|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
What's New?  |
|
| |
 |
Celestron 52238 C70 Mini Mak Spotting Scope |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Optics : Celestron 52238 C70 Mini Mak Spotting Scope and Customer Reviews |
|
| |
|
|
- Maksutov-Cassegrain optical design with multi-coated optics
- 45° eyepiece - zooms up to 75x
- 1.25" eyepiece adapter allows usage of any 1.25" eyepiece
- Table top tripod
- Soft carrying case
|
List
Price: $149.95 |
|
|
|
New, lowest price : $90.68 |
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
| Product Description |
| Celestron Mini Maks bring portability and versatility to a new level. The Maksutov optical design is recognized for being compact, easy to use and applicable for both terrestrial (land) and astronomical use.C70 Mini Mak is a small but powerful spotting scope that includes a tabletop tripod which has built-in slow motion controls, a built-in zoom eyepiece capable of 90x magnification and soft carrying case. |
| | | |
| Optics Reviews Writed by Customer
|
|
| |
Solid, if unspectacular, performance
2009-01-01
 |
I bought the C70 to serve as a travel telescope for observing the moon and planets. Maksutov-Cassegrain optics, 70mm objective, 700mm focal length (f/10), 2lbs (0.9kg), length 11 in with eyepiece.
PROS
1. Light and small. I have flown with the C70, tripod, laptop, power cord, digital camera, and several paperbacks in a small carry-on backpack.
2. Resolution is good. Saturn was clearly identifiable even at 25x and with the rings almost edge-on. Under clear skies the moon is sharp down to the limit of what my eye can resolve. Atmospheric turbulence has been more limiting than the optics.
3. No false color, no image shift during focusing, and no tube currents, even taking the scope outside to observe immediately in freezing temperatures.
4. Included zoom eyepiece has good eye relief. I wear glasses and have no problem seeing the entire field. Also, unlike most inexpensive spotting scopes, the C70 includes an adapter to use standard 1.25" astronomical eyepieces.
6. Fitting a workable finder takes less than a minute and costs literally nothing. I made a sight tube from an old ink pen held on by two rubber bands, and the grooves on the rubber armor hold it correctly aligned. I have never spent more than a few seconds getting anything into the field of view.
7. Did I mention the rubber armor? It is also water resistant, which is worse than many high-end spotters (waterproof) but better than most high-end astro scopes (no weatherproofing). Put it in the padded soft-case, toss it in a backpack or sling it over a shoulder (strap included) and you're ready to go. The soft case can be zipped open and left on the scope for use in the cold or damp, which is a nice touch.
8. A screw-on metal cap covers the entire eyepiece. The plastic cap for the objective is securely snug but not too tight, and won't scratch the optics.
9. Despite being mostly plastic, the included tripod is surprisingly sturdy. It vibrates when bumped, but the vibrations die out in 2-3 seconds. Happily, it is no less sturdy with the center column extended. Folds to less than a foot long and weighs almost nothing; would be a good tabletop tripod for small cameras, too.
CONS
1. Views are fairly dim, especially at high powers. It's a 70mm scope and a Mak, so this is basically unavoidable. That doesn't really matter for the moon and planets, which are still plenty bright. But it's not good for nebulae and galaxies (no surprises there).
2. The focuser has some slop. Oddly, it is better if I press down while focusing, but that makes the image shake, which makes focusing more difficult. Focuser slop probably varies a lot, so other C70s may be a lot better (and some may be even worse).
3. No finder is included, and at f/10 you will want something. Most small scopes either come with no finder, a sight tube, or a finder so tiny as to be useless, so this weakness is not particular to the C70. It is also easily remedied, as described above.
4. Included tripod has elevation limits: 45 degrees if the scope is mounted as shown, 60 degrees if you turn it around. You can exceed this by moving one leg inward and tilting the tripod, although this makes the tripod less stable.
5. If you stick with the included tripod, you have to get the scope up off the ground. To me, that's not much of a liability, for two reasons. First, most small scopes come with a table-top tripod or none at all, so out of the box the C70 is equipped as well or better. Second, I would rather set the scope on something than tote around a full-size tripod (your mileage may vary). That the included tripod is actually functional, fairly sturdy, and has working slow-motion controls is entirely positive.
The big pros are the small size and light weight. The big cons are the narrow field of view and the dimming at high power. The C70 can't compete with bigger scopes in terms of image quality (the Ultima 80 described in another review has a third more light-gathering ability [pi*40^2 vs pi*35^2], is 50% longer, weighs _twice_ as much, costs almost twice as much, and does not include a tripod). On the other hand, the C70 is so small and light that you can take it lots of places that you couldn't or wouldn't normally take a telescope, so you will see a lot that you wouldn't otherwise. Here's an example: one night over the holidays I set up the C70 on the hood of my parents' car and showed the whole family a young crescent moon. Everyone was mesmerized by the craters. My father had never seen the Great Nebula in Orion so we had a look, and then checked out a binary star. There's a half hour of enjoying the universe together that we wouldn't have had without a telescope. That's what travel telescopes are for, that's why I got this particular scope, and I'm glad I did.
CONCLUSION
Before you buy any optical equipment, decide what you want to observe and what characteristics are most important. Read everything you can about the models that might meet your needs, and be realistic about the trade-offs inherent in _every_ optical design _regardless_ of cost. Finally, whatever you buy, don't obsess about its quality, for good or ill. Get outside and let it deepen your experience of nature.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Not bad for the money
2008-10-03
 |
| Optics are "ok" at best (very marginal at 50x or 75x but not bad at 25x). On the positive side, the telescope is small (about the size of a thermos jug) and portable so I can take it with me whereas many telescopes are just too big or need too much tripod. Basically, at $94 for the telescope and tripod, I'm happy. |
|
| |
|
| |
Celestron C70 Mini Mak vs Ultima 80
2008-09-09
 |
I wanted to like this scope but couldn't (it's going back).
The Good: compact for the power, can hold cradled in hands with arms braced on chest at 25x fairly steadily, includes adapter for 1.25" standard eyepieces, light enough to use on fairly small tripods (one is included) or window mounts, includes good lense covers on both ends and a pretty nice carrying case.
The Bad: mediocre optical performance, hard to focus, not weatherproof (though it's rubber coated). Small field of view and less than optimum eye relief.
Optical performance is the killer. I had this scope shipped to my son in the high desert of southern WY, where I was headed for a visit. I had a new Celestron Ultima 80 (straight eyepiece) along intended as a gift for his birthday - so a comparison was inevitable.
He had previewed the C70 before I arrived and was impressed. My initial look through it was very disappointing. Then I realized that most of the problem was heat mirage combined with the always present WY wind. But looking up at ridges above most of the mirage convinced me that there were other issues. Next morning, before the mirage and wind got going I compared 3 scopes under identical conditions.
I looked at a house on the ridge above town, particularly a car parked next to it. The distance was 640 yards (measured with a laser range-finder). Reading the license plate was a great test - plus the car started in shade and then was in sun by the end of the test.
C70: noticably dimmer in the shadows than the Ultima 80 (not too surpising, but more than I'd expected). The exit pupil of the Ultima 80 at max power is over 1mm (80/60), while the C70 is under 1mm (70/75), so at max power the C70 looks comparitively even worse on that score. The license plate was NOT QUITE readible, even with a bit of guesswork. Then I realized why the C70 seemed hard to focus. The focus knob has noticable backlash. I focus by going past sharpest focus, then back, rocking across the best image a couple of times before settling on it. But, there was noticable movement back before the focus started shifting back, this lag made finding the optimum focus less instinctive. Eye relief was adaquet for use with glasses, but not great, with a tendency to vignetting. The vignetting was odd, with a tendency to lose the center, perhaps due to the center obstruction created by the front mirror.
Ultima 80: brighter as I mention above. The license plate was clearly readable, the VW logo on the car was clear (but was only an indistinct round smudge, barely identifiable through the C70). Occasionally, whether due to atmospheric conditions or (more likely) my old eyes clearing a bit - the image snapped into a crispness that was NEVER seen with the C70. This was at maximum power (60x), and since it looked good there, I didn't spend much time at lower power, where inexpensive zoom eyepeices often perform better. Although the focus knob is smaller, focus was easier, with no noticable backlash. Eye relief was a slightly better than the C70's, partially explaining why use with glasses was noticably more pleasant. Just as the specs indicate, the Ultima 80 has a noticably wider field of view (at the same zoom power).
And Finally - the Tourist-6: a 15+ year old Russian 20-30x 50mm folded refractor. I'd seen (and looked through) several of these years ago, all poor in finish and build quality, and obviously not well quality controlled. Mine is the ugliest I've seen, but optically the best, so there is nothing wrong with the design or the fundimentals of the optics, but modern Russian export optics are much better finished and assembled. The homely little 50mm spotter was marginally better than the 70mm C70! The license plate was marginally readable! Focus was easy. Use with glasses difficult (fortunately I have very little astigmatism in my right eye so that's OK). The C70 was slightly outperformed by the humble old optic it was meant to replace.
My son (age 30, with eyes to match) took a brief look through the C70 and Ultima 80 at the same house and car license plate. He saw an even bigger advantage in favor of the Ultima 80 than I did, and was glad the the Ultima was his and the C70 mine!
I spent some time with the C70 trying lower powers, and though it sharpened a bit, it never improved enough to surpass the little Tourist-6. The weak link in inexpensive spotting scopes is often the zoom eyepiece. I've read another informal C70 review online where they tried some good quality 1.25" fixed eyepieces on it and experienced quit noticable improvements in the image. So, for those who have some quality eyepieces in the 20mm or 30mm range, the C70 might be more usable. Notice though that the supplied eyepeice cover attaches on the same theads that the supplied 1.25" eyepeice adapter uses, and that it holds an eyepiece in with a typical small thumb-screw as is used on astronomical telescopes and you see that this set-up makes the C70 less handy as a truely portable spotting scope. (Avoiding dropping an eyepeice, protecting the eyepiece and the interior of the scope from dust and moisture, etc, becomes a tedious juggle every time the scope is taken out and put away.)
Like I said, its going back. But don't worry Celestron - Amazon will have my order for an Ultima 80 (A friend bought one a couple of years ago and they were making them good then too), or a C90 spotter (well reviewed but with its own tradeoffs) - as soon as I make up my mind between them.
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Good News |
|
| |
|
Freebies |
Coupons |
Deals |
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Specials |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
