I've been observing the night sky with binoculars and telescopes for 30 or so years, and I've tried to frugal about my equipment purchases, so I understand the budget-minded astronomer. I totally get that. I'll start with the positives. These binoculars are lightweight, easy to hold, come with a nice wide strap, soft carrying case, plus they have firm interpupillary distance adjustment, stiff center focus knob that will not move when you press your eyes against the eyepieces, and importantly, a diopter adjustment for the right eye. To be honest, for the $35 I spent on these in May 2020 (may be different when you buy these), that was more than I expected. There are four caps to cover the eyepieces and objects lenses. There is even a 1/4-20 thread at the central portion so you can attach these to a binocular bracket and a tripod. Honestly, all of that is REALLY nice for the price paid. Can't complain about that at all. When looking at objects, the view was - well, I guess for the price pad, it was not bad. Not great, but not bad either. I have seen much worse. The set I purchased were collimated (meaning both sides of the binoculars are parallel, so the images "merge" at your eyes and don't cause eye strain trying to make them line up). The star images in the central 50% to 60% of the field of view were pretty sharp. Not quite pinpoint, but again, for the price paid, better than I expected. In short, could I see more stars than I could naked eye? You bet. But this is where the lower cost becomes obvious. I compared these to a $100 set of binoculars I own. Exact same specs - 7x50's, and I compared them on the same night, side by side, on the same objects. Keep in mind, a $100 set of binoculars is not all that expensive. Even they are considered rather average in cost and specifications. I own both better and worse binoculars - so these are good "middle ground" to test against. Yet in those, I could see more. A LOT more. For one, in the "better" binoculars, the stars were not only more pinpoint in the center, they were pinpoints all the way out to the edge. In the Celestron... not so much. They began to get less pin-point-like outside of 50%, and by the outer 15% to 20% of the field, they were quite distorted - like seagull shapes. So brighter stars are visible there, but are not as clear. And dimmer stars just get smeared out of existence, until you move them into the central area. So you lose some effective field of view because the stars simply become "not" stars anymore. This is less than ideal for things binoculars should excel at for astronomy: Sweeping the Milky Way, looking at large clusters, or see more of the sky than a telescope can show you. Even worse if you're looking for galaxies, as very "seagull star" looks like a galaxy at the edge, until you realize, "No, that's not a galaxy - it was a smeared star." And another issue: Fewer stars visible. I aimed mine north towards light polluted Chicago, at the two stars that frame M57, the Ring Nebula. I could not see the nebula in either set of binoculars, my "good" pair" or this one. But there are many stars in that area, due to it being just off the edge of the galactic plane. In my "good" 7x50's, I counted 19 stars visible. In the Cometron, just 14. In another test looking at the area of Pollux and Castor, I got a similar result. These means the Cometrons lost about 1/2 a magnitude of stars. If the idea is to see more stars with binoculars, not seeing another 25% you COULD see just by having a little bit better binoculars means you may miss a lot, especially in light polluted areas. That's why I aimed mine towards light pollution, to see what the effect would be. That's a lot of stars you either could see, or miss out on. You'll have to answer whether that matters to you or not - I get it, it's about a price point too. I am fairly confident the fewer visible stars was because the dimmer stars aren't even visible, as there are fewer anti-reflection coatings on the Cometrons, so dimmer stars get "bounced off" the glass and never make it to your eyes. 1/2 a magnitude may not seem like a lot, but the difference between seeing all stars down to 7th magnitude stars (26,533) versus 6th magnitude (8,768) is a HUGE number. Even taking half of that difference to account for it being a half a magnitude - that's potentially 8,882 stars you will NOT see. That's a lot of stars you'll miss. And those are potentially observable, in light polluted areas. But the Cometron's will keep you from seeing them. And lastly, I think the prisms in this set of optics are smaller than they should be. There is something odd about how I had to hold them to get a good image. In most binoculars, I can hold the specs up to my eye and see the whole field. In these, I sometimes had to hold the binocular further AWAY, otherwise there was this "kidney-beaning" effect there the outer edge would just be black. It was rather difficult to hold them just-right to get a good image. Perhaps that might work okay for eyeglasses wearers, because the eye relief is further back. For me it was a bit difficult to use. Conclusion: If you have a VERY small budget for binoculars, these are minimally adequate. They will focus okay, but not perfectly. And they will show you more than you can see naked eye, for sure - several magnitudes fainter than naked eye, to be sure. But you will still see less than you could see in the same size, if slightly better, binoculars. And they have some pretty significant aberrations, which should not be discounted. It would be money well spent for better ones if you are able to afford it - the greater light throughput will show you more stars, and the better focus both in the center and especially at the edges will give you a far better overall view of the heavens. I have looked through worse binoculars, so I don't say "Do not buy these." Because they will indeed improve on what you can see naked eye. But it could be better.
