The odyssey just doesn't seem 6 times better despite being 6 times the price. Going by the imaging, it seems like an $800-1000 product where the Seestar is $450-500.
In this hobby price/performance pretty much never scales that way. You will pay alot for small things, so small the average person might not even pick up on them.
I had an evscope2, it's absolutely awful. It's only ''good'' with a few objects, some far aways galaxies (since the FoV is rather small compared to a Seestar or a Vespera) but as the video shows, it cannot see most of the big/interesting nebulae. I switched to a Vespera 2 (around 1500eur) and it's just another world.. here are some images: ruclips.net/video/7WcmrnQU7vU/видео.html
@@PeterDugan-g7l you can share with the app and everyone can look at the same time... the eyepiece on the Uni scopes are an expensive and close to useless gadget (I ve used it maybe 3 times..) and if you barely touch the scope at the same time you get ''enhanced vision disrupted'', super annoying. Yes, it's probably fine for rookie crowds but the fact is that it only gives the illusion that you look at something but it's exactly the same picture as on your phone/tablet.
I own an ODYSSEY PRO and I'm very happy with the results! Even more so since the release of their new ‘Vivid Vision’ image processing... I tried SeeStar, Vespera before and was disappointed. Cost was not a factor for my hobby.
I really like smart telescopes. I have a Dwarf 2 and a Dwarf 3 for a couple of days (which I haven't been able to use yet due to the bad weather). Odyssey is certainly an excellent product but very expensive. Same goes for the Celestron Origin. Dwarf and SeeStar have the great merit of having introduced astrophotography to those who cannot or do not want to initially invest large sums. Who knows what the future holds for us...
It would be cool to see a hybrid visual optics/screen system. Basically, a transparent screen that works in line with visual optics to add only color/brightness to nebulae. But I still want to see the optical views of black space and stars. I don't want to feel like I'm looking at a screen.
@snailwt Not quite, I don't think. Mirrorless cameras have an EHF (Electronic View Finder), which is just a very small, standard display. I don't think they are transparent. They display what the sensor sees only. This is how the Unistellar works. When you look through the "eyepiece" you are looking at an EHF. The image is 100% digital. What I want is a hybrid experience. A transparent EHF that does not display 100% digital image. I want the raw optical views of black space and stars combined with an EHF digital overlay of colors on nebulae. On the planets, maybe a mix of optical and digital.
Astronomy photography newbie here: What’s the point of having an electronic digital viewfinder on this telescope, and not an analog one to use your retina directly as the final sensor!? Why just not use the app then? And then what’s the point of marketing such (electronic) viewfinder with some form of Nikon optical merits if it’s just to look at a display!? Too bad, because I was about to insta buy this telescope for the added viewfinder and with budget being not a problem, but I don’t like being fooled.
@mjaminian your eyes aren't very sensitive to very dim colors, so using optics only, most nebula look like faint grey-scale clouds. Digital sensors and screens can show you the color. But, digital can't reproduce the brilliance or clarity of stars. As an example, a screen can't fully reproduce the way a diamond glints in sunlight. Or a digital artificial "window" is not the same as looking at the real world through glass. This is why I would like a hybrid system. About this device specifically, I've never used one, but I like the idea of looking into a digital "eyepiece" as opposed to a handheld screen or laptop. Digital stuff is fun and shows colorful wonders. But I really appreciate the natural beauty of my visual optics.
@mjaminian I will also add that placing an optics piece between a screen and your eye does impart a bit of an optical "feeling" to the view. My limited understanding of this device is the eyepiece is similar to the mini screens they use in the viewfinders of mirrorless cameras, but even better. And there are several optics pieces between the screen and your eye that enhances the view. Again, I have no experience with this, but it certainly sounds intriguing. Unfortunately, it is way beyond my budget.
Your comment is spot-on. I'm a Unistellar eVscope 2 owner, and have tested the Vivid Vision (VV) technology extensively since it was released in October. As you indicate, it is far too aggressive with the sharpening and color saturation on nebulae and galaxies. The stars are rounder and more colorful, but also look unnatural. Fainter stars are suppressed; I think about one magnitude's worth of stars are lost. VV also consumes a lot of computer memory and processing resources, both in the scope and in the phone/tablet. Unistellar needed to improve its image processing versus its rivals, but VV isn't the answer. Some stores are now selling the original Equinox at a massive discount. IMO, this is their only model worth considering, and only if your primary interest is faint deep-sky objects, where the large aperture is valuable and image processing is secondary. Otherwise, buy a Celestron Origin on the high end, or a Seestar or Dwarf on the budget end.
@@pdesser2 the Vaonis Vespera 2 has excellent reviews although you could buy three S50s for the same price but you do get what you pay for in overall mechanical and image quality.
Seestar S50’s images are much better for me (in scope processing) in a Bortle 8 (my backyard), and superbly better in a Bortle 4. You’re missing 2 updates that seem to really close the gap in this comparison. You’re missing mosaic mode, and you’re missing the AI noise reduction (in scope processing) released about 2 weeks ago. You really need to redo this properly.
Thanks for the side-by-side comparison. Unistellar claims that the Odyssey line of telescopes don't need to be collimated, but at 11:51 in your video, while focusing on stars, it is visually quite obvious that the collimation is not properly adjusted in this telescope. Did you eventually correct this, or just use as-is? Honestly, I think collimation (and lack of autofocus in their eVscope line) is a pretty big concern for beginners, who are part of the target audience. Beginners don't even know what collimation is, yet seemingly still have to adjust this scope to get the best results. When I read that the Odyssey line offered autofocus and didn't need to be collimated, I thought that was a huge improvement from their eVscope line, but now think it is just marketing propaganda.
Hi, Unistellar here, we can confirm that there is no need for collimation on the Odyssey line, and that the moment at 11:51 is just an automatic focusing routine that is happening in a difficult environment (vibration and hazy air). I can see collimation is good on the image. Almost a perfectly symetric figure on a star that is not exactly on the center: if the star had been perfectly centered, it would have been perfectly symetric.
Ok so I watched your tier list of telescopes and I am leaking towards a seestar since I do not have the budget, but seeing what the unistellar shows on the eyepeace... is there a normal telescope that will show what the Odyssay pro is showing. Like I know what you said " The telescope you want does not exist" but... If I want to take shots with my iPhone and still have such "amazing" shots and be able to just watch the stars with my kid... what would be your best best best pick ? I do not mind a second hand telescope and I would spend around 600-700Euro. Furthermore I live in Bulgaria - we do not have telescopes as popular thing so I have to import....
That pretty much falls into the does not exist category. You can get a shot of Jupiter with a basic telescope (102mm refractor or 130mm Newtonian)combined with an ASI224MC camera and and ASIair, but deep sky objects are a different story.
@@senseiDithat is not what I said at all. There are lots of wonderful telescopes at nearly every price point. But there’s a telescope for every job. A kid’s telescope is not going to allow you take epic images of deep sky objects.
@@LearnToStargaze That is absolutely understandable, but I have nowhere said "KID`s" telescope. I`m morelike asking if for example the 450$ Seestar is actually giving good real life results and if so, is there a close to it`s price combo of telescope and lets say my iPhone 15 pro max or a camera like Panasonic Lumix fz200 that can give results like the Seestar... I am absolutely familiar that you get what you pay for, but since I have never touched a telescope and in my country there is not place that you can just go and test one... I`m looking for a well balanced option that with an advise from a person like you, I can just buy and have a blast. I do not want to discover new worlds or what ever, I just want to present to my kid and maybe share some stuff online with friends, a world that he has never seen before. But giving 300-500-700Euros for something that will show me the cosmos smudged out and without any clarity ... well :D I do not want that :D Actually I can`t afford to lose that kind of money on such item.
Random question but have you ever seen a uap while star gazing? I've seen orange orbs that fade after a few secs. It appears to fly in one direction no blinking lights....just an orange orb and then it goes dark ....
I would love to see some backyard genius figure out how to sync multiple smart telescopes together in some sort of open source light gathering array. These are getting pretty accessible and connect to your phone. I wonder what kind of image we could make if we had a couple hundred of these imaging at once.
This is more ad for Seestar S50 than Odyssey Pro. How can you compare $500 with $4000 telescope? Better Comp choice would have been Vespera II or Celestron Origin.
The view of Jupiter was very nice. I don’t get that view with my Seestar but if you looking at a screen in the eyepiece then it’s not really necessarily what you see in an actual eyepiece. My 8” dob is even a little hard for me to get great visuals of planets.
but you compare a €4000 telescope with a €500 one, what's the point? A Ferrari compared to a Panda! Obviously they both have a steering wheel and 4 wheels but everything else?!? Thumbs down
At 5,500 dollars I would hope it would be better than a 650 dollar Seestar. Even their "Cheap" model is 3,500 dollars. Or you could step up to the 6,500 dollar model. I love my Seestar but also like visual astronomy. Enjoy your Channel. 110 things is a great book.
Unistellar has always been severely overpriced, tho, that word doesnt even cut it anymore. Same goes for Vaonis and the other one i cant remember. The seestars literally costs thousands less and deliver better results.
@@AllPlanets this is the odyssey PRO, not the odyssey. His currency is CA$. My currency is €. The thing is currently on "sale" for 3.6k €, which is 5.5k CA$. Hes not making up anything.
@@AllPlanets the video is literally about the pro model, which is what @marklooks-nc4ct is talking about. Its 5.5k, not 2k. Anyways, neither the pro or non-pro are worth it in the slightest. The Seestar is pretty much the only "smart" AIO telescope on the market thats actually worth its cost.
Is it weird I like to use a Barlow when using a telescope? On my gskyer 70400 (a telescope I hope to upgrade soon from) I use my Barlow so I can get more zoom or magnification and I don’t really care about clarity.
My first thought is that a focal length of 400 mm is rather short for anything but wide-field views of the sky. I’m not surprised that you need a Barlow. Effectively you will have an 800 mm telescope and you will begin to see decent views of the Moon and planets with typical eyepieces. You may want to replace the 45° diagonal with a 90° diagonal.
@Mr-Sleet Not weird at all. The native 400mm focal length does not provide high magnification views. As David mentioned, a 2x barlow will double your focal length. Theoretical, if your optics are good and the sky is good, your max mag is about x150. With a 2x barlow, a 6mm (x133) is about the best you can do. Backing off to a 7mm (x115) or 9mm (x88) might be even better views.
Nice overview, John. I think if they lower the price of the Odyssey it might catch on. I'm happy with my S50. John you can build an observatory but can't open a telescope box? 😅
Long vid, more pls. Unistellar sure is much more expensive, is it worth the money? i don't know, im just a visual observer. Astrophotography isn't really my bag, but the S50 kinda fascinates me. I own the Ioptron Skyhunter, i might make a DIY smart telescope.
if i was going to spend that much I would go for the celestron origin since the pre unistellar pr3oducts (evscope2) was disappointing for 4999 at best i think its 999
No, I use a Dobsonian for that. It’s trivially easy to get video or images of the space station with an unmotorized Dobsonian, see the solar panels and radiators, etc. but you really need the extra aperture.
Hi John. Another great video. I finally received my Celestron DX5. After some bad weather I was able to use last night and WOW!! The detail of the moon was great but seeing Jupiter and 4-5 of its moons….just speechless. I have to thank you for doing the review of the scope and for mentioning AllStar Telescooe because there wasn’t any in the states. Nicholas was great and very helpful 🙏🏼🙏🏼🔭🔭⭐️✨🌌
@jasonnormann7933 Good scope. I assume this is the StarSense version. Great piece of tech. I have this scope as well, and Jupiter was beautiful a few nights ago. For wider fields of view, there are the Astro-Tech XWA 100* eyepieces. They are 2in eyepieces, but on the 13,9,7,5mm, the end unscrews so they can be used as 1.25in. They run about $250ea. and worth it IMO. I would get at least the 13mm and 9mm. With a good 2x barlow, those become 6.5mm and 4.5mm. Clear Skies!
Nha, that's way too much money for a part-time, weather-dependent hobby. If I were an astronomer I'd go for an actual telescope setup, one circuit or chip goes bad on this that's no more than plastic and electrical recycling.
The odyssey just doesn't seem 6 times better despite being 6 times the price. Going by the imaging, it seems like an $800-1000 product where the Seestar is $450-500.
In this hobby price/performance pretty much never scales that way. You will pay alot for small things, so small the average person might not even pick up on them.
I had an evscope2, it's absolutely awful. It's only ''good'' with a few objects, some far aways galaxies (since the FoV is rather small compared to a Seestar or a Vespera) but as the video shows, it cannot see most of the big/interesting nebulae. I switched to a Vespera 2 (around 1500eur) and it's just another world.. here are some images: ruclips.net/video/7WcmrnQU7vU/видео.html
I've used both and what I can say is Unistellar models really suit a lot better sharing observation time with people.
@@PeterDugan-g7l you can share with the app and everyone can look at the same time... the eyepiece on the Uni scopes are an expensive and close to useless gadget (I ve used it maybe 3 times..) and if you barely touch the scope at the same time you get ''enhanced vision disrupted'', super annoying. Yes, it's probably fine for rookie crowds but the fact is that it only gives the illusion that you look at something but it's exactly the same picture as on your phone/tablet.
I own an ODYSSEY PRO and I'm very happy with the results! Even more so since the release of their new ‘Vivid Vision’ image processing... I tried SeeStar, Vespera before and was disappointed. Cost was not a factor for my hobby.
Why not compare with celestron origin
because you can't. The Origin is in a league of it's own at the moment.
Thanks for the video, I think the Seestar S50 is a great way to start without breaking the bank
I really like smart telescopes. I have a Dwarf 2 and a Dwarf 3 for a couple of days (which I haven't been able to use yet due to the bad weather). Odyssey is certainly an excellent product but very expensive. Same goes for the Celestron Origin. Dwarf and SeeStar have the great merit of having introduced astrophotography to those who cannot or do not want to initially invest large sums. Who knows what the future holds for us...
I came here just say this. It is a great time for astronomy. There truly is an option for every budget, skill level, and personality.
It would be cool to see a hybrid visual optics/screen system. Basically, a transparent screen that works in line with visual optics to add only color/brightness to nebulae. But I still want to see the optical views of black space and stars. I don't want to feel like I'm looking at a screen.
Yeah, like a viewfinder in a mirrorless camera
@snailwt Not quite, I don't think. Mirrorless cameras have an EHF (Electronic View Finder), which is just a very small, standard display. I don't think they are transparent. They display what the sensor sees only. This is how the Unistellar works. When you look through the "eyepiece" you are looking at an EHF. The image is 100% digital.
What I want is a hybrid experience. A transparent EHF that does not display 100% digital image. I want the raw optical views of black space and stars combined with an EHF digital overlay of colors on nebulae. On the planets, maybe a mix of optical and digital.
Astronomy photography newbie here: What’s the point of having an electronic digital viewfinder on this telescope, and not an analog one to use your retina directly as the final sensor!?
Why just not use the app then?
And then what’s the point of marketing such (electronic) viewfinder with some form of Nikon optical merits if it’s just to look at a display!?
Too bad, because I was about to insta buy this telescope for the added viewfinder and with budget being not a problem, but I don’t like being fooled.
@mjaminian your eyes aren't very sensitive to very dim colors, so using optics only, most nebula look like faint grey-scale clouds. Digital sensors and screens can show you the color. But, digital can't reproduce the brilliance or clarity of stars. As an example, a screen can't fully reproduce the way a diamond glints in sunlight. Or a digital artificial "window" is not the same as looking at the real world through glass.
This is why I would like a hybrid system.
About this device specifically, I've never used one, but I like the idea of looking into a digital "eyepiece" as opposed to a handheld screen or laptop. Digital stuff is fun and shows colorful wonders. But I really appreciate the natural beauty of my visual optics.
@mjaminian I will also add that placing an optics piece between a screen and your eye does impart a bit of an optical "feeling" to the view.
My limited understanding of this device is the eyepiece is similar to the mini screens they use in the viewfinders of mirrorless cameras, but even better. And there are several optics pieces between the screen and your eye that enhances the view. Again, I have no experience with this, but it certainly sounds intriguing. Unfortunately, it is way beyond my budget.
The enhancement is far too aggresive with the sharpening and color saturation. Does it have any built in filters like the Seestar ?
Not that I am aware of.
Your comment is spot-on. I'm a Unistellar eVscope 2 owner, and have tested the Vivid Vision (VV) technology extensively since it was released in October. As you indicate, it is far too aggressive with the sharpening and color saturation on nebulae and galaxies. The stars are rounder and more colorful, but also look unnatural. Fainter stars are suppressed; I think about one magnitude's worth of stars are lost. VV also consumes a lot of computer memory and processing resources, both in the scope and in the phone/tablet. Unistellar needed to improve its image processing versus its rivals, but VV isn't the answer. Some stores are now selling the original Equinox at a massive discount. IMO, this is their only model worth considering, and only if your primary interest is faint deep-sky objects, where the large aperture is valuable and image processing is secondary. Otherwise, buy a Celestron Origin on the high end, or a Seestar or Dwarf on the budget end.
@@pdesser2 the Vaonis Vespera 2 has excellent reviews although you could buy three S50s for the same price but you do get what you pay for in overall mechanical and image quality.
Could you please make a video about which finder scope is best?
I really like your channel
John whats your opinion on the new seestar recent udpate?
I haven’t seen the update. Nor was I aware of it during the filming of this video.
Seestar S50’s images are much better for me (in scope processing) in a Bortle 8 (my backyard), and superbly better in a Bortle 4. You’re missing 2 updates that seem to really close the gap in this comparison. You’re missing mosaic mode, and you’re missing the AI noise reduction (in scope processing) released about 2 weeks ago. You really need to redo this properly.
lol... 4 times cheaper, smaller diameter, lower specs, AND better! That's having your cake and eating it 3 times around sir :D
But with the unistellar you are just looking through a viewfinder to see the same thing that you would see on your tablet or your telephone
But it’s fun.
Thanks for the side-by-side comparison. Unistellar claims that the Odyssey line of telescopes don't need to be collimated, but at 11:51 in your video, while focusing on stars, it is visually quite obvious that the collimation is not properly adjusted in this telescope. Did you eventually correct this, or just use as-is? Honestly, I think collimation (and lack of autofocus in their eVscope line) is a pretty big concern for beginners, who are part of the target audience. Beginners don't even know what collimation is, yet seemingly still have to adjust this scope to get the best results. When I read that the Odyssey line offered autofocus and didn't need to be collimated, I thought that was a huge improvement from their eVscope line, but now think it is just marketing propaganda.
Hi, Unistellar here, we can confirm that there is no need for collimation on the Odyssey line, and that the moment at 11:51 is just an automatic focusing routine that is happening in a difficult environment (vibration and hazy air). I can see collimation is good on the image. Almost a perfectly symetric figure on a star that is not exactly on the center: if the star had been perfectly centered, it would have been perfectly symetric.
Ok so I watched your tier list of telescopes and I am leaking towards a seestar since I do not have the budget, but seeing what the unistellar shows on the eyepeace... is there a normal telescope that will show what the Odyssay pro is showing. Like I know what you said " The telescope you want does not exist" but... If I want to take shots with my iPhone and still have such "amazing" shots and be able to just watch the stars with my kid... what would be your best best best pick ? I do not mind a second hand telescope and I would spend around 600-700Euro. Furthermore I live in Bulgaria - we do not have telescopes as popular thing so I have to import....
That pretty much falls into the does not exist category. You can get a shot of Jupiter with a basic telescope (102mm refractor or 130mm Newtonian)combined with an ASI224MC camera and and ASIair, but deep sky objects are a different story.
@@LearnToStargaze So it`s a 3-4000Euro or don`t buy anything situation? :)
@@senseiDithat is not what I said at all. There are lots of wonderful telescopes at nearly every price point. But there’s a telescope for every job. A kid’s telescope is not going to allow you take epic images of deep sky objects.
@@LearnToStargaze That is absolutely understandable, but I have nowhere said "KID`s" telescope. I`m morelike asking if for example the 450$ Seestar is actually giving good real life results and if so, is there a close to it`s price combo of telescope and lets say my iPhone 15 pro max or a camera like Panasonic Lumix fz200 that can give results like the Seestar... I am absolutely familiar that you get what you pay for, but since I have never touched a telescope and in my country there is not place that you can just go and test one... I`m looking for a well balanced option that with an advise from a person like you, I can just buy and have a blast. I do not want to discover new worlds or what ever, I just want to present to my kid and maybe share some stuff online with friends, a world that he has never seen before. But giving 300-500-700Euros for something that will show me the cosmos smudged out and without any clarity ... well :D I do not want that :D Actually I can`t afford to lose that kind of money on such item.
@@senseiDi It sounds like you want a SeeStar. That's the best option in your price range.
Random question but have you ever seen a uap while star gazing? I've seen orange orbs that fade after a few secs. It appears to fly in one direction no blinking lights....just an orange orb and then it goes dark ....
I see those orange orbs all the time since we live near a coast guard base and they use those orange hovering flairs for night exercises.
I would love to see some backyard genius figure out how to sync multiple smart telescopes together in some sort of open source light gathering array. These are getting pretty accessible and connect to your phone. I wonder what kind of image we could make if we had a couple hundred of these imaging at once.
This is more ad for Seestar S50 than Odyssey Pro. How can you compare $500 with $4000 telescope? Better Comp choice would have been Vespera II or Celestron Origin.
The view of Jupiter was very nice. I don’t get that view with my Seestar but if you looking at a screen in the eyepiece then it’s not really necessarily what you see in an actual eyepiece. My 8” dob is even a little hard for me to get great visuals of planets.
but you compare a €4000 telescope with a €500 one, what's the point? A Ferrari compared to a Panda! Obviously they both have a steering wheel and 4 wheels but everything else?!? Thumbs down
but the Panda is actually much better than the Ferrari...
At 5,500 dollars I would hope it would be better than a 650 dollar Seestar. Even their "Cheap" model is 3,500 dollars. Or you could step up to the 6,500 dollar model. I love my Seestar but also like visual astronomy. Enjoy your Channel. 110 things is a great book.
Unistellar has always been severely overpriced, tho, that word doesnt even cut it anymore. Same goes for Vaonis and the other one i cant remember. The seestars literally costs thousands less and deliver better results.
The Odyssey is at ~$2000. not sure why you believe you can make up a price.
@@AllPlanets this is the odyssey PRO, not the odyssey. His currency is CA$. My currency is €. The thing is currently on "sale" for 3.6k €, which is 5.5k CA$.
Hes not making up anything.
@@Sharpless2 The cheap model is the Odyssey, not the Odyssey pro. that's why I am pointed out this discrepancy with the reality.
@@AllPlanets the video is literally about the pro model, which is what @marklooks-nc4ct is talking about. Its 5.5k, not 2k.
Anyways, neither the pro or non-pro are worth it in the slightest. The Seestar is pretty much the only "smart" AIO telescope on the market thats actually worth its cost.
Is it weird I like to use a Barlow when using a telescope? On my gskyer 70400 (a telescope I hope to upgrade soon from) I use my Barlow so I can get more zoom or magnification and I don’t really care about clarity.
My first thought is that a focal length of 400 mm is rather short for anything but wide-field views of the sky. I’m not surprised that you need a Barlow. Effectively you will have an 800 mm telescope and you will begin to see decent views of the Moon and planets with typical eyepieces. You may want to replace the 45° diagonal with a 90° diagonal.
@Mr-Sleet Not weird at all. The native 400mm focal length does not provide high magnification views. As David mentioned, a 2x barlow will double your focal length. Theoretical, if your optics are good and the sky is good, your max mag is about x150. With a 2x barlow, a 6mm (x133) is about the best you can do. Backing off to a 7mm (x115) or 9mm (x88) might be even better views.
Nice overview, John. I think if they lower the price of the Odyssey it might catch on. I'm happy with my S50. John you can build an observatory but can't open a telescope box? 😅
It’s not one of my skills, haha
how long is each frame on the unistellar
Long vid, more pls. Unistellar sure is much more expensive, is it worth the money? i don't know, im just a visual observer. Astrophotography isn't really my bag, but the S50 kinda fascinates me. I own the Ioptron Skyhunter, i might make a DIY smart telescope.
At this price wouldn't the Orion be it's competition? At $3500 I'm hoping it should be better then the $500 Seestar!
if i was going to spend that much I would go for the celestron origin since the pre unistellar pr3oducts (evscope2) was disappointing for 4999
at best i think its 999
Can odyssey track and video record iss station
No, I use a Dobsonian for that. It’s trivially easy to get video or images of the space station with an unmotorized Dobsonian, see the solar panels and radiators, etc. but you really need the extra aperture.
Had to jump here to say it's Final Jeopardy! Ok, more comments once I finish the vid. I'm REALLY excited to see this one on your channel!!
just fyi, using your code im only getting 6% off the telescope, not 15!
I’ll let them know.
Can you see Mars with the Unistellar?
I still need to test that, but I assume so.
Give the price of the Unistellar Odyssey Pro, a better comparison may be the Celestron Origin.
I asked Celestron to send me one. I haven’t heard back yet.
I really enjoy your videos
You are the one who encouraged me to start stargazing
In germoney price is easy 30% more 😁👍
If your 4 grand Telescope is being match up against one that is 500 bucks ....you have already lost.
I don’t make the rules. I just play the game.
@@LearnToStargaze "your" meaning Unistellar has already lost. You are just paving the way for us to make informed purchases.
Thank you.
Man! I really want to meet you 😣
Hello
Hi John. Another great video. I finally received my Celestron DX5. After some bad weather I was able to use last night and WOW!! The detail of the moon was great but seeing Jupiter and 4-5 of its moons….just speechless. I have to thank you for doing the review of the scope and for mentioning AllStar Telescooe because there wasn’t any in the states. Nicholas was great and very helpful 🙏🏼🙏🏼🔭🔭⭐️✨🌌
Thanks for the thoughtful comment!
@jasonnormann7933 Good scope. I assume this is the StarSense version. Great piece of tech.
I have this scope as well, and Jupiter was beautiful a few nights ago.
For wider fields of view, there are the Astro-Tech XWA 100* eyepieces. They are 2in eyepieces, but on the 13,9,7,5mm, the end unscrews so they can be used as 1.25in. They run about $250ea. and worth it IMO. I would get at least the 13mm and 9mm. With a good 2x barlow, those become 6.5mm and 4.5mm.
Clear Skies!
They are not comparable as they are not in the same price range.
Do you say that every time someone compares a Tesla to a Lamborghini? Or a Mac and a PC?
If you don't compare how do you know which will give you the best experience for your money?
Comparing these products makes no sense in my opinion. Not sure what the company was thinking.
Nice review. Unistellar scopes are so overpriced. In the eyepiece the stars look too bright.
This is a strange comparison when the prices are wildly different.
And I also bought a telescope as well
It's Pie Matrix's model (Pagasus 76700)
@@the_odd_cat You should send it back and get your money back. You can get better actual telescopes than that toy.
@@Sharpless2 it's just the beginning
I just want to see the moon with that telescope
Go dobson the best😂
What is a “Go Dobson”
Next they will be national geographic 😅
Nice effort for the french but gneeeee not great sorry 😅
I tried
Nha, that's way too much money for a part-time, weather-dependent hobby. If I were an astronomer I'd go for an actual telescope setup, one circuit or chip goes bad on this that's no more than plastic and electrical recycling.
Have to say this does not even come close to the price of a budget Astro photography setup, at least not in Europe. It’s just too expensive for me.
It’s about 25 percent more expensive than the setup shown in the video.
Your French is not so dégueulasse !!!