Waning Quarter Moon: SpaceProbe clear winner. Absorbed magnification like a sponge. Very sharp contrasty view...blacks were black. The Funscope could not keep up. Images begin to soften over 50x magnification. Even with the barlow, only the inner 2/3rd of the FOV was sharp. Also the views were considerablly "mushier" than the Spaceprobe.
Jupiter: No contest. The Spaceprobe continues to astonish me with its high contrast and super sharp planetary views. This is as good as it gets for a scope of this aperture. The Funscope clearly is not a solar system scope. While it is capable of showing Jupiter's disc and moons, it threw up an annoying halo (or haze???) around the planet at high magnification (above 50x). I had this same problem with my Celestron Firstscope mini dob. I could make out Jove's two equatorial belts, but nothing more. By contrast, I could make out festoon's and other minute detail when the seeing steadied with the Spaceprobe.
M42: Both scopes gave great bright views. I expected this as they have the same aperture. Views were almost indistinguishable save off axis where the seagulls started to plague the Funscope. I noted thought that the Spaceprobe stars were more "pinpoint" than the Funscope. Achieving focus was way easier in the Spaceprobe too.
M45: Same bright views but the winner would have to be the Spaceprobe for its flatness of FOV and lack of aberration. The coma was really distracting in the Funscope, and while the views were great, I preferred the Spaceprobe's views.
Open clusters Perseus double cluster, Auriga clusters (M36, 38, 37): Again both scopes threw up similar bright views, but coma and off axis aberrations spoilt the views for me in the Funscope. I think if I were to use the Funscope by itself and not make it go head to head with a longer focal length scope, I would have enjoyed the views.
So here is my take on things, the Funscope by itself really is a Funscope. Its light, its cheap, its fully equip from the get go, as it comes with Orion's three element eyepieces (20mm and 10mm, much better than the crap Huygen's that come with the Celestron Firstscope) and an Orion red dot EzFinder sighting scope. You do not need to buy anything else to get you started. Also another plus it has over the Celestron model is that it has a tripod bushing and can be mounted on standard photo tripods, so you never need to worry about not having a park bench to rest the scope on. That in itself is worth the price of admission. The Celestron, while cheaper, comes with ridiculous eyepieces, no finder, and no tripod bushing. Optics wise, I found both the Celestron Firstscope and the Funscope indistinguishable. Well they were both probably made in the same factory in China.
Would I recommend this scope for a firstscope? Unfortunately I would say no, unless it is a gift to a very young child who is just getting his/her's feet wet (and because its so cheap, it is okay if the child destroys the scope ;) or a second travel scope for a season stargazer. Again most beginner's want great views of solar system objects. Due to its very short focal length spherical mirror, this scope is just incapable of doing this, with its best views at 50x and below. This scope is best for low magnification panning of the milky way under dark skies PERIOD.
Again for a firstscope, you can't go wrong with the Spaceprobe 3. It has everything the Funscope has (similar three element eyepieces and a Orion EzFinder), plus a near diffraction limited mirror for sharp and contrasty solar system views. call me impartial, but I just love the SpaceProbe. I would even go as far as to recommend this scope over, say the Orion SkyScanner, which incidentally retails for about the same price to young beginner astronomers due to the very fact that it is just a very good scope for sharp high powered views.
Next up.....how to make suburban stargazing fun again...coming to a galaxy near you!
Another wonderful review - I look forward to reading your scope shootouts!
ReplyDeleteI found the FunScope to be an excellent tool for learning how to star-hop because of its wide FOV. I didn't care if the views of solar system objects were poor because I had seen enough of them when I used my 50mm refractor many years before.
I agree that the Spaceprobe 3 would be a better starter scope for a beginner than the FunScope or even the SkyScanner. An experienced astronomer would prefer the SkyScanner because of its combination of aperture and portability for such a reasonable price.
You mention in your previous shootout report that the tripod/mount of the Spaceprobe 3 is very stable - interesting. I'd like to check it out (both the mount and the OTA) if you still happen to have it around the next time we meet at Malibu.
I agree with the Funscope being a great learning tool for starhopping. I think the main reason I would choose the Spaceprobe over the Funscope for a beginner is that most want good views of solar system objects. The Funscope is not the best for that purpose (an all purpose scope if you want to call them that). Plus it gives brighter views than the ubiquitous beginner 60mm and 70mm refractors (we have already established that) and collimation is not critical to get sharp views as the focal length is so long.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that experience stargazers looking for a portable "grab and go" would choose the Skyscanner over the Spaceprobe (I think I mentioned that in my last shootout post!).
And yes the mount is plenty stable once locked onto an object. As with all alt az mount, moving the OTA onto a target is the hard part since it is kind of creaky.....you will see what I mean when you get to play with the scope.
I see you've added pics to this article. It reminds me just how handsome the Orion Funscope is. Now I want to start using this scope again, just to see how many deep-sky stuff it can pick up in a semi-dark sky (I've only used it in a light-polluted sky).
ReplyDelete