Celestron Powerseeker 127EQ Reflector Telescope - Reason #4 Not to Buy It - Slow Motion Ctrl Knobs

[@velkylev4217]

I like looking for objects my self , before I go I make a list of objects i want to observe and check app to see where they are , it's fun , and I remember objects locations and next time I find them without a problem . Also the knobs are for space walk , not for running, you have to grab your scope and move it long distance yourself, then once you are close to the target you use the knobs

[@marksastrojourney]

I’m glad to hear you find it rewarding! Regarding tracking with the knobs once you locate your target, I even bought the little motor that Celestron makes for this mount for right ascension. However, that motor wouldn’t run at a consistent speed in cold weather. So you could turn it on, but the object would gradually creep out of the field of view - even if you adjusted its rate of speed.

[@robertsonsid]

The real problem with the EQ mount is the scope is too heavy for it. It isn't bad with a smaller sope. The control cables can be replaced with Radio Control Knobs. The RA/Dec circles are too small to be used. I have used a mount like that and can find any object using a star atlas. Books like "Turn Left at Orion" or "110 Things to See with A Telescope" can teach how to find objects in the night sky. The slow-motion control knobs are not to find an object but to keep it in view. Newbies rely on too much technology and never really learn the night sky. By learning the stars and star hopping there is a real satisfaction when the object you are looking for comes into view. Where is the challenge when a machine does that for you? That being said the Powerseeker 127EQ isn't a great scope.

[@marksastrojourney]

Thanks for sharing your insights! From my perspective, I don't see it being very practical to have to use charts and guides and manually try to find targets in the sky. For me it would be similar to not using the GPS in my car or phone, but rather buying a Rand McNally atlas/mapbook and having to chart out my trip step by step. It's time consuming and tedious and I used to get lost on trips. It's true, we've all become heavily reliant on technology and if/when it becomes unavailable we will be in a bind. However, I personally would rather spend my time doing something else than manually having to find targets using charts/maps. Each time I do an imaging session, I have to carry out/setup my telescope and align it (30 minutes) and then another 30 minutes to break down and bring it in. Based upon the trees and obstacles on my horizons, I might optimistically get 4 hours on a given target. So if I can find ways to expedite target acquisition and leverage technology, I'm going to do it. Since I started doing astrophotography, I've not went back to using my eyepieces anymore nor doing visual astronomy.

[@velkylev4217]

​@@marksastrojourneyI disagree, it's a big difference between driving using a map and astronomy using a map . But I do understand some people don't have patience nor time . If you want to be an astronomer don't you think it's good to actually know the sky and remember objects ? It's like always relying on GPS while driving through your own town instead of actually learning and remembering your own town . But hey as I said , it's not for everyone , so I understand

[@marksastrojourney]

With the lenses that came with this mount, I didn't find it very easy to see or even make out what many objects were. Obviously, you can see the moon very well. Saturn and Jupiter were visible with the scope. But I found very challenging to see most galaxies or nebulae very well. It could be the poor optics or low quality eyepieces or a combination of them and my own vision problems. My close up vision is hard to correct even with cheaters and my distance is poor as well. Maybe for someone with 20/20 vision and no up close vision issues, it's easy to use this telescope and it's provided eyepieces to accomplish this. But it certainly wasn't for me. After some time doing mostly visual astronomy sessions and once I started trying out astrophotography, my interest shifted more to astrophotography. If you want to do long exposure astrophography, you're somewhat dependent upon technology. You have to have a mount that can track accurately. You have to have to be able to plate solve and center targets in the your field of view. Often the targets are quite faint. So with all these factors, technology is not a crutch but rather a necessity.

[@miguelo65]

Hi Mark, I´ve been in astronomy for 38 years and my first mount was a Tasco like the one you show and for the next 7 years I learned to find easy objects manually with the RA and DEC axes. Those were good and exciting times when the blurry gray appeared on the eyepiece. but as you say quality was the worst That said, and just like in high school math, you can't use a calculator for integrals; In astronomy, at least academically, it should be essential to learn the most basic things with this elemental mounts IMHO. There is no doubt that if you really want to get to the point, goto is the best way. Finally, as an example, I know astronomers in Spain who take professional-quality images of galaxies or nebulae, but they do not ask them to point out any stars up in the sky, or even constellations because probably they will answer you... I dunno 🙂. Best regards

[@marksastrojourney]

hi Miguelo, it’s always great to hear some words of wisdom from the seasoned astronomers!