I review your most HATED telescope - the Celestron PowerSeeker 127! How bad is it, and why?

[@tinianastrodad5649]

I bought the powerskeer 127eq for my first telescope. It took me a year to master it with everything about it, I was able to capture 15 Messier objects and mastered collimation with no problem. I upgraded to Orion 8inch Newtonian sky view pro. If I had this telescope again. Definitely would still have fun. Or either it drove me insane a bit lol

[@dzahsh]

I got this inexpensive model to learn about equatorial mounts. I'm just a casual beginner. Upgraded the eyepiece and finder. Really works just fine for me, not that hard to learn... Slow motion knobs work fine on mine. I'm sure of course there are better telescopes with less shake and edge distortion, but its really not as bad of a deal as the internet apparently seems to think

[@bonnandchristine]

Just got this for Christmas. I don't want to give up on it. Any tips to optimize it?

[@j0n_H]

Learn tips and do not listen this elitist ed who do not want people to learn and enjoy astronomy. Lol😅

[@dankahraman354]

Way to go Celestron. Nothing like turning young people off of Astronomy and telescopes!

[@kishascape]

These are the most common too in physical stores. I was at Ross in 2012 and saw these on the shelves. Thought it was a hell of a deal for an EQ mount and wide Newtonian.

[@gothicm3rcy426]

theres always gysker lol

[@hooper365]

Good thing Ed Ting is guiding us towards good and great ones

[@MikeLikesChannel]

If they would discontinue this garbage and sell a 4-5” tabletop Dob and pack in a 20mm eyepiece, basically clone a Starblast, they’d really gain my respect.

[@lapua9828]

@@MikeLikesChannel they do make the AWB onesky, that or the Orion star last are great for beginners

[@jimpoop]

I frequently buy up older serviceable scopes and clean them up, make them more user friendly.. better eyepieces, build dob mounts for them etc. I've given two away to people I know who bought this scope, just to save them or their child from giving up the hobby out of frustration... Gave a Edmund 6" newt with superb optics I "dobified" and modded the focuser to the first, and one of my 2 Celestron/vixen c80s on an original Polaris mount to the other. Both are wayyyy happier and are very involved in the hobby now. There are some older, used gems out there that are cheap, with excellent build and optics. newbies just don't know what to look for..

[@aswingsharif6729]

very generous and future thinking of you. Many people love astronomy, yet the proper gears doesn't seems to be sufficently affordable. Out there chinese cheap toys are sold like a pro telescopes and the reasons for frustations..

[@salomonwachholz8254]

That is seriously generous from you man! we need more people like you in this hobby

[@ikedog1405]

@@aswingsharif6729 I know they always sell these telescopes like it’s the Hubble used to have a junk one now I have an xt6 but the send 4mm or 5mm that don’t work and 3x Barlow lens These have wasted so much of mine and others time

[@Astronurd]

Thank you for your benevolence. This kindness will come back to you as the universal law of karma is very much at play.

[@DP-qb1zw]

The 127mm is not one you can fix completely. It will always have the small area of the field that is in focus and the rest blurred.

[@Spaceandthings1]

Ok here’s the thing, I own this telescope with a 2x Omni Barlow lens which is very great. My personal experience is good with this thing and most of the things he says in this video didn’t apply to me and I recommend this thing.

[@edting]

Avoid all AstroMasters and PowerSeekers. Junk.

[@Spaceandthings1]

@@edtingI do have a newer one now but I’m being serious it was the only thing I could buy for 200 dollars I’m a kid so I don’t decide the price point. It got the job done

[@k.h.1587]

​@@Spaceandthings1your expectations as a kid are easily met, there are and were better options for the same or not much more. When you look through other scopes, you will know. It does not take much, even a 60mm refractor can show you craters on the moon and the rings of saturn, and Jupiter's moons and 2 main belts

[@jrpstonecarver]

I LOLed (literally, not figuratively!) at the "you're getting this thing back!" line. Thank you for that!

[@hpetty9404]

I just bought my first telescope a few months ago and initially I ordered one of these because it was right at the upper end of my budget and gave me the maximum size possible. Then I read a bunch of negative reviews about it and canceled the order. Went with the Orion SpaceProbe instead and after watching this video I'm so glad I did.

[@ericaroundtheworld]

How is it ...????

[@finnster321]

Same. I almost got this too and listened to Ed and got an xt8. It is so good!

[@Struggle.Snuggles]

Orion is one of my favorite companies for making good scopes.

[@hpetty9404]

@@ericaroundtheworld it's a great scope. Perfect for someone getting into the hobby. The mount can take some getting used to but it's great for viewing the planets and moon. I'm ready for a big boy though lol. If you have the money just got for an 8+ in Dob

[@springbloom5940]

Man, I soooo almost bought one, but decided I didn't really need a new scope.

[@andysummersthxcinemaandmyc7748]

i hate my nextsrar 8se its brand new and a friend said he help out get it set up and only helped once and long sort time friend but sense he didn't want really help he says we go some dark place new forest but keeps blaming weather when most days had at least two days parted clouds . my point i suffer manic depression and like to take hammer and smash my nextstar 8se with a hammer as i now hate astronomy

[@k.h.1587]

Whoa there tiger. There is really nothing to hate about a nexstar 8SE. While it isn't the most stable it is still very usable, and no where near as shakey as a powerseeker 127. Just because it may be a bit above your learning curve at this point doesn't mean you should give up. Try looking up your local astronomy club, they will be eager to help, and won't charge you money and you may make new friends. They usually will have beginners classes every month or a few times a year, and in most cases they are open to the public since they are a great way for clubs to attract new members. I hope you didn't smash it. I understand depression and anxiety, but I never dealt with true mania until I smoked weed for 8 months straight and then had too much edible the first time I tried edibles. Turns out my depression and anxiety was really aspergers, but when the weed made me flip over to grandiose euphoria, it didn't take long for the "experts" to first diagnose me as bipolar at 35yrs old, and almost kill me with the side effects of the meds, and gradually worsen my life from then on. Aspergers mixes well with astronomy, at least high functioning aspergers. True manic depression, I don't know, but with the proper help with that telescope, it should give you something positive to get into, but be careful as this hobby gets expensive and you could go into.debt fast on the eyepieces and accessories if you are prone to spending sprees.

[@SuperBoatdoc]

This was my 1st scope. I agree with your assessment. It takes a lot of homework, adjustments and practice to get it to work. However, once I did all of that, and put in my share of struggling, I was able to get great views of Jupiter and Saturn. On top of that, I was forced to learn basic astronomy and the night sky, to become an expert collimator, and the pros and cons of Equatorial mounts, because this thing, and the instructions given, sure aren’t going to help. I believe it made me a better amateur astronomer. Each viewing session was a challenge. I obtained my best views of Jupiter and Saturn with (gasp!) a 9mm eyepiece and the Barlow lens , once the mount and the tube stopped shaking after 5 seconds after each adjustment. I now have a Celestron Nexstar 8SE (nice scope, easier, nice mount) and Celestron 15x70 binoculars. The binoculars are amazing , fun and easy-wish I had started with them.

[@gy9326]

I also started with one of these. I wouldn’t recommend one, but I enjoyed it at the time.

[@haroldlocke7991]

I love my 15x70 binoculars, I don’t even bother with 10x50’s

[@brianpriest2930]

Yup I bought this POS too. Not a good scope to learn how to collimate. On the plus side, it was such a challenge to get working right that I learned a lot (school of hard knocks style). On the negative: everything else. Good news for me, I stayed in the hobby but now am a ton more cautious with my purchases

[@randolphpatterson5061]

I had a similar experience, and I agree that it made me a better stargazer from having to do everything the hard way. Mine is a cheap trash 60mm refractor from olden days, salvaged from a dumpster, & it's still all I have for observing. It's still teaching me what things to watch out for when the time comes to get a quality instrument. It's a real pain in the asterism to set up, but the optics are okay & I get some nice views. I found a plastic 1.25" focuser & Kellner eyepieces & Barlow from Surplus Shed, all of good value for very little money. That was way before I had a computer. I've entertained a few ideas about doing what can be done to improve the mount & tripod, too, but haven't yet tried any of them.

[@SuperBoatdoc]

@@brianpriest2930 School of Hard Knocks is an excellent way to put it.. Learning how to collimate this gave me a good understanding of the whole process.

[@michaelschwerdt1147]

I bought the Power Seeker 80mm f/11 refractor years ago. After changing the included diagonal and using better eyepieces it’s fantastic for viewing the planets, moon and brighter deep sky objects like Andromeda and Orion.

[@astrobreda]

Yes, the refractors of powerseeker series are good, the problem is in this reflector 127mm

[@Astro_Ape]

And the 114EQ PowerSeeker as well, they're both junk scopes.

[@robertsonsid]

I have the older Celestron Firstscope 80mm F11 refractor that predates the Powerseeker 80mm. I love it.

[@Astro_Ape]

@@robertsonsid IDK about the refractors, but I've heard some positive reviews of the FirstScope reflectors.

[@mad_clown475]

@@Astro_Ape in my opinion it's not bad, the optical tube is good, the long focal legth eliminates the coma, but the poor quality mount and finderscope and eyepieces is the problem.

[@johncrespo4904]

I have this Telescope, with the supplied eyepieces. It is my first telescope and I did not know what I was doing when I purchased it. That said, I really didn't know any better and nothing to compare it to and over the last two years had gotten used to its idiosyncrasies. I also use it within its limitations and I don't try for Deep space objects; however I have gotten some great views of Jupiter and its moons, Saturn, Neptune and of course the Moon. I guess all in all it may not be "user friendly" but if you are patient it can be an ok entry level telescope.

[@ulisessolis3182]

Yes, it isn't perfect but it's not that bad as people says. I even think that if this telescope is the pure reason that could make you stay away from the hobby, then astronomy isn't for you. Astronomy requires patience, figure things out, and certain determination, all of those things and some others are required for use this telescope

[@leechjim8023]

If you have a large OPEN backyard, an 8in. Dob would be much better!

[@SaneGuyFr]

​@@ulisessolis3182It's still bad

[@photographyforbeginners]

Thanks Ed. But now I feel bad for having this gear and wouldn’t join any astronomy club unless I want to get ridiculed for having this piece of scope until I get a better gear as you recommend.

[@hisokabeatbox9053]

​​@@photographyforbeginnersnobody will do that, if they do you dont want to be in that club do you

[@MikeLikesChannel]

Friends don’t let friends buy a PowerSeeker. They tell them to buy a lightly used 6” Dob.

[@ronmcmartin4513]

@12:00--"No such luck; you're getting this back!" ... What a cruel guy. How Dare You! The Donor could have solved his problem with the always-legal, "And no Tap-backs" Rule( ;>D)

[@Pyrolonn]

Maybe they can take it out to a field and destroy it like the printer in "Office Space"

[@ronmcmartin4513]

@@Pyrolonn--Or the Tesla Model S that the guy blew up with dynamite in Finland.

[@ChristiRich]

I picked up one of these, complete, at a thrift shop for $50. I mounted it on a better tripod and added a 0.5x focal reducer, which provides some very sharp, bright images.

[@BlueTrane2028]

Bird-Jones and a shaky mount. What could possibly go wrong?

[@davidknisely3003]

A "true" properly-designed Bird-Jones system can work fairly well, but the problem is, this is *NOT* a true Bird-Jones. It is a rough imitation of one with the Barlow-like lens in the focuser that does not compensate for the spherical aberration of the primary mirror. The mount on this thing is not sufficient for the weight of the OTA. For the beginner, it is far better to just get a six to eight inch Dobsonian.

[@parva777]

2:10 ..."I Will try to be civilized about all of this..." 🤣..... 5:45 "They give you a 4mm eyes piece"...🤣🤣🤣🤣 This one literally made me fall from my chair !

[@k.h.1587]

I have played around with plastic bodied SR4 eyepieces, and while they have no eye relief and super narrow field of view that is only sharp in the center, man, when you get a planet in the center in a good scope with a fast enough focal ratio, f8 or faster, it was some of the best surface detail I have seen. Being only 2 elements helps in some cases. But it is not easy to look through and I wouldn't rush out to buy one, even though it shouldnt cost more than $5 used. But it was extremely sharp and high contrast on axis

[@m.g.8381]

Ed, thank you for the review, to the point with a dash of humor thrown in, and its needed. I don't understand some companies, you can put great ideas, new products, or ways to make their products better etc, and they ignore you. I asked a local health food store a simple question "You are trying to sell health products right" I had gone in to the store numerous times and never once had someone asked "may I help you" while the staff sat at the register and laughed and talked, I just finally got tired and went to their competition. Some companies just don't care.

[@jahmes_404]

I bought one of these and haven’t had problems, I read a lot beforehand and had no problems using the mount and I’ve never used either of the stronger lenses. I’ve been able to see every planet and some deep sky objects. It was all I could afford at the time and I’m content with the quality, I was actually expecting worse and was surprised my admittedly low bar was exceeded. My biggest issue is the field of view which was more an annoyance than anything else. I think that buying an armatures guide beforehand set expectations well and made me aware of how to use the kit and let me know going in the limits which avoided the much reported situations. This video however leaves me very excited because if I’m happy with this thing I can only guess how brilliant the views from my second telescope will be! Thank you for the videos, it’s terrifically evident the amount of passion you have and your ability to inform.

[@mustang5132]

I’m having the exact same experience as you are. I was gifted one of these and at first I was worried after seeing all these reviews but for my first telescope I’m loving it so far. I’m sure it’s not the best telescope ever but as a beginner, it’s amazing to look through and the mount is not as difficult to use as everyone says. I think this is similar to a professional photographer saying that a cheap beginner DSLR is terrible but to someone who is just starting out, they are great fun and a great way to get into the hobby.

[@edting]

Thanks for your comment. I am curious, when you say you saw "every planet and some deep sky objects" can you explain and elaborate for us here exactly what you saw?

[@jahmes_404]

@@edting I’ve seen all the planets including the ice giants, though they are very faint and took a long time to find in remote areas. I’ve been able to distinguish the rings of Saturn and the bands of Jupiter as well as both of their major sets of moons. I’ve also seen the phases of Venus and the red of Mars reasonably well. For me the Orion Nebula is very noticeable in terms of shape but only has color with a 2 second exposure from my phone which I was very chuffed with. Other smaller deep sky objects are visible though nothing like what’s to be seen on the internet. I’m at 32 south and the m clouds are far too big to look at with the very small field of view and likewise with the pleadies though I can get most of them in at once. I also was able to follow the ISS one night, it was hard to track and I just loosened RA and declination so that I could move them with my hands and I could make out the solar panels. Ive had a really good time with the 127 and didn’t have any troubles operating the eq mount. Just read the instructions. It also came with the Celestron stellarium app and I used that to find the ice giants. The finder circles or set circles whatever they’re called are too small to be accurate but are good enough to be in the general area and I can find most things from them in a couple minutes as a complete novice. Lastly I will say that as a beginner star hopping with the fov is tricky but manageable with patience.

[@jahmes_404]

Also forgot to say that the moon is clear and I can see the light on the rims of crators and shadows in the bottoms of them.

[@DP-qb1zw]

​@jahmes_404 FOV is determined by the eyepiece, so just get wider field ones.

[@stevieb6173]

I disagree , it's worth your time and effort to call out these really poor telescopes and shame the maker , in fact you should make a feature of it once or twice a year , if these companies only interest is to make money then surely they should be held accountable for poor products and be embarrassed enough to change their ways

[@maddoxmiller-pinheiro9342]

I’m 14 and I got this telescope about a year and a half ago and have since upgraded to a 10 inch dob and have realized how bad it is. Like it’s so bad my finder scope is as good if not better than the telescope

[@Cosmic24242]

I did my research and asked for a starblast 4.5 for Christmas and I got the 127 eq at first I thought it would be a really good telescope because it looks close to the 4.5 but I can't get it to focus and when I do it's really small and I can't see anything

[@Nicolas-mb3up]

Great video, as always! I was wondering if you could make a video about big binoculars (starting with the "cheap" 25x100, and up to the more fancy ones, sometimes labeled as "binocular telescopes"). I'm not asking for a specific product review, just your general thoughts/experience in this category. Thanks!

[@ronmcmartin4513]

The 25X100's color-fringing was so bad I sent it back to have them check it. They couldn't find anything wrong with it. It was my LAST Celestron purchase. I don't know about the Zhumell, but they are now controlled by Celestron, so...

[@Nicolas-mb3up]

@@ronmcmartin4513 Yeah, I've read similar issues from some amazon reviews. Apparently collimation is also a problem in the cheap 25x100 binoculars category. I would be interested in Ed's take on big binoculars in general though, I guess its a different experience all together being able to observe with both eyes. There are some more expensive models that even allow interchangeable eyepieces.

[@k.h.1587]

​@@ronmcmartin4513even higher quality 25x100 binoculars will have false color. It is inherent to the design, not a quality control issue. Stick to 20x80 or 15x70 which don't have as much false color. Or spend thousands on ED giant binoculars

[@ronmcmartin4513]

@@k.h.1587--Or $1000s on big telescopes(Free Hubble, shipping not included), instead of an 8" Dob with good eyepieces. I had no idea the quality of the images were that good for so cheap, until I watched Ed Ting's videos. The 25x100 was a disappointment.

[@Roope00]

r/dontbuyapowerseeker

[@mcgrath16511]

Yup i have one upgraded the eye pieces and and yes even did a collimation! works just fine.. i have had zero issues with the dreaded "frustration" ,, mentioned..but i have learned, being a ham radio operator, that there are those that always say mine is better.. all from so called experts when in all reality it is just their opinion.

[@simulatedpilot3441]

I had no trouble getting it to work, finderscope was terrible, But I'm sending it back

[@richardhedd3080]

This model was my first telescope. Everything he said is true. the mount is so unstable that merely adjusting the focus sent tremors through the mount and tripod that you would have to wait 10 to fifteen seconds before everything settled down. Only then could you see if your focus adjustment was good.

[@Craftyman522]

Ok I have this telescope but I have modified and it made it much better

[@tlinrin887]

Thanks for the review I was looking at one of these used very cheap, now I know why.

[@bljukus]

For correcting the spherical aberration of the primary spherical mirror, this corrector lens they put it opposite oriented in the focuser than regular barlow lens, so the more curved side of that corrector faces inside towards the secondary in order to correct spherical aberration of the primary mirror. This causes that only the center portion of the image appears relatively sharp and the edges are horrible with coma, astigmatism and field curvature, because of that poor optical design which makes collimation of this Bird-Jones thing nearly impossible! They tried to cancel one aberration and induced three other aberrations. Only because of the spherical mirror and its upside down installed achromatic doublet barlow in the focuser. These are in versions 114/1000, 127/1000 and 150/1400. These scopes are the worst thing especially for beginners who have no experience, especially in collimating a Bird-Jones thing. Much better are of course the parabolic newtonians like Orion Starblast 4.5 and 6" newtonians. I am asking myself all the time how much is really more expensive to make a DAMN PARABOLIC MIRROR?? They take no effort to get even at least close to it, to at least half parabolizing the mirror to meet at least 1/4 lambda undercorrected mirrors, it would be far far more better that this crap! I have 20+ years experience in mirror making and did parabolize a few of these mirrors from Bird-Jones newtonians, but have nowhere to coat them again, since we here in Croatia do not have any coating service avaolable...

[@edting]

Thanks for that. I'll go even further. Why bother putting the silly lens in there at all? Even if the mirror is spherical? So what? There will be distortion at the edges, so what? It's a beginner's scope.

[@enriqueboeneker]

Hey, Ed! I have to mention that trying to colimate this thing is also a big issue. Yes, I still own one of these. It’s in the closet, of course, and really I can’t get rid of it. I can’t give it away, I might kill someone’s passion for astronomy. And of course I can’t sell it, that would be so much worse! So… I don’t know. I believe I will keep it ‘till I die. Great video and great recommendations!

[@normdetection]

I fixed the collimation problem with this telescope with 'Bob knoth'...easy to adjust. I have several telescopes and it is absolutely necessary to invest so that this telescope works properly... the best quality optics (most of the optics that come with new telescopes leave something to be desired) so in my case I already had what I needed and just bought 'Bob knoth' collimation screws. Now I must say that it is a telescope that I appreciate (for me) and that I use regularly. If I recommend it as the first telescope to a new...no.Ps. for guiding scope i have many brands so it fix for me.

[@DP-qb1zw]

I bought a cheap used one to see what all the fuss was about. I had to put longer bolts, used wing nuts and springs on mine as the factory rubber washers didn't have enough range. I got it collimation well but , as he said, only the central part of the field of view is sharp.

[@alargefarva4274]

Whew! I almost bought this as my first telescope

[@elgatothecatseye8409]

If a Bird-Jones design telescope has ever given good images I have not looked through it. Never, ever. . .

[@nanocreations7630]

As with most industries you get what you pay for. This is certainly true for optics be they for telescopes, binoculars and microscopes. For a long time $200 has been the starting point for beginning optics. This was true when I was in the industry back in the late-1980s and with Ed's recommendations today. Anything below $200 and you get into the power racket. A racket where totally unrealistic performance specifications are thrown in front people who are new to astronomy who are on a budget. They will buy a plastic 60mm scope with plastic optics, .96" oculars and 900x power claims, then become frustrated because they can't see M31 the way M31 is shown on the telescopes box (in full color) and are turned off astronomy for the rest of their life. It's all very sad and has been happening for a very long time. It is unfortunate that the same manufacturers who make the high-end gear also pray upon beginners in this way.

[@touhouguyII]

Hey, The flame nebulae is not in the right place in his picture back there, it is rotated

[@Michael_H_Webb]

I was “that guy” and bought the smaller cousin of this scope. Eventually I put it on a simple Alt/Az mount, added aTelrad and better viewfinder and a 32mm eyepiece; and I practice star hopping. Great review, hopefully folks entering the hobby will see it before they waste their money.

[@mohammadmoustafa9471]

So, i already ordered it and i'm wating for it to be delivered, does it worth that i add a wider 32mm eyepiece or even a variable 8to24mm eyepiece? Or shall i cancel the order?

[@k.h.1587]

​@@mohammadmoustafa9471both eyepieces are much better than what comes with the scope, and would be all you need for a long time. Then only caveat is that the 24mm end of the zoom us quite narrow, but the 8mm has a pleasing 60deg apparent field, which is closer to 40deg at the 24mm end. Narrower than a 25mm plossl. I would suggest a 20-24mm wide angle as well to give a more pleasing view in that range of power. Plus you can use them when you actually get a good scope later

[@robertgrimsted877]

I have one of these put a 25mm eye p in looks ok my first scope was a 50mm refracter in the early seventies just was Abel to see the moon in the late seventies I had a 60mm refactor bought it with my first wage so I was used too crappy scopes now I’m amazed by my 90mm refracter easy pleased never put me off stargazing

[@davel4724]

Amazing when you think about it, this kind of junk does turn people off astronomy, the very people who could eventually be buyers of their expensive SCTs if they advanced in the hobby, instead celestron sell this crap causing people to leave the hobby.

[@Muesli711]

@0:02 Two seconds in and I've already made my judgement on the scope based on the supplied finderscope!

[@male42nfree]

Hello Ed, I just wanted to say "thank you" for this video and many of the others of yours that I have recently viewed and "Liked". I am a recent retiree who dusted off an ancient 60mm objective lens refractor telescope that I have owned for almost 30 years - which I today understand to be a "hobby killer" . Thru your videos I now understand just how much I didn't know about these devices and how to use them - I can't thank you enough! Your videos are incredibly educational, but your demeanor also makes them very enjoyable to watch. I am now finally using my "hobby killer" as effectively as that technology allows - while I wait for my AWB 130P reflector to arrive :-)

[@johnaguirre9388]

Thanks for the review, going to skip this one for my first scope!

[@axiom4018]

I bought this when it was on sale at Amazon for $150. Like everyone else I read all the horrendous reviews on the web and KZbin and just decided to never take it out of the box. I just returned it to Amazon and bought an Orion Starblast 4.5. Loving the Starblast and found a new hobby to kill time instead of reading and watching the dreaded news all the time.

[@edting]

Ah, excellent move! Good for you.

[@iMathewsOnline]

I bought this annoying thing for my young daughter. Got so frustrated trying to get it to work that she finally just said, “ daddy I’m sorry I asked. “ Going to try to save face by getting the xt8. Good channel Ed. We live in NH as well.

[@ericemanuelson5128]

Great Review! That was my first telescope I bought for a birthday gift for myself in 2018 to view Mars after many years like 30 of wanting to own a telescope. And fought with it for month's.Center marked the primary mirror bought the finder you used changed the collimation screws to Bob's knobs. purchased the power seeker eyepiece set. And still wasn't happy the optics were still just barely ok. Almost gave up on the hobby all together but I'm Bullheaded so I purchased a 10inch Skyline Dob from Orion and wow what a difference then I bought a Orion Bx90mm refractor compared that to 127mm one evening then gave away the 127eq. I do see there are other Bird Jones offered by Celestron and other Brands. I enjoy the hobby greatly now and even gave Celestron another chance with the Nexstar scopes. But still feel bad for people that get their hopes up when buying the 127eq weather for themselves or a gift.

[@thezoobagamer3980]

Poor telescope😭 so much sadness in its life

[@GarnettLeary]

Had to watch. You were very friendly

[@philipbarriesda9239]

That scope is total dogshit, i have one and its just horrible, i took it apart and greased all the joints and installed bushes to cut down on the shuddering it has with little to no effect, the focus is just dire, i get better images on my old Canon 4000D DSLR. Stay away from Celestron, they are rubbish!

[@mad_clown475]

celestron is the best telescope company

[@stevieb6173]

yeah ,, excellent review, if I'm getting a starter telescope I will be looking at your recommendations my friend 👍👍👌👌

[@lukesastro2380]

Thanks Ted, even though it brings bad memories. It was my first telescope. Threw it in the garbage a month later, then bought the Orion 8" Dob. "A beauty"

[@mojojojo7923]

How many beginners have purchased this scope and have lost interest in the hobby. Shame on you celestron !

[@carlstreet7095]

The fact Celestron even markets this paperweight makes me avoid the brand altogether. Shame on them!

[@vbikcl]

Don't let them steer you too far away! Their EdgeHD SCTs are class leaders. Not even Meade's ACF SCTs are as good, especially when it comes to imaging.

[@kishascape]

@@vbikcl hnng god I love the Celestron EdgeHD CGX 925 so much. The spotting scopes are also really good too, the C5 XLT (after collimating) and the C90 maksutov.

[@Johnny-em7zh]

I am a total beginner, I purchased the same scope, didn’t take me long to upgrade my finder scope and my lens. After that I was able to use it but I got bored quickly because everything shakes so bad! I’m glad you made this video to help the next poor sucker! Keep up the great work love your videos.

[@joshuariddensdale2126]

My current scope is a Meade 114mm EQ-AR reflector. It's been good to me. It was a big improvement over my first scope (a little Orion 50mm refractor). With a 1000mm focal length and an f8 focal ratio. I've never had to re-align the mirrors. But when I was looking at affordable scopes, I did hear quite a few bad reviews about Celestron. Now I'm saving up for an Orion 8-inch reflecting scope.

[@jameswilkinson259]

My biggest criticism with this telescope is the included junk eyepieces and barlow. I tossed them and bought a Celestron Omni 15mm eyepiece. The images are decent. I would tell anyone who owns this telescope to avoid using barlows and high power eyepieces. Low power is good enough for most viewing anyway.

[@patrickmcdaniel2845]

A little over a year ago I purchased an 8” dob. But I was tempted by this Powerseeker scope because of its small size and large focal length. So thankful to the online community for keeping from making the mistake of buying one of these. This proves the old adage “if it seems too good to be true, it probably is.”

[@kasa6038]

My first telescope (Meade Polaris 130 mm refractor on a very similar looking mount to the Power Seeker) had all the same (nonfunctioning) bells and whistles. Hard to use at medium power, much less high power. The 25 mm EP was serviceable at least. But I should have started with an 8 inch Dob!

[@themanunleashed]

I’m glad i saw this, almost bought one on eBay lol

[@hstone0808]

Man, I wish I would have seen this a few days ago. I'm hurt and I feel like this video should be at the top.

[@daviddorfman320]

Have you given Celestron an opportunity to respond to this negative review? When I leave a negative review on Amazon, the manufacturer may offer their response.

[@DP-qb1zw]

He is telling the absolute truth so there is no good rebuttal from Celestron.

[@cygnus1129]

I can't believe NASA sells those cheap 50 dollar scopes on some of their gift shop sites. You'd think they would sell those nice tabletop scopes or something, NOPE! Very disappointing.

[@MrGeorge707]

I was just about to buy this one, good thing the seller wasn't fast enough to reply. Thank you!

[@miahoover9225]

I have the PowerSeeker 114eq. The scope isn't bad. I use it to practice collimination. I upgraded to a 6 inch dob and a orion 102mm mak cass.

[@vbikcl]

Great video Ed. One thing that is worth mentioning about the Bird Jones design is the relay lens isn't there to merely extend the focal length and act like a built-in barlow, it's also a spherical aberration corrector. That telescope's primary mirror is not only a very short native focal ratio, it's a short focal ratio spherical mirror! No doubt that corrector lens does a poor job of fully correcting the spherical aberration, let alone handle the steep light cone from that short native focal ratio, but it also impedes your ability to even collimate the scope properly (which has to be exact given the short native focal ratio) It truly is a dastardly design.

[@donaldkasper8346]

Any reflector that needs a field flattener has too short of focal length/f-stop under 5. That is not a flaw with the 127EQ but as I see it, any of them.

[@stevenemert837]

@Jon L - But to me, the relay lens isn't actually correcting for the spherical aberration. Looking through it gives me the impression of a snapshot of a Star Trek viewscreen at warp. Streaks of stars radiating out from the center.

[@vbikcl]

@@stevenemert837 What you're seeing is astigmatism, which is equally annoying, but different from spherical aberration. Spherical aberration is a defect in an objective that prevents the system from having a single point of focus anywhere in the field, even in the center. Astigmatism is a distortion that becomes increasingly worse the farther off-axis you get. The relay lens in the focuser is too simplistic of a design to handle the steep native focal ratio of the PowerSeeker (which is probably somewhere around F/4 or so). Feeding an F/4 light cone into a lens that isn't designed to handle it will result in the astigmatism you see even in well corrected eyepieces. Now, it's entirely possible that the relay lens also isn't correcting spherical aberration either. My understanding of things like spherical aberration correctors and coma correctors is that they must be placed at a specific position with respect to the focal plane, and that cannot happen if the relay lens in the focuser has variable position due to the focuser being moved in and out to accommodate different eyepieces. Combine that with the cheap manufacturing, likely tilt of the relay lens due to manufacturing and also focuser slop, and there's a good chance that relay lens is doing a very poor job of correcting spherical aberration. But that would be in addition to the astigmatism it is adding.

[@andyreeves5129]

what on earth are you on about? you lost me in the first sentence!

[@gravyman25]

I got one from Christmas a year ago when I was 11, and I love space so I saw this thing and was like "Wow this looks amazing!" and granted I liked it because It was kinda simple and not too hard to understand. But about 6 months later I lost a piece and I couldn't see planets and could only see the moon really. I still have it but i don't use it that much, I hope I can get one that's at least a little better and is able to see some planets.

[@k.h.1587]

Which piece did you lose? You probably did yourself a favor. The eyepieces and barlow it came with are even worse than the telescope itself. You can improve the views greatly even with $20 plossls and a $20 shorty 2x barlow, which can also be used as a 1.5x as well. I would suggest a 32mm plossl, and a 12mm plossl, therfore giving you 16mm and 6mm options, as well as 21.3mm and 8mm options when used as a 1.5x, which is done by unthreading the bottom part of the barlow that has the lenses in it, and threading it to the bottom of the eyepiece. It may be a $60-75 investment, but you can use them with any telescope you buy in the future

[@simonchung9813]

"I did my duty"...."You're getting it back". Yes, perfectly sums up this telescope.

[@fazergazer]

It has all the hallmarks of a product designed to sell to uninformed novices. And it’s as if Celestron took all their bad and put it in one thing!

[@DP-qb1zw]

Like he alluded to, a scope designed by the marketing department.

[@twomuchskll]

best video on the internet , thank you Ed !!!!! This video will save people money !!!

[@henryv1598]

Thank you for your review here, Ed. You are really doing the community a great service with these reviews. As someone who's had to help people with this abomination, I wholeheartedly agree with you.

[@toomanystarstocount859]

Many years ago I got my first telescope as a gift. It was a 114mm F8 newton on a EQ1. It still is my main telescope but I mounted it on a EQ3 that I won together with a 3 inch F10 achromat. The EQ1 is horrible, shaky and the declination axis doesnt even use a worm drive, its just a bolt pushing against a surface. This restricts movement in DEC to a few degrees. Also the OTA was secured to the mount head by two wing nuts wich were too wide and scratched against the mount head during tightening. My EQ3 is a lot less shaky but still somewhat unstable for such long OTA. And as all know Newtons dont mix well with EQ mounts. And these are just a selection of all the issues with the EQ1! Im glad that I will soon be upgrading to a AZ-EQ6, a bit overkill for my current telescopes but better ones will follow and it will get a good use.

[@libbyt.5479]

I was able to get great views of the moon with the Barlow lens, but it does take alot of focusing, found the view finder is off, unable to get it in sinc with telescope

[@TristanColgate]

I think that, for a lot of people, the finder is really the thing that is going to be the potential hobby killer. I got a cheap red dot finder as an alternative and the difference is night and day.

[@GHP15300]

This scope is okay with few changes I use a plossl eyepiece and a new Barlow lens

[@lukebest]

Unfortunately I bought this exact telescope on a recommendation as an upgrade from my smaller refractor and I was and have always been super disappointed as I gave away my refractor which even though it was a lot smaller it worked better than the power seeker I still have the power seeker but I'm looking to upgrade to a 10" or 12" dobsonion. Always regretted my decision to buy the 127 power seeker however my love of the night sky remains as my eyes work perfectly. I only wish I had found your channel 5 years ago.

[@k.h.1587]

How did you punish the recommender?

[@tommyg5095]

Take heed Celestron... Fool us once,,, never to be forgotten... You really did a disservice to yourself... Your marketing department is sabotaging your reputation...

[@ayjanu]

I kinda restarted with this....ugh......thing, when I got back into astronomy in 2017. I had to spend about two months just to get it ready for the 2017 total solar eclipse. It was....well....workable. I guess. But I had quite a time doing so, bumped the tube somehow with less than ten seconds to totality, and spent the next two minutes finding the eclipsed sun...and actually managed to film about, oh....ten seconds of totality. Ouch. Man, I tell ya, I had to laugh at most of the issues you raised with it - I remember having to go through all of that garbage myself, in those two months, and even more later on. When it came time to collimate the scope, dear gawd did I have to come up with some tricks. I made a center dot paper mask thing, so I could correctly position one of those paper ring things for binder paper in the center, and then came the oh-so-joyous discovery that it was a Bird-Jones. I kept wondering just why the blazes I could never properly collimate the thing, until I found this one guy on KZbin, who explained a surefire way to collimate Bird-Jones scopes, and that actually worked. I also used colored paper to help me line up the secondary mirror properly, so it was a crapload of work. Oh well, at least my 20mm eyepiece was intact... Hah. Donated the scope to Value Village when I moved. At least I can say that I never truly gave up on that scope, and I did spend a great deal of time outside with it, but I was always dropping parts through the deck, and then having to crawl underneath it just to find them again. Man, I'm so happy to have my Dob now.

[@eterenostalgia5088]

Here Italy, "This Celestron powerseeker 127" is with sperich mirror and barlow lens inside ever, all low quality. My Newton "Skywatcher heritage 130/650" with parabolic mirror is better ?

[@eterenostalgia5088]

Here Italy, For the telescopes low quality i look Jupiter and Saturn inside the telescope Newton "ZOOMION genesis" 200/800 with sperich mirror, this planets to 100X (magnifications) soft images, low contrast and strange light around the planets. This telescope is nice and good ejepieces but terrible mirror.

[@granthopper4132]

I am here for the soothing voice, I don't even like telescopes, this mans voice could sentence you to life in prison and you would feel soothed and at one with nature!

[@edting]

Ha! I love that!

[@joshg.7247]

I have a this exact telescope. I don’t know what you mean by this being terrible. This thing has showed me Messier objects, star cluster, m42 m31

[@rclines001]

This was my first real telescope also. At the time, I thought it worked ok. I wasn't real sure what I was supposed to be able to see though lol. It will get the job done if you don't know any better though. Now it's in my attic I think, or maybe storage. It ended up getting a scratched primary in a move about 11 years ago which was for the best. Now I've got a 76mm Zhumell reflector, 114mm Celestron Starsense reflector(pretty much just got this on sale so I could get the starsense mount and app), and my Apertura AD8 8" Dobsonian. My 76mm Zhumell did more for my love of astronomy than the 127 ever did.

[@mccardieclan1755]

Why????? Oh WHY??!! Didn't I see this review BEFORE I purchased a $50 PowerSeeker 127 EQ???'!!!! UGH!!! Is there anything I can do to make this model useable?? Thanks

[@beenaplumber8379]

If anyone's still watching this vid, how can I tell if I'm looking at a "department store" scope if I'm getting it online? I know looking for super power is bad, an extra long focal length isn't great, but I can't tell the quality of the mount or the finder scope from an Amazon listing. I saw the reviews of the Orion Observer 134 and the SVBony SV48P 90mm, so I believe both are good inexpensive scopes, but how do I know if another telescope that hasn't been reviewed is department store-grade cheap trash? Can I actually see things with a 117mm Newtonian or a 60-80mm refractor? Would a 40mm eyepiece help make a super power scope more usable? (If I understand things right, it seems a 40mm eyepiece might almost make a short tube scope into its own eyepiece! Yeah, that's how I'm thinking as a noob on a tight budget.)

[@izelennkhan]

Doesn't the design require a good f/4 primary with good collimation to work? So, not cheap, and not great for beginners?

[@markattardo]

You demonstrating the issues with this one certainly helped me understand the stay away comments I've read.

[@bayoufretless]

I’ve always taken the unreviewed scopes as receiving a tacit review. If you haven’t reviewed it, I’m gonna pass.

[@JoeJaguar]

although its kinda the buyers fault for wanted a cheap scope. lot people just go by price and want a cheap $100 scope & this is what they get.

[@111maximiliano]

I laughed my way through this video just now because I bought one a year ago and the thing entirely fell apart last week, before coming across your wonderful channel. The diplomatic way you say how awful this scope is hilarious and so true. I was less diplomatic on starry nights. I ended up ordering an Apertura AD8 dob just a couple hours ago after watching you rave about the Orion XT6. I would have gotten an Orion, but they're all backordered.

[@k.h.1587]

The apertura is usually a better deal then the orion, and made by GSO in Taiwan rather than synta in chjna

[@CosmicSandcastles]

Wow this was actually my first telescope. I needed more and eventually moved up to a C9.25. I'll have to do a review myself on my channel

[@CosmicSandcastles]

Good work BTW!

[@singedcarry]

Ha, this was my first telescope, and up until today my only one. It really does suck. The worst part about it is the mount. It's so hard to find anything. It's a huge chore to use but it does work once you find something. I've seen Jupitor's moons with it, and that was awesome. I just got my Starsense DX 100AZ for a small portable scope, and plan to buy a larger Dobsonian soon.

[@dankahraman354]

Yes it is a lot of work. Much appreciated Ed.

[@mikabuck9866]

I got the Celestron StarSense Explorer 114LT reflector scope. I'm thinking I'm glad that i only paid $100 US Dollars for it. I will say though, I've got a 25mm plossl eyepiece. I've actually had some descent views. Yeah, the tripod isn't great but still better than some I've seen and used lol. I bought the scope used without looking at any reviews. So, I'm kinda stuck with it now. I'm gonna make the best of it till i can afford something a little better. I've learned a lot about reflectors and how to collimate if nothing else. The views of the moon, planets, and brighter dso's are enough for me for now. Besides, i enjoy a good challenge, and I just enjoy getting outside and looking up. Great review. 😁

[@leechjim8023]

Or they sit in closets or basements and collect dust, mildew and SPIDERS!!!😮😮😮😱

[@matterhorn1975]

My Celestron Inspire 100az does NOT come with a barlow lens. I have had to purchase a Celestron Omni 2x lens. Plus upgraded the eye pieces to SVBoney gold band 23mm, 15mm, 8mm

[@johnoleary5555]

Slam dunk review sir! I was literally about to buy this exact telescope as a beginner…until I watched your review…gonna stick with a dobsonian…thanks for the expert critique!

[@RamblinPhoenix]

Ed, just so you know, the Starblast now sells for $245 due to recent...market fun. (I know because that is what I paid for it when I got it for my son for Christmas.) Great scope, but the price has gone up, and as you often recommend it, I wanted to give you a heads up.

[@k.h.1587]

This comment didn't age well. They are probably pushing about $300 or more now. And give it another 3 years and it will be $500 and an 8" dob will be $1200

[@dimi911]

My first scope was a Celestron Powerseeker 114EQ. The supplied eyepieces are simply pathetic but with good collimation and good quality eyepieces it's pretty decent, considering its price. I have since upgraded to an 8" dobsonianbut can't say it's the easiest thing to move around the garden or take it out just to have a quick look at the Moon etc, so always go back to the "crappy" Celestron

[@kishascape]

The 114 is ok. It’s the 127 that’s a problem.

[@dimi911]

@@kishascape how can the 127 be worse? Thought it's more expensive?

[@k.h.1587]

​@@dimi911because it is an even bigger scope on the same mount. The optics also are easier to make in that design at 114 than 127. But both are still bad

[@k.h.1587]

​@@kishascapethe 114 is slightly less offensive, but still offensive nonetheless

[@pointy5911]

WOW a 4mm with a 3x barlow. That's like putting a V8 on a push mower. No, seriously, that's an accurate analogy!

[@palmereldrich]

I really wish new astronomers would not focus so single minded on HIGH power. Medium power at 50X-60X is much much better. Guilty as charged. First ocular purchase was much too high a power totally useless and thats a modest 165X !!! My seeing does not allow that magnification

[@henri-julienchartrand3387]

Blunt honesty. That's what we need. Thanks again Ed.

[@mattski1979]

Dude, you certainly talked me out of the Craigslist free score I thought I had. Thank you.