I think that's a pretty good deal. Much better than a lot of the "starter" scopes that are around for a similar price.

I would recommend to anyone that is interested in getting into telescope astronomy that they do a lot of research first. Partly because it is actually quite hard to figure out what to do at first and partly so you manage your expectations. It's actually quite tricky to get good views with a small scope. It's not just a case of putting up a telescope and pointing it at the sky, even finding what you want to look at is quite hard at first, let alone actually getting a reasonable image. I haven't done any observing for a while but when I did I thought the real thrill was the managing to get a decent image, rather than the actual view itself - if that makes any sort of sense. Getting internet and media saturated children excited about a tiny and slightly blurry image in an eyepiece, as they stand in the dark and cold, is particularly challenging!

Get a Nikon P900 and a sturdy tripod.

I think that's a pretty good deal. Much better than a lot of the "starter" scopes that are around for a similar price.

I would recommend to anyone that is interested in getting into telescope astronomy that they do a lot of research first. Partly because it is actually quite hard to figure out what to do at first and partly so you manage your expectations. It's actually quite tricky to get good views with a small scope. It's not just a case of putting up a telescope and pointing it at the sky, even finding what you want to look at is quite hard at first, let alone actually getting a reasonable image. I haven't done any observing for a while but when I did I thought the real thrill was the managing to get a decent image, rather than the actual view itself - if that makes any sort of sense. Getting internet and media saturated children excited about a tiny and slightly blurry image in an eyepiece, as they stand in the dark and cold, is particularly challenging!

Don't expect anything incredible! Decent starter scope but if you're expecting to see anything like what you see in magazines or on TV of objects like Saturn, Jupiter and various nebulae then you'll be in for a shock.

I have a version of this telescope and it's great for beginners or people on a budget. I've had plenty of nights enjoying things through this (as said though it should be considered a starter scope) - planets/moon and others a bit further away too ;p

Can anyone recommend a good scope to buy, want something good quality but not spending hundreds.

Get a Nikon P900 and a sturdy tripod.

Wild goose chase I'm afraid. Out of stock for online ordering. No stores anywhere in the North West of North Wales have any. They probably just had one ex-display in Inverness or somewhere.

I think my comment was misleading aha!
That was my point. A lot of people will buy scopes hoping to be able to see incredible detail in planets or even DSOs. Simply not the case.
Even more want to image using their scopes. Well, unless they have an extra few hundred quid minimum, they wont get particularly good images.

Check out the AP forums if you want tips on scopes and astro advice.

Agree, DSO imaging requires a certain type of mount, scope and camera to get the best, but planetary or lunar imaging can be done easily with a humble webcam (don't think you can attach a dSLR to this as won't reach focus without modding or a Barlow). Add a tracking motor to this and something like this should be possible with this scope (not my image, but one taken with an identical scope)

Perfect for watching my 22 years old "page 3" neighbour!

I was one of the uneducated few, I presumed you'd be able to see planets in detail with one of these, always wanted one. We went to a star gazing evening where they had telescopes worth thousands of pounds, you could see the moon very clearly, but everything else was only a dot in the sky, was very disappointed.

Nice price, but tbh *cue double entendre replies* anything under 6 inches is mostly a waste of time with a Newt. reflector. The secondary mirror is already limiting its magnification and a scope like this with a short focal length and sub-par light gathering capacity isn't up to much visually.

You'd be better off spending that 100 quid on a pair of quality binoculars and a tripod if you want to get into entry-level Astronomy.

Yes... Nikon P900 focal length (2000mm) is close to the same telescope which would cost 5k at least. Most powerful telescope i have ever used had just over 4000mm, while Nikon with digital x4 zoom would be equal to 8000mm focal length. Of course planets will not look as you have seen on TV or Magazines, because they are not real pictures in EVERY SINGLE CASE. There is no REEAALL HQ pictures of planets, let alone star Sirius/ Arcturus/ Vega stars...

There is NO real picture of EARTH (go figure), why would you imagine there is real picture of other planets?

This picture above is best what you can get by stacking hundreds of pictures and processing with loads of software features.

And if you still believe your new priest (NASA) of your new religion (full of aliens ever expanding space), i would rather not laugh now, but go educate yourself how to analyze picture/ video authenticity and prove that for your self.

Just if you wonder... I am finished now Computer Science BSc and helping courts with digital image forensic analysis. But i would never get to this point if i would personal wouldn't be interested in social engineering, conditioning, etc... And i am glad i did, just shame i can only share my thoughts online. As you can imagine most indoctrinated people would say i forgotten my tin-foil hat, lol.

Your equating telescopes to the focal length of a camera lens. The most important parts of a telescope are not focal length but objective diameter and quality of the optics. A reflecting telescope will also have a secondary mirror that will block out some of the light, that is why refractors of similar diameter will always be superior. There are other important parts like resolving power and light gathering but focal length is well down the list, a "fast" image doesn't equate to a better image in the land of telescopes. I ground my own 8" lens (never for it to see any light) so I had to learn about all these factors when doing so.

I have taken similar photo's (although nowhere near as good) as the above picture with my telescope. Software (Registax) takes each image, analyses it, discards the worst and then stacks each image on top of one another to give a composite better image. Some people sharpen the image in Gimp or similar. Stacking images teases out information from the image, it doesn't add to it.

Nasa do the same as what I'm doing. They tease out information from images, they don't falsify it. Some things may be in false colour but that is because our eyes can only see a narrow band of wavelengths. Other things might have enhanced features but again that is teasing out information, not adding to it.

In fairness to your tin foil reference, I haven't been hit on the head by an asteroid since I started wearing mine.

Taken with a Celestron 102SLT and a SPC900 Webcam, 2 minutes stacked. I'm very light polluted BTW, I can only detect Mag +2 stars with my naked eye.

Now 79.97