivitar camera. Really poor, even for the money. Later, on the DSLR video guide TH-cam channel, I saw Simon Cade review a Vivitar camcorder and literally throw it in the trash. It's not a fait accompli that if something is ridiculously cheap, it's gonna be awful, because companies like Casio make awesome ten dollar watches. And Greggs pies. But Vivitar seem to wear their consistent and utter crapness like a badge of honour. A brand to be avoided, even if you're short of cash.
@@GreenMorningDragonProductions -bear in mind that “Vivitar” today is just some bullshit distributor of Chinese crap who bought rights to the defunct name. In the 1970’s, Vivitar sold reasonably decent 35mm camera lenses, not as good as Nikon or Canon, but usable enough for amateurs.
I have a Celestron NexStar 8SE and just love it to death.
My son got one and turned it into an MG34 in his fortress
Spörde Spyrdenstein your son is happy
why is your profile picture undercoverdude's logo?
@@sweeflyboy Undercoverdude's logo is Walt Disney's stuff :-P
Mr. Manley, I'm an adult but thanks to this video I now want to become you when I grow up. You're so professional and thorough about your hobbies! This video is fascinating. If I'm ever fortunate enough to buy a telescope I'll take your advice in mind.
That Vivitar Telescope at 0:48 has been in production for more than 20 years and it looks like it's the same one I had (under a different brand) when I was a 12 year old kid. I'm 30 now.
Hey Scott, that was awesome. Thanks for sharing your setups with us! Now I want to hear more about the Dobson... ;)
Your "water tank" scope looks like my 12" Dob. It's my grab-and-go scope: I can trot it out to the back yard and be observing in 90 seconds.
Yep, easier to get going than my heavy tripod.
Wow! I'm so happy I've seen this in time! I was almost ready to buy a 5$ telescope... It seems it would have been the worst financial venture! Now I can buy a 5$ microscope with this saving!
Lol.....
$5 telescope made a valuable teaching tool for those of us without the optic know-how. You did well at using its faults to explain the better parts of quality scope optics. Thanks!
My first telescope was a $360 Lanson. I still remember seeing my first hazy view of Saturn, just a blurry blow with rings. But i knew at that point I was hooked. It's amazing what one can see with even a very basic piece bought for $50.
Can you put a link the the Orion you have and the lenses as well?
It looks like an Orion skyview pro 100. Not sure if they still sell those. 100mm f6 achromat, will have considerable chromatic abberation on bright objects, and there are filters that help with that at the expense of varying degrees of yellow tint to the image, the most expensive option, the baader semi apo having a slight yellow green tint but not as strong as basic minis violet fringe killers. A basic light yellow filter also helps a bit as well. The best being a Stack of fringe killer and neodymium filter, which the semi apo combines in one filter.
The SVP mount is big enough for visual use with an 8" Newtonian, and I actually used mine to image with an 8" f4 and 80mm f11 refractor as guide scope back in the day. I had purchased the SVP127 which is also no longer sold as a package, which was a 5" maksutov Cassegrain f12. I got the 80mm f11 as a celestron nexstar 80gtl 2004 $149 Costco special , and purchased a baader bracket dovetail adapter, surplus tasco starguide 4 tripod (same as nexstar 4/5 tripod), and made me a decent etx125 substitute with the 127 on the nexstar mount.
Then I bought the 8"f4 optical tube from Hardin (no longer selling consumer scopes, these were made by GSO in Taiwan), a guide scope rings set from Orion to use the 80mm as a guide scope, and a 12mm plossl XY adjustable reticle eye piece (so you can move the reticle around to line up with the best guide star) and I used that set up for film astrophotography for a while. This was 2004/2005. It was the maximum for the mount, but I had no problems, and also later on bought a 2" cg5 tripod used which improved stability, and adapted my smaller (astroview/omni cg4) class Hardin star hoc mount to work with the SVP tripod (1.75"), which made it the equivalent to the omni cg4 (which was not out yet).
Having friends in an observing group where the smallest big scope was 12" and we had an 18" and sometimes a 28" out there, I quickly realized that hearing all the oohs and ahhs and calling out if they would still be on it in 3-4 minutes when my exposure was done, made me realize that autoguiding and your own dob as a visual scope was really the way to go.
Also because when I finally got my DSLR (Nikon d50 2006) I discovered that digital is less forgiving of guide errors than film.
This was back in the days of the Orion catalog, and before Orion sold any goto scopes other than the intelliscope push to system, which was also available as an add on to the skyview pro.
The 100f6 was also available on the smaller astroview mount which is adequate for it, and the 127 mak is still sold that way
From my greater experience learned since then, and 5 years (part of it as top dog) sales at opt 2006-2011 I would personally suggest the celestron omni 102 f9.8 scope if one was to get a 4" refractor as their main scope. F9.8 has much less false color, while f6 excells for wide field (extreme wide field in the realm of 15-25x binoculars or wider with the widest 2" eps), there is the color I talked about earlier, which is far reduced at f9.8 (f10 basically)
Orion (these at least) and celestron scopes are both made by synta, the omni mount is the same as the astroview BUT it comes with a 1.75" steel tube tripod that the bigger SVP mount comes with, so it is very stable. The series also includes a 120 mm f8.3 refractor which is at the limit for that mount but still useable, a 150mm f5 reflector which a buddy of mine did some decent astrophotography with when he hacked the dual axis drive controller for autoguider capability. Also a fine visual scope (I had bicoastal pair of Hardin 6-5 equivalents for a while) .
There was, maybe still is, a 6" 150mm f5 short tube refractor in the series as well, but I would only suggest that be used as a low power wide field deep space scope due to excessive false color and mount loading making it not a good high power instrument. Refractors are heavier than reflectors when they get that big.
The omni 102 long tube refractor is excellent for all uses in its class, excelling in planetary and lunar, and with 2" eyepieces can still show some wide field views, and in fact, refractors offer the best contrast on open star clusters even in the city they can be seen better than other designs that have central obstructions. And I. Dark skies the clusters are amazing.
And one of the best views of m101 (a large faint spiral galaxy) was in a 4" refractor in dark skies. The extra contrast helped bring the spirals out
The scope is also in the under $500 range.
I did use my star hoc on 1.75 tripod a couple times with the 8"f4 visually and it worked well, and recently put a c8 on my current astroview on a 2" tripod and it was rock solid, so I know that omni mount is no slouch. c8 is lighter than 8" newtonians and much shorter, so I wouldn't suggest putting a longer than f4 8" on one, for that size (f5 f6) you want to go with a CG5/SVP.
“ I can feel some static electricity, or perhaps it’s the excitement” 😂😂😂
3:12 i was about the comment that too but i thought i should check to make sure someone else didn't beat me to it
"Fly safe" while I'm testing the highest to land a catalina into a river.
That $5 toy looks almost 100% like the one I got about 20 years ago for christmas. Mine is from Bresser and was sold in Germany. So these things seem to never die out. Ah and it was not that cheap at that time. Tripod died after days and was fixed with a keyring, but the lenses are made of glass at least.
2:50 Back in 1997, I bought the big brother of this cheap telescope for DM 100 (ca $50 or €45 nowadays), and it didn't even have the aluminium tripod; my tripod is made from wobbly wood. But because my balcony is slightly wobbly as well, I'm used to it.
How many of these can you buy for the price of 1 James Webb? Oh yes, and please can you compare an image taken from this compared with one from the Webb. I appreciate that I may have to wait 10 years for this episode to come out...
HL3 would probably come out before that
I got a 70mm Celestron for 15$ on craigslist... BEST 15 bucks I've EVER spent! Totally got me wanting more but SO useful! Rings on Saturn visible
125 or better and 900mm FL will let you see the Cassinni Divisions in the rings. Plossl eyepieces are your best next step too. 4mm and 10mm for a 125x900 make good views. Lower than 4 you get fuzz.
"I'm a bit of a space nerd in case you hadn't noticed..." - well actually Scott, I HAD noticed!
From a photography nerd:
Flourite (CaF2) lens elements are *not dispersive* (13:25) - rather the opposite - they exhibit low dispersion (variation in refractive index versus frequency) and are therefore used for certain elements in the optical path in order to improve overall chromatic abberation. As they are more expensive they are only used judiciously.
Coating improves contrast - but is not as necessary for single element designs.
Baffling also improves contrast by reducing veiling glare.
And fluorite lens elements are rarely used in telescopes nowadays, much more common are elements made of fluoride containing glass like S-FPL53 from Ohara.
We have the same finderscope . I also purchased a 90 deg finderscope to replace the straight one. I also 3d printed my prime focus adapter for the webcam I'm using for astrophotography.
Why does a scot living in the US show a screenshot of german amazon?
Okay now I'm really interested
It might not be on the US one. Or he was lazy when Googling it.
Sometimes google links me to german/dutch version of a website i'm searching, might be it.
Because he was talking about how everyone uses inches for the eyepiece, so he showed some other country's amazon page to proove this.
The only places I have seen inches used is for objective diameter and eyepiece body diameter. I have never seen eyepiece focal lengths listed in inches.
The $5 one _really_ looks like the one I had a long time ago... Didn't remember the brand though
We must have gotten ripped off a long time ago.
This is a very standard model. Comes with lots of brand names, but they're all the same.
I had one too. As a kid...
It did have glass lenses though.
@@Sander_Datema same. There weren't many plastic lenses in the land before time.
Same here
Me uh... sixth?
"But can you have fun with it?"
Well you can use it to look at the Sun so I'd say yeah. XD
Just to be clear for the ones that would not understand the joke : NEVER LOOK AT THE SUN (with an instrument not explicitely made for this purpose, unless you explicitely do not want to enjoy looking at anything anymore).
Once took department store scope and added a decent eye piece from an old celestron sporting scope and mounted it on a photo tripod. It gives good low power viewing and nobody steals it.
I received this exact same Vivitar as a gift when i was 12; I remember breaking the tripod after a few days. I used it to view the moon handheld after that, like an ultra-telephoto binocular for one eye.
This video sponsored by Phillips fluorescent tubes.
Also Lego.
My first thought was how I would be making a second trip to Home Depot because my wife hates daylight fluorescents. 2700k or else.
@@davidturpin9135 get a warm white.
@@davidturpin9135 Go LED, you can get any colour the human eye can see and even some we can't.
Yes!
Hahahaha!!! You killed me!!!
"Is it static? No! It's the excitement!"
Ya get what you pay for, especially with optics.
So people who paid the full $20 got a better one than Scott?
in the backyard astronomy community they refer to these toy scopes as "hobby killers".
I got to use an observatory once the size of a building to peer at Saturn and I have to say, I'll never forget that day. It was quite magical to be able to see the rings with decent clarity. Sadly, they've since torn that observatory down.
I spent 2000 on my
Celestron EdgeHD 8 and mount
Thanks for the info! It will help while shopping for my son’s first scope!
Also:
1)That’s a really nice couch.
2)That’s got to be a literal ton of vinyl.
3)LEGO gift bag? What’s in the bag‽.
Edit: Ninjago set 👍 my boy approves.
4)You play? I’m new to the channel and will have to look that up 🎸.
If you are looking into a beginner scope I would recommend looking at the celestron 127eq Newtonian. It's cheap but you can also get some nice views of many objects. The mount and tripod are a bit on the cheaper side, but it's nice enough that you will be well rewarded with a bit of patience
Ari Loggia I will check that out!
I have an Orion space probe 300 dollars and comes with an equatorial mount
And then I put an lx70 mount on it
I have the same telescope (assuming you also have a 130mm aperture) & i have a tripod mount
That is the model I was looking at. what do you think of it? Is it a good starter scope and what else would you suggest getting with it that it may not have?
gregg4164 I have this telescope and as a beginner in astronomy, I think it is great! It has a sturdy tripod, it comes with an equatorial mount, it is a reflector so it has a large aperture allowing it to collect a lot of light which gives you nice detail, and it has a nice focal length of around 660 mm so you can get good magnification. You can get great views of the moon, Jupiter and it’s moons, and Saturns rings and even a few of its moons on a clear night. This telescope is wonderful out of the box, but I found it works especially well with an Orion moon filter and a 3.6 mm eyepiece on Amazon (total cost about $30). I have had incredible closeups of the moon with extraordinary detail with that combination, and I was able to make out the bands and spot on Jupiter. I have to say this is a great telescope for beginners, and for a good price too. I definitely recommend this telescope! Hope this helps!
HashtagCatsInSpace never bought a filter for anything don’t know why. Otherwise not many complaints great for beginners may want to consider upgrading the mount and lenses.
I had that exact same telescope when I was a child, in the 1985... Some things never change ! I barely was able to see saturn's rings with it, and it was super blurry.
Just reassembled the achromatic doublet in my ancient telestar. I took it apart when I was a kid and didn't put it back together cleanly or correctly. I also had it stored outside and dirt-daubers had built nests in the tube. It's gunna be stored inside from now on.