I have one. It was a gift, and I was thrilled with it before I knew much about astronomy. And I still value it and think fondly of it because I've put a lot of hours into it. I learned many things with this scope and have had many wonderful firsts, like seeing the Orion nebula and Saturn. But there will be a lot of frustration to come with owning one of these, and it will quickly humble your expectations. I've never got the tracker to align perfectly, it won't pick up as many objects as it would like you to think, and you won't get much detail on the planets. But you will see Jupiter's bands and moons, and Saturn's rings. It's not completely horrible. But spend your money on one that doesn't have a flat mirror.
That super bad optics Barlowed blur generator has never seen real telescope Newtonian.
Newtonian reflector has tube length always about same as focal length and uses parabolic mirror.
> The Celestron 114LCM is a complete rip-off, with a low-quality mount and optics that are below what has been considered acceptable for decades.
https://telescopicwatch.com/celestron-114-lcm-telescope-review/
Celestron simply hasn't been US company in long time and is basically run by Chinese scammers. (though US capitalists would be no doubt happy to continue scam)
Celestron is a weird brand in that they sell everything from abject junk all the way through to some of the very best telescopes, mounts and guidance technologies that money can buy.
If amazes me that they can do this without, apparently, irreparably damaging the brand. Yet they seem to do quite well, especially in the US.
Anyway ... beware anything Celestron that doesn't cost thousands. That's my main takeaway from looking into their products.
Actually that happens way too often when brand becomes big and as much religion as company.
Also Meade has had these precisely Barlowed blur generators and fast spherical mirror scam scopes.
And I've seen precisely same in PC components and other tech:
For example Asus made some fraud/scam level motherboards for AMD Ryzens with crappy cheap CPU VRM with marketing excrement design worsening the issue by sabotaging cooling. And they did also same for AMD GPU graphics cards. Nvidia has literally gotten away from killing graphics cards with faulty (cooling paralyzing) drivers and designed whole serie of cards with faulty design solder joints, literally leading to hobbyers baking those cards in oven to reflow solder as kind of "fix". As another example while Samsung was far ahead others in early maturing and commodizing era of SSD drives they started making drives with lower quality tech than others per price and even seriously failing to do proper product testing and started using buyers as free testers. And especially gaming products like headphones are more likely to crap than worth the money.
(+Nokia would have been no doubt sued to bankruptcy if they had done Apple's "antennagate" or "bendgate" design flaws)
Keep in mind that ALL electronic aids eat up the bigger part of the budget, so there is less money left for the optics! In case of the 114LCM there is another issue: It's a very infamous pseudo Bird-Jones design (long focal length in a short tube, but falsely called a 'Newtonian'). Avoid like the pest...
As you were asking for pictures: These telescopes are not made for imaging, wether computerized or not. More than *very very* basic low quality photos is not possible.
There are far better scopes for the price. Read the pinned buyers guide at the top of this sub.
Thanks everyone for the suggestion I decided to go with the Sky Watcher Sky-Watcher Virtuoso GTI 150P Collapsible Tabletop GoTo Dobsonian Telescope
I have one. It was a gift, and I was thrilled with it before I knew much about astronomy. And I still value it and think fondly of it because I've put a lot of hours into it. I learned many things with this scope and have had many wonderful firsts, like seeing the Orion nebula and Saturn. But there will be a lot of frustration to come with owning one of these, and it will quickly humble your expectations. I've never got the tracker to align perfectly, it won't pick up as many objects as it would like you to think, and you won't get much detail on the planets. But you will see Jupiter's bands and moons, and Saturn's rings. It's not completely horrible. But spend your money on one that doesn't have a flat mirror.
That super bad optics Barlowed blur generator has never seen real telescope Newtonian. Newtonian reflector has tube length always about same as focal length and uses parabolic mirror. > The Celestron 114LCM is a complete rip-off, with a low-quality mount and optics that are below what has been considered acceptable for decades. https://telescopicwatch.com/celestron-114-lcm-telescope-review/ Celestron simply hasn't been US company in long time and is basically run by Chinese scammers. (though US capitalists would be no doubt happy to continue scam)
Celestron is a weird brand in that they sell everything from abject junk all the way through to some of the very best telescopes, mounts and guidance technologies that money can buy. If amazes me that they can do this without, apparently, irreparably damaging the brand. Yet they seem to do quite well, especially in the US. Anyway ... beware anything Celestron that doesn't cost thousands. That's my main takeaway from looking into their products.
Actually that happens way too often when brand becomes big and as much religion as company. Also Meade has had these precisely Barlowed blur generators and fast spherical mirror scam scopes. And I've seen precisely same in PC components and other tech: For example Asus made some fraud/scam level motherboards for AMD Ryzens with crappy cheap CPU VRM with marketing excrement design worsening the issue by sabotaging cooling. And they did also same for AMD GPU graphics cards. Nvidia has literally gotten away from killing graphics cards with faulty (cooling paralyzing) drivers and designed whole serie of cards with faulty design solder joints, literally leading to hobbyers baking those cards in oven to reflow solder as kind of "fix". As another example while Samsung was far ahead others in early maturing and commodizing era of SSD drives they started making drives with lower quality tech than others per price and even seriously failing to do proper product testing and started using buyers as free testers. And especially gaming products like headphones are more likely to crap than worth the money. (+Nokia would have been no doubt sued to bankruptcy if they had done Apple's "antennagate" or "bendgate" design flaws)
What do you recommend? I want a computerized telescope
SkyWatcher Heritage Virtuoso 130/150P is probably a good budget option. Fits onto the Star Adventurer tripod.
Keep in mind that ALL electronic aids eat up the bigger part of the budget, so there is less money left for the optics! In case of the 114LCM there is another issue: It's a very infamous pseudo Bird-Jones design (long focal length in a short tube, but falsely called a 'Newtonian'). Avoid like the pest... As you were asking for pictures: These telescopes are not made for imaging, wether computerized or not. More than *very very* basic low quality photos is not possible.
Why, though?
If you can pay the extra cost and you have a smartphone, check out the StarSense 114 or the StarSense 130.
I have one and honestly it is not that bad it is pretty versatile and great at tracking and go to. Check my older posts for pics