Bushnell Voyager 78-2010

[Richard Bond]

Anybody have any opinions on the Bushnell Voyager 78-2010 4.5"
reflector? I know it's a stubby little thing, but I'm looking for
something portable to take on canoe trips, and the price is right. I'm
not interested in astrophotography, etc - only optics. How would it
compare optically to, say, the Meade ETX 90?

Many thanks - Richard Bond

[Robert L. Starr]

Hi Richard,

I got one about 3 weeks ago and love it so far. For a beginner's scope
at about $200 it is an excellent deal. I've found that the two included
eyepieces could be of better quality though, not bad really, but then I
bought a fairly good plossl 12.5 which is about midway between the two
included eyepieces and found that the plossl gave extremely crisp and
clear views. The quality of the view amazed me for the inexpensive cost
of the scope. I have never used an ETX so I can't compare. But this
little scope is very compact and durable and uses real 1.25" eyepieces
so it's versatile. I really like it. Hope this helps.

Bob

[Ken]

I've had this telescope for about 4 months now. The biggest two
problems with it are:
1) It has no sighting device (no way to accurately point it)
2) It has a spherical mirror.

For #1 I bought a Rigel Quickfinder 1x finder. It works great. I don't
think you can use this scope without it.

For #2 I've been living with it. It is an f/4.4 telescope, so this
hurts a lot. The magnification is limited to 100x so your images aren't
too bad. Barlow's won't work with it.

You need a reasonably good tripod to mount it on. That lets you set it
at a comfortable level. It is very easy to move around and point and
something new. I had to replace the felt pads on the base (that sit
between the base and the telescope) because they tend to catch on the
recessed strap attachement at the bottom of the scope.

The moon looks fine. I've had a lot of fun with Rukl's moon book
indentifying features. With new eyepieces (that are threaded) and a
filter, I've been able to see 2 cloud bands on Jupiter (80A seems to
work the best) and the rings of Saturn (yellow filter seems to provide
the most contrast). Faint fuzzies are fuzzy (I wasn't able to resolve
any stars in M13), but I've had a lot of fun finding them. The Lagoon
nebula looked great. I haven't been able to look through another 4.5
inch telescope to compare so I don't know how much better they would be.

The views through 8+" telescopes all look better of course, so I'm
currently on the waiting list for the new Orion Skyquest XT8 8"
dobsonain.

I haven't looked through one, but I'd guess you'd be better off
something like an orion short tube 80. I think the ETX90 is too
overpriced for what you get, unless you need GoTo.

Ken

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

[LMIELE7433]

I own the Bushnell "astroscan" and a Questar Standard, which I am told,
performs very similar to its clone the ETX. I love the Bushnell for the
overall design and user friendliness. I love scanning the milky way, the
pleiades, aldebaran and andromeda. Its weakness is in its fast spherical
optics. I get ghost images on the planets. I know enough not to waste money
getting the scope to do something it wasn't designed for. In summary I don't
see myself parting with the scope but will consider refiguring the mirror in a
year or two.

[Ken]

I agree with your sentiments about the Bushnell. It is a very nice
scope for viewing the Milky way, the pleiades, and learning the night
sky in general (once you have a pointing device like the Quikfinder).
It is unfortunately however that they have a very sharp picture of
Saturn on the box. There is no way to get an image anywhere close to
that in the telescope.

Ken___

In article <19990927225609...@ng-bj1.aol.com>,