BeAmazed
My $100 Telescope VS $1,700 Telescope.
Taken On Celestron Powerseeker 60AZ.
Discussion
It's better, but not 17x better
Diminishing returns.
Like with wine its said that you can get 90% of perfection for $10, 99% for $100, but that extra 1% will run you $1000+.
Just like Heisenberg and the Meth clarity business
That’s why I drink beer
Yes
That's a good qoute
I"d love to take credit for it but I heard it from someone trying to sell me wine.
I drink under $10 bottles myself but I can see it working on some stuffy rich person.
I was private chef for a very wealthy family, and while some of the $10k bottles of wine are very good, there are $100 bottles they had that were honestly better and more liked by those at parties. My favorite was somewhere around $160 a bottle, and it was still not 10x better than a $15 bottle.
This. Some of the more expensive wines in the $60 - $100 are amazing, though there are some surprisingly good wines in the $10 - $20 range. I've often heard the argument that cheaper wines are just as good, but that's not been my experience in many cases. I've found that it's best to ask around, as those who've been to the wine tastings will know of the very good cheap wines.
I've tried wine at some event that it turned out costs ~$45 and it was really good, but I've also had wine for $10-15 that are close to the same. But the difference is very noticeable. So your $60-100 range is probably the upper end of "reasonably luxurious" that sort of makes sense to buy, especially for special occasions.
Yes, the circles are only a tiny bit more circle-y at higher magnification. 😉
It's similar in car sports. The majority of the money goes in to shaving one second off a lap time.
And the only way to tell is to know the price.
Wine isn’t the best example since anyone who claims they can taste if wine is expensive is lying. Cheap wine wins blind taste competitions all the time.
I really hope i can remember this one.
Im gonna remember that 🫡
Sounds like the life of an audiophile
It was going to say, the $1700 is better, but not $1600 better.
Tbh, it really depends on what the person values. An astrophotographer who is serious about his craft might value that boost of performance more than $1600. I can see the 2nd image to be printed and hang in the house as a cool art piece but not the 1st image. Not to mention, they are not going to stop with 1 image, some might use their gears for years and that $1600 will not just be for 1 image but for thousands of them.
And also part of the thing is that you have to know which cheap brands are good. If you are new to something you can pretty much rely on the fact that the expensive ones will be good, but with the cheap ones it's a bit of a crap shoot I imagine
Well it's not like you can buy five $100 ones instead and get the same result.
Are James Webb telescope photos a billion times better than that, are they stupid?
They should have just sent a dozen $100 telescopes tapped togerher
My wallet definitely hopes the view is 17x better
I know some more expensive telescopes can be programmed to follow celestial bodies, so maybe the better telescope makes it around 17x easier to capture a nice shot like this?
If it’s anything like 3d printing, the amount of money you spend has closer relationship to ease of use rather than the quality of the finished product.
Really!?
There’s such huge difference in resolution - and the moon is already very close. Definitely worth $1700 for an amateur enthusiast.
Now do Saturn.
In a funny way, that's a great representation of "diminishing returns". Amazing what the cheap telescope can do.
I bought a $30 toy telescope for my kids a few years back and looked at a bright light in the sky that i think might be Jupiter. I thought the lenses were bad because I'm seeing multiples of that tiny light... Years later I bought a better telescope... Turns out they're actually Jupiter's moon.
Oh damn. You Galileo?
That’s still great detail and zoom for $100…👍🏽
If you think this is good you should see how bright the sun is when you look at it through a £1 magnifying glass!
Comment written with speech to text translation
Progress?
At least 17x the number of holes! =D
That doesn’t sound right, but k don’t know enough about the moon to dispute it
...in your wallet
Haha! 17x hours of work. Is the $1700 one yours?
You made me think of this question so I'm asking you! Does the moon still get new craters?
Yes, the moon is always gaining new craters, but they are almost all small. The large, visible craters were mostly formed during the late heavy bombardment period.
Yeah, I was just being goofy. Clearly able to see more craters with the improved resolution.
Yeah I got that. But I'm still curious if there are any new impacts on the moon lol
I think you got a bargain on the 100$ one.
Pics were made at the same minutes?
No, the $1,700 telescope photo was taken in 2008.
Ohhhh that explains so much!
Does it? What does it explain?
The bump in quality on low end telescopes over time.
I had a $100 telescope in 2008 and it was nowhere near as good as a 2025 $100 telescope.
Ahhhhh, duh, yeah that makes sense
The models remain the same.. look at the nexstar 8SE its $1,700 today. Also the celestron powerseeker 60AZ launched in 2012 which is what im using.
That makes this whole comparison pointless
Its a 12 megapixel camera with a much more powerful telescope, and my iphone camera has multiple cameras, for this shot i had to zoom, when i zoom in it uses the 12MP camera... 😭
I mean, there are a lot of problems with this comparison. I'm not sure I understand what equipment was used when and for which photo, but by piecing together some info from different comments you've made -
The Nexstar 8SE photo was taken in 2008 - with what? A 12 megapixel handheld digital camera? If so, that's very different than the 12mp photos your iphone 15 takes under telephoto. Megapixels are only one measure of photo quality. In fact, far more impactful are the aperture of the lens and the sensor size, when comparing digital cameras. Today, you also have post-processing to consider.
I don't believe you made this post with disingenuous intentions but the wording of the title makes it sound like it's a direct comparison of a $100 telescope and a $1700 telescope - that is, two photos taken around the same time from around the same spot with the same equipment. A photo taken in 2008 with a handheld digital camera and a photo taken in 2025 with an iPhone are not remotely comparable regardless of megapixel count.
Keep in mind the 2nd photo is compressed, reddit doesnt allow photos over 20mb. You can view the original in full quality here: https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/273844-nexstar-imaging/page-2
Oh okay, so it's a 2008 APS-C DSLR vs an iphone 15.
So the XSi sensor is something like 22x15mm vs 8x6mmm for the iPhone 15.
330 square millimeters vs 48 square millimeters sensor size.
Then I don't know how astrophotography works, but obviously the lenses available to a DSLR capture orders of magnitude more light than an iphone...
Then, we have post-processing (unless you used something like Halide Process Zero?) and compression...
I think you can see why people are not happy with the comparison.
Not that much difference tbh xd
Definitely not at $1,600 difference.
Your ophthalmologist appointment is overdue /s but for 100$ it still quite nice
Whats the $100 dollar in question?
Celestron powerseeker 60AZ.
Wow, 100 can really take you to the moon! 🌙
Yo, but I would love that hundred dollar telescope if you have a link
Read the one star reviews. There is a lot of them
I mean it still has 4/5 stars
It's hilarious that enough people hate a telescope so much as to make a subreddit dedicated to their hate.
I mean... it is clearly better, but is it $1600 better?
Kind of shocked so many saying "not much better".
If it's your hobby, I can easily see spending 1700 on a telescope that takes such great clear pictures.
I think its cause people are impressed with the $100 teleacope
It’s the same with photography. Couple of grands of equipment, non-photographers can’t see the difference to a shot-with-iPhone photo.
Im interested in buying a telescope. Which one would you recommend?
Anything celestron, their products are SUPER high quality.
Thank you! I'll look into them!
What kind of $100 scope exactly? This is great!
Celestron powerseeker 60AZ.
Moon is haunted
Thank you for this! Now I know I'll love a inexpensive one!
Wow, that is a huge difference
I bet a comparison of a planet or deep space object would provide a more drastic result.
Yeah, definitely.
That’s absolutely incredible!
Thanks!
The captions say that both pics were taken with the same telescope. I'm confused 🤷🏻♀️
I meant that mine was taken on celestron powerseeker 60AZ.
They are cool photos!
The second picture is definitely nice quality. What's the other telescope that was used (not the Celestron Powerseeker 60AZ)?
Nexstar 8SE.
Thank you. That's the exact one my woman and I are looking at. I appreciate your response.
People in the comments are so focused on a single use case. There’s probably a ton more that the more expensive telescope does such as earth rotation Tracking, adjustments for atmosphere, automatic target tracking. Among others.
True
I can’t tell which is which. I know the 2nd pic has more clarity, but the 1st one ain’t half bad!
1st is mine.
figured. For apples to apples comparison I’s crop the 2nd to match the ratio, but like others here! I see no need to spend the extra 1600 if it’s a hobby! Though like I tell people in photography. The diff between a 1800 lens and a 300 one during the day stopped down is negligible at best. It’s when you need it at night, or shot wide open or these other scenarios where the extra money will come in. I def don’t know enough about telescopes to know when the 1600 bucks will come in. But I’m sure it’s somewhere!
Yeah, the cheaper f4.5 lens is going to be fine for those people with a $2000 DSLR who never take it out of full auto mode. But if you learn how to use the camera, you can do a lot more with the f2.8 or faster equivalent lens. Optics aren’t just shaped generic window glass, there’s a ton of engineering and chemistry to make higher quality and the prices reflect that.
oh for sure, I’m just saying during the day, and stopped down, the lenses are mostly the same. On the surface level, given those conditions, one could argue why bother with a 2k lens. But there are a lot of nuances that make the more expensive option a lot more versatile.
Eyepiece can do most of the heavy lifting get some good glass and that will. Help a lot. Price also doesn't always mean clearer or more powerful. You can get an 8 inch dob that will give you some of the best visuals possible and they will run you about $500. But it has zero technology. You move it by hand. I have some pretty insane moon shots from my dob and just putting a cellphone on the eyepiece.
The difference is clear. Whether it is worth the price difference well …
Its pretty damn astonishing what can be done from your backyard these days. Galileo would be proud.
You're not missing out that much tbf
I’ve been having a telescope on the wishlist for a while but kept delaying as I wanted to learn more on the quality differences as prices go up. This is a huge help!
The $15 telescope I got at goodwill has not quite as much magnification but notably higher quality than the $100 image here. Guess I got lucky!
Wow!
Was pleasantly surprised that the more expensive one got rid of the chromatic aberration.
Doesn't clarity depend on lens size ??
Yes, mine is 60mm.
While it's very cool you can take a great shot of the moon with a $100 telescope, I think it's an unfair comparison. Like comparing a point and click camera to a higher-end Nikon or Canon on taking portraits. I'd like to see the two telescopes when observing Mars or Saturn. I feel the jump in price would become more apparent at that point. Still cool shots.
Yeah, if i tried to shoot a planet it would NOT come out nearly as clean.
Wait i get to see pic 1 with a 100 dollar telescope? 😵. Which telescope is that?!
Celestron powerseeker 60AZ
Ah sorry thought that was the $1700 one in your caption. Thank you!
Same same...
So buy a $800 telescope….got it
So you’re comparing a $100 telescope from today to a telescope that was $1,700 in 2008?
Its $1,700 today, the photo was shot in 2008.
Not trolling here, legit question since I know nothing about telescopes. In the last 17 years they did nothing to upgrade or enhance the telescope? Feels like it would be like a 4mp camera that was awesome at the time but obviously wouldn’t stay on the shelves for 17 years.
I'll take the 100$ please. Easily does what I want it to do. Haha.
Now let’s see Paul Allen’s telescope
Which one is which?
1st is mine.
Nice!
Sweet spot must be a $600 telescope
Uh - looking dor a good $100 telescope for my family thats discovered camping and the milky way. What is that one?
Celestron Powerseeker 60AZ.
Thank you!
So we can do that with a hundred dollars, but bank security cameras can't do it with a thousand dollars????
You get what you pay For
used my rifle scope during an eclipse and i was content with that
But what about 10 $100 telescopes? 🤔
🤷♂️
And people wonder why good camera lenses cost lol.
A lot of people posting here are just going by picture posted, they havent put their eye to that 1700 lol.
Please, tell us more about this 100$ telescope
Its the Celestron Powerseeker 60AZ, its a manual telescope with a 60mm lens. It also comes with both a 20mm and 4mm eyepiece, and the stand height is adjustable.
Hi there I have a celestron telescope too, just wondering how you actually captured the photos from the telescopes?
Using my Iphone 15 camera.
Don't let a flerfer see these pics 😂. Their brain might pop
Maybe LMAO
Mhmhm......same.
What is the $1,700 scope you used?
I didnt use a $1,700 telescope i used a $100 one, the $1,700 one is the nexstar 8SE
HEY THAT'S MY LAND!
Damn, imagine how deep those big craters are.
the graph is not linear
If you crop the second one to show the same zoom the difference is even less pronounced.
Still just a tube for looking at far away rocks.
A tube that holds power, the power to explore things that you couldnt see with your naked eye in a million years.
That’s almost exactly what my dad said to me when he gave me the sex talk.
I had no idea you could see the surface of the moon this well with a home telescope!
I like yours more
Now if we could only see the dark side.
Which one is which?
1st is mine.
Oh okay! Nice pic!
Not much difference, ill take the 100 dollar one.
I like yours more
Yours has more cheese
Some are saying this demonstrates diminishing returns, I say it shows the value of a strong, high quality telescope.
Wow!! This is a great post! I’ve been wondering what to buy for entry level but I have no experience or reference point to start with. Looks like the 60az is where it’s at! Are there any other manufacturers and models that give you big bang for you buck?
Not that i know of, ive always loved celestrons products since i began.
Ok! Awesome! Thanks for posting this. @ $100 I’ve been spent more on lesser value items than this high quality scope.
That’s the world when i put my glasses on.
unworthy
What?
What is the brand name for that $100 telescope?
Celestron Powerseeker 60AZ.
I thank you kindly!
id stick with the cheap one lol
Why does the moon seem to have more craters than earth per square mile of earth surface? Because of our atmosphere burning them up?
Yeah.
Looks to be on sale for $76 now too
Do you have a shot of the crater where the UFOs come out of?
"It's the same picture"
Level of detail is quite impressive!
Is it possible to do the same technique like the big telescopes to use some algorithm to nullify the atmospheric disturbance?
Seems like a proper use case for a NN for the hobbyist at least.
Which one is the $1700?
The 2nd one.
Was the 100% telescope heavily discounted or second hand or something? Find it hard to believe it’s this good (comparatively).
Nope, bought it brand new from celestrons website.
Can you look for my keys up there? I’ve looked everywhere else.
But is it $1600 better?
Why are all the moon’s craters the same depth?
I'm more impressed with the 100 dollar telescope.
Obviously the 1700 is better, but it's wild how good the 100 dollar one is.
We need a telescope on the moon looking at the earth now !
There is a smiley face on the moon :)
Did you find this post really amazing (in a positive way)?
If yes, then UPVOTE this comment otherwise DOWNVOTE it.
This community feedback will help us determine whether this post is suited for r/BeAmazed or not.