Stargazing Celestron UpClose Porro Series 10-30 x 50 Zoom Binoculars

  • Thread starter Thread starter BH Wiz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Series Zoom
AI Thread Summary
The Celestron UpClose Porro Series 10-30 x 50 Zoom Binoculars are being evaluated for their quality, with the general consensus suggesting that higher prices typically correlate with better performance. Comparisons are made between the National Geographic 114/900MM AZ telescope and the Bresser Galaxia 114/900, noting that the stand quality can significantly impact usability. The National Geographic telescope is considered slightly cheaper but may have inferior support. Recommendations emphasize purchasing base-level optics from reputable manufacturers for better overall quality. The discussion highlights the importance of price as an indicator of performance in optical equipment.
BH Wiz
Messages
51
Reaction score
0
I found these on amazon "Celestron UpClose Porro Series 10-30 x 50 Zoom Binoculars"...Are they good?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org


Wondering. How good are the National Geographic Telescopes? Specifically NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC 114/900MM AZ. Say compared to the Bresser Galaxia 114/900.
 


BH Wiz said:
I found these on amazon "Celestron UpClose Porro Series 10-30 x 50 Zoom Binoculars"...Are they good?

Storm89 said:
Wondering. How good are the National Geographic Telescopes? Specifically NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC 114/900MM AZ. Say compared to the Bresser Galaxia 114/900.

A good rule of thumb is "the more you spend, the better they will be".
Obviously it's not always that simple, but generally it works out that way in my opinion. I'd look for similar products and see what the price range is for them. If yours is at the bottom of the bucket, it's probably not too good.
 


Drakkith said:
A good rule of thumb is "the more you spend, the better they will be".
Obviously it's not always that simple, but generally it works out that way in my opinion. I'd look for similar products and see what the price range is for them. If yours is at the bottom of the bucket, it's probably not too good.

Of course. That's the rule of thumb I've gone by on most occasions. From what I can see the two are somewhat similar, but the difference is in the stand, which I understand is quite important.

I'm actually asking cause my birthday is right around the corner and I've been meaning to put a telescope on my wish list and these are around the price I could probably sum up if most of my family gathered round. I doubt they will, but you can always live in the hope, can't you?

I can't find much else than Bresser Galaxia 114/900 or Bresser Pollux 150/1400 (but without a 3x Barlow) or Bresser Lyra 70/900 at that price range. The National Geographic one is a little cheaper, but the stand appears somewhat worse.
 


Another good rule of thumb is that you can buy base-level optics from a well-respected manufacturer and probably get superior quality. I bought my basic Nikon 50x7s from L.L. Bean, and they are wonderful. High-end manufacturers can let their quality-control and good materials permeate their whole line without busting the bank. Buying optics from some line that sources their gear from various manufacturers in China offers you no such advantages. Good luck!
 
Is a homemade radio telescope realistic? There seems to be a confluence of multiple technologies that makes the situation better than when I was a wee lad: software-defined radio (SDR), the easy availability of satellite dishes, surveillance drives, and fast CPUs. Let's take a step back - it is trivial to see the sun in radio. An old analog TV, a set of "rabbit ears" antenna, and you're good to go. Point the antenna at the sun (i.e. the ears are perpendicular to it) and there is...
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...
How does light maintain enough energy in the visible part of the spectrum for the naked eye to see in the night sky. Also, how did it start of in the visible frequency part of the spectrum. Was it, for example, photons being ejected at that frequency after high energy particle interaction. Or does the light become visible (spectrum) after hitting our atmosphere or space dust or something? EDIT: Actually I just thought. Maybe the EM starts off as very high energy (outside the visible...

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
16
Views
5K
Replies
12
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
32
Views
11K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top