Jupiter looks soft/fuzzy at 133x in 4" parabolic reflector?

[Lady Fraktor]

The lunar surface can take ridiculous amounts of magnification at times so you cannot judge magnification of other objects by it.

[StarBru]

"and with a telescope the faintest DSO I can see is orion nebula and andromeda galaxy. and just barely otherwise im limited to just a few clusters and mostly stars like pleiades is really bright and easy to see stars with my telescope at lower magnifications. cant really see any other galaxies or DSO."

I just recently was able to see M104, the Sombrero Galaxy, at a magnification of 40x using a 10mm eyepiece in my inexpensive Meade 80mm f/5 Adventure Scope Refractor. I would think you would be able to see the same in your scope.

Also, for example, other Messier objects such as M4, a globular cluster in Scorpius, and M8, the Lagoon Nebula , M7 the Ptolemy Cluster, or M20, the Trifid Nebula in Sagittarius along with other easily seen targets such as M6, the Butterfly Cluster or M11 the Wild Duck Cluster in Scutum - some of my favorites for my 80mm refractor. Have you tried any of these at all? If not, they are well worth seeing! They do not need a lot of magnification to be seen. Hopefully you do not have too much light pollution.

[realflow100]

I live in a heavily light polluted area. so all I can see is the VERY BRIGHTEST OF THE BRIGHTEST deep sky objects. and I have no chance of escaping it. no working vehicle to drive anywhere. and its this bad for at least 10 mile radius. so no walking either.
naked eye its somewhere between a bortle 5 to bortle 9 depending on where im looking and what object im actually trying to find. Can't see andromeda or orion nebula naked eye. Can't see milky way either. (When they are well above the horizon)
i'm limited to mostly stars pleiades. andromeda galaxy. and orion nebula.
triangulum is invisible at any magnification ive tried.
Even using my star tracker and aligning it to some stars. I still struggle to find things. and can't see any DSO fainter than andromeda pleiades or orion nebula. Planets are fairly easy to spot though.

The faintest star I could see naked eye is about magnitude 4 to 4.5-ish so it's no wonder I can't see andromeda naked eye. pleiades looks about as faint as a magnitude 3 to 3.5-ish object to me. if I were to compare the apparent brightness to another star.

heres a 30-second exposure at F5.6 at 55mm focal length on a canon 500D of orions belt moon not up.
Orion nebula is hardly even visible. and the core is blown out to boot. from the excessive light pollution

[John Baars]

I have read your remarks about your telescope.

- Bare in mind that it is a superfast F4 system. Only the most expensive eyepieces are capable of handling such a lightcone. The "kit-eyepieces" certainly won't. The sweet spot of sharpness is only several arcminutes wide. (4 Jupiters on a row or so) Beyond coma starts. You call it warping.
- The mirror may not be a truly parabolic one. Although parabolising costs only minutes on a mirror that size, being a mass-product it may not have been done properly. Chances are that is still more spherical-like than a parabolic-one. It adds to the fuzziness.
- The ripply-water effect on very bright objects may have to do with the accuracy of the surface as a whole. Sounds like 1/2 wave peak to valley , where it should be at least 1/4. Being a typical wide-field instrument the manufacturer doesn't put more effort in it since it is not designed to function on the highest magnification levels. Adds to the fuzziness.
- Mass-product are more often not well polished. Mechanically polished in stead of done by hand on a pitch-bottom. Result is micro-ripple, visible as static stains on a defocused star. In focus: pixellated/ blocky. This also adds to the fuzziness on Jupiter.

Venus is a harsh object to evaluate you telescope on. And so is Jupiter. Take this all and add some severe seeing. It will become even worse. Don't take it too hard on the telescope. It works well at low power widefieldviews of the Milky Way, what is was made for and it will even give reasonable views of the Moon at low magnification.

[Refractordude]

You live under bortle 9 skies like me. Your situation is best suited with a maksutov or refractor telescope at f8 or better. Such a telescope is way better on what is best available to you (moon/planets) than a f4 reflector. I am very very happy with the moon, planets, and brighter stars/doubles using my f8 refractor. If you decide make sure the scope is shipped by Walmart, not a vendor selling at the Walmart website. Right click the image.

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Celestron-As ... e/17355891

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Celestron-Ex ... /862501170

https://www.telescope.com/Orion/Orion-S ... eAscending

[Refractordude]

realflow100:

I apologize if my reply to your problems seem a bit frank/forthrightly.