460 replies to this topic

[xvariablestarx]

I like the C90 picture the most, so sharp.  I would help anybody with a PS 127 get the best out of their scope but I would never recommend buying one at full retail price.

[Herb_H]

It would depend I guess on how much time you have on your hands to waste :-) I would avoid inexpensive Bird-Jones design like the plague.

 

A Jones–Bird Newtonian (sometimes called a Bird–Jones) uses a spherical primary mirror in place of a parabolic one, with spherical aberrations corrected by sub-aperture corrector lens[10] usually mounted inside the focuser tube or in front of the secondary mirror. This design reduces the size and cost of the telescope with a shorter overall telescope tube length (with the corrector extending the focal length in a "telephoto" type layout) combined with a less costly spherical mirror. Commercially produced versions of this design have been noted to be optically compromised, due to the difficulty of producing a correctly shaped sub-aperture corrector, and are targeted at the inexpensive end of the telescope market.

 

https://en.wikipedia...onian_telescope

[xvariablestarx]

It would depend I guess on how much time you have on your hands to waste :-) I would avoid inexpensive Bird-Jones design like the plague.

 

A Jones–Bird Newtonian (sometimes called a Bird–Jones) uses a spherical primary mirror in place of a parabolic one, with spherical aberrations corrected by sub-aperture corrector lens[10] usually mounted inside the focuser tube or in front of the secondary mirror. This design reduces the size and cost of the telescope with a shorter overall telescope tube length (with the corrector extending the focal length in a "telephoto" type layout) combined with a less costly spherical mirror. Commercially produced versions of this design have been noted to be optically compromised, due to the difficulty of producing a correctly shaped sub-aperture corrector, and are targeted at the inexpensive end of the telescope market.

 

https://en.wikipedia...onian_telescope

The worst part of the PS 127 (if I remember my old one correctly), was the mount, second was the accessories, lastly the scope itself. I remember seeing hints of the two main equatorial bands on Jupiter with the PS 127, but at that size of scope you should see the bands clearly, with some structure to the bands just at the edge of visibility.

 

If somebody reading this, has a PS 127 already, then try and steady the tripod with some weights in the accessory tray, and keep the legs as short as you can, the accessories, are junk, find some nice Kellner eyepieces cheaply, it would be better than the "erecting eyepiece" or whatever else comes with the scope. 

 

If you haven't bought a scope yet, look at the prices of small, long tube 70mm refractor telescopes, or get a Celestron C90,  you will have much more pleasure in stargazing. There are also good reflecting telescopes in this price range (mostly tabletop, mini Dobsonians), but the PS 127 isn't one of them.

[Herb_H]

"The worst part of the PS 127 ... was the mount"

 

No problem with the mount on mine, exact same one as on the PS 114 EQ ... At least for what it costs :-) 

 

I added on both the battery powered Celestron clock drive, and this is what I got with the $140 PS 114 EQ (not a dreaded Bird-Jones design) "out of the Amazon box", exact same mount as the PS 127EQ :

 

For the pictures below I used a $30 Logitec C310 webcam hooked up to a laptop.

 

This I think proves the mount is not the problem ...

 

.

Attached Thumbnails

• 
• 
• 

Edited by Herb_H, 23 February 2023 - 02:23 PM.

[xvariablestarx]

"The worst part of the PS 127 ... was the mount"

 

No problem with the mount on mine, exact same one as on the PS 114 EQ ... At least for what it costs :-) 

 

I added on both the battery powered Celestron clock drive, and this is what I got with the $140 PS 114 EQ (not a dreaded Bird-Jones design) "out of the Amazon box", exact same mount as the PS 127EQ :

 

For the pictures below I used a $30 Logitec C310 webcam hooked up to a laptop.

 

This I think proves the mount is not the problem ...

 

.

Maybe, the mount seemed more than a bit weak for the PS 127, but the PS 114 can't be that much lighter. Still stand by the comment on the accessories though. Nice pictures by the way.

[AstroPhotog]

fwiw - Hi, I've seen this thread over time and was inspired by what Sky Muse accomplished. Amazon has a couple Used-Acceptable Celestron PowerSeeker 127EQs for $57 in case you're motivated to experiment - https://www.amazon.c...101&sr=8-1&th=1

Edited by AstroPhotog, 19 August 2024 - 10:00 PM.

[CrazyPanda]

If I had more than a handful of good clear nights/month to spend time tinkering with a scope like this, I would be tempted for $56. But burning a precious night with a PowerSeeker is like torching $1,000,000 just to see what would happen.

Edited by CrazyPanda, 20 August 2024 - 10:24 AM.

[AstroPhotog]

If I had more than a handful of good clear nights/month to spend time tinkering with a scope like this, I would be tempted for $56. But burning a precious night with a PowerSeeker is like torching $1,000,000 just to see what would happen.

I understand that. It seems I've only had a handful of available nights all year, and have my sights on a bigger scope. An additional 13mm isn't enough to bother / experiment with when skies beckon. That's a funny comparison, a milion bucks.   Cheers, and may your skies improve.

[CrazyPanda]

Man on second thought, I came across this reddit post where a user is asking why their mount is so loose/sloppy:

 

https://www.reddit.c...this_direction/

 

I'm now tempted to buy one of those just so I can create a basic tune-up video to help those unfortunate souls who bought one of the scopes, get it working as optimally as it can.

[AstroPhotog]

I find the turnaround funny CrazyPanda. However, a tutorial on improving it may be the best use of a $60 PowerSeeker 127EQ ever. Cheers!

 

Edit: Don't forget it has more issues than just the mount. I won't pretend to know much more than that, but the previous page has examples. :-)

Edited by AstroPhotog, 22 August 2024 - 09:05 PM.

[AstroPhotog]

Well, came across a post where someone tightened a nut on the mount and it was less loose, or not loose at all. Kinda confirms Herb H post #454. Cheers!