296 replies to this topic

[GSBass]

I suspect that’s accurate, someone in the Seestar group said they were buying one for their 8 year old grandson and so immediately told him my observations just became 100% irrelevant, the kid will be thrilled and won’t know or care what he is missing….. he will see far more than kids use to see when they got a scope for Christmas

I suspect we on this forum are not the target market. By 'we' I mean us pixel-peeping astro nerds. Tell me I'm wrong

[nicknacknock]

For pixel peeping, the Seestar / Vaonis / Origin / Dwarf / whatever smart scope is not the right solution. A dedicated astrophotography rig will get that done. 

 

De gustibus non est dispudandum. Some will like one brand, others will like another one, some will love a model and others will hate the same model etc.

 

My point was that success or failure is judged quite simply by bottom line figures, and not by individual preferences - of which we all have one but that doesn’t mean we are right. 

[GSBass]

Correct, my opinions are solely based on what I believe is a minimum standard… which surprisingly was set by the s50…. If a smart scope drops below that then I recommend people pass

For pixel peeping, the Seestar / Vaonis / Origin / Dwarf / whatever smart scope is not the right solution. A dedicated astrophotography rig will get that done. 

 

De gustibus non est dispudandum. Some will like one brand, others will like another one, some will love a model and others will hate the same model etc.

 

My point was that success or failure is judged quite simply by bottom line figures, and not by individual preferences - of which we all have one but that doesn’t mean we are right. 

[bradhaak]

Correct, my opinions are solely based on what I believe is a minimum standard… which surprisingly was set by the s50…. If a smart scope drops below that then I recommend people pass

Including your Vespera 1 and anything else with the IMX462 sensor?

[GSBass]

I am a big fan of the 462c, I’ve had QHY version and also bought the 464 which I think is a 4mp version of basically same thing, playerone used that in a planetary cam… excellent, the infrared response is so good I was able to take really nice Jupiter and Saturn photos during the day with my mak

Including your Vespera 1 and anything else with the IMX462 sensor?

[gtrin]

Does resolution of an image with smart scope work like with standard optical device? It's depend only from lens aperture?

[chrisecurtis]

Does resolution of an image with smart scope work like with standard optical device? It's depend only from lens aperture?

Yes and no. The resolution the scope is capable of depends on aperture. The resolution the scope actually can achieve is largely dependent on the image sensor, which also determines the size of the field. These set limits for resolution. The resolution in a particular image depends on conditions (e.g. seeing, whether the scope is buffeted by the wind etc.)

[gtrin]

Yes and no. The resolution the scope is capable of depends on aperture. The resolution the scope actually can achieve is largely dependent on the image sensor, which also determines the size of the field. These set limits for resolution. The resolution in a particular image depends on conditions (e.g. seeing, whether the scope is buffeted by the wind etc.)

So, considering the same aperture, images are more defined if you have a better sensor? Or sensor is involved mainly in the field of view?

[jprideaux]

Does resolution of an image with smart scope work like with standard optical device? It's depend only from lens aperture?

With any camera-based scope (including smart-scopes) resolution is also based on aperture size but also on camera pixel-size. Think about splitting a close double during a night of good seeing. For all telescopes, (optical and camera-based) the larger the aperture, the smaller (and brighter) the stars. For optical, more aperture makes it easier to see and split a close double. For camera-based scopes you are “seeing” what the camera-sensor can detect.

Things get a little complicated with how optics present point-sources as airy-disks and how color camera sensors are organized but the following thought-experiment gives you the general idea:

If the pixel-size is large and those two pin-point stars fall on the same or adjacent pixels on the camera sensor, then you will see the pair as just one star. If the pixels are smaller and there is a pixel in-between the two stars that is dark, then you can “see” separation. So with a camera-based telescope, both the aperture and camera pixel-size are importantly for resolving detail.

Edited by jprideaux, 10 January 2025 - 06:13 AM.

[gtrin]

With any camera-based scope (including smart-scopes) resolution is also based on aperture size but also on camera pixel-size. Think about splitting a close double during a night of good seeing. For all telescopes, (optical and camera-based) the larger the aperture, the smaller (and brighter) the stars. For optical, more aperture makes it easier to see and split a close double. For camera-based scopes you are “seeing” what the camera-sensor can detect.

Things get a little complicated with how optics present point-sources as airy-disks and how color camera sensors are organized but the following thought-experiment gives you the general idea:

If the pixel-size is large and those two pin-point stars fall on the same or adjacent pixels on the camera sensor, then you will see the pair as just one star. If the pixels are smaller and there is a pixel in-between the two stars that is dark, then you can “see” separation. So with a camera-based telescope, both the aperture and camera pixel-size are importantly for resolving detail.

Ok, so what is influenced by aperture in a smart device?

[GSBass]

Brightness snd theoretical resolution in excellent seeing….after that users have to concentrate on the sensor to see if it compromised any…. You don’t need to get in the weeds too far… when a new scope is released there is no shortage of number crunchers telling you how well the camera matches the optics… it’s one reason cloudy nights is a valuable resource.. All I really know is it’s not as critical for deep sky to get good performance, Where as when I started off doing planetary it was very critical to choose the right camera for the scope…. In that circumstance you had a general rule to follow which was to multiple your pixal size by 5, this gave you the F number you wanted the scope to be for maximum detail, people with fast scopes would need to add barlows to slow them down while Maksutov owners could use their scopes with out adding anything because we were natively at f15. I’m not sure what the formula is for DSO but if you assume the same then I think your looking at nonexistent chips that are at the 1micron size, but even if that were available I imagine aperture would need to be huge to properly illuminate it. Also the issue gets even more confusing because the numbers are based on perfect seeing and change to something else in average seeing.

Ok, so what is influenced by aperture in a smart device?

Edited by GSBass, 10 January 2025 - 07:46 AM.

[chrisecurtis]

To try and sum it up, the aperture of a scope determines its resolution. This is often expressed as the scope's "Dawes Limit" (R=11.6/D - the smallest distance two identical point sources, like the components of a double star, can be separated: R in arc seconds where D is the scope's aperture - diameter - in cm)

 

If the image scale of the sensor's pixels matches the Dawes limit of the scope (e.g. each pixel covers the same number of arc seconds in the sky as the scope's Dawes limit) w'd say that the aperture is perfectly sampled: some sensors on some scopes can be oversampled (the pixels in the sensor are smaller than the scope can resolve even in perfect conditions) or undersampled (the pixels are bigger than the scope's Dawes limit so limit the resolution of the scope). the total number of pixels will determine the size of the field (more pixels - or megapixels - on the same scope will cover a bigger field)

 

That's all in perfect conditions, which never happen. The scope might be less than perfectly in focus across the whole field, or there might be other aberrations which have the effect of blurring things, or the atmosphere has many ways of doing that too. That often means that some undersampling is fine in practice: the scope is rarely or ever going to be able to resolve to its Dawes limit so although the sensor is theoretically limiting resolution, in practice it is not. Larger pixels are easier and cheaper to make, and tend to be less noisy, so many manufacturers will tend to allow some undersampling when they match a sensor to a scope.

 

All real scopes, and smart scopes, are compromises between many competing factors. The best are those that balance these to give good results on the intended targets. Current smart scopes simply are not designed to be useful for planetary imaging but tend to be fairly fast, and fairly wide-field, to work well on the larger DSOs.

Edited by chrisecurtis, 10 January 2025 - 04:49 PM.

[Peter Besenbruch]

Does resolution of an image with smart scope work like with standard optical device? It's depend only from lens aperture?

Aperture determines how fast stars are recorded. The f-ratio determines how fast extended objects can be recorded. An extended object for us includes things like galaxies, and nebulae.

 

When one speaks of resolution, it helps to understand two basic kinds: High and low contrast. When speaking of stars and Dawes' limit we are dealing with high contrast resolution.  When teasing out small, subtle details in a galaxy's spiral arms, we are dealing in low contrast details.

 

Others have spoken of the chip over or under-sampling the lens or mirror. Under-sampling conveys certain benefits: Extended objects will be recorded faster with under-sampling. Such a system will also improve fine detail contrast. The first thing to go on an over-sampled system are subtle, small shadings. High contrast detail is less affected.

 

Small systems do OK if the pixel resolution falls just short of the Dawes limit. As you get larger, any gains in resolution are lost to seeing conditions. Therefore it's good to under-sample larger systems more.

[ursomniac]

Very much agree!  Thanks Jeff!  Now we need some EvScope/Equinox(1 or 2) and Stellina users to weigh in....

-b

I got an eQuinox2 in mid-2023 and a Seestar S50 in 2024.

So - the eQuinox2 TRIES to do planets, but as you'd expect, doesn't do them WELL.    You can tell Saturn has rings, and you can see the primary bands of Jupiter (and if you're lucky the GHS).   Haven't had the opportunity to do Venus (stupid clouds);  Mars was tiny - definitely red - and if I had a really good night, I might'be been able to see some shadings.

BUT - strangely - Uranus and Neptune work OK if you're after the brighter moons:   I've successfully imaged the 5 Uranian satellites and Triton (with post-processing on image stacks of a few <~5 minutes).    

Where they're also good in terms of planetary system stuff is getting some of the fainter moons and even dwarf planets that would be highly challenging with even larger optical scopes:  Pluto is insanely easy, and I've also detected Haumea without much effort (I would've also caught Makemake, except that I was imaging a telephone pole - oops!).   I've actually seen people pick out Eris.    One challenge (awaiting clear skies) is to get Himalia/Elara/Pasiphaë,  Phoebe, and possibly Nereid.   Technically - with luck - it should be possible to get Phobos/Deimos (though that might take a fair amount of post-processing).    One odd effect is that while observing DSOs, you can get "photobombed" by asteroids :-) which is always a nice surprise.

Aside from comet observations, I haven't done much with SSOs on the Seestar 50.

 

[Brent Campbell]

It is impossible to predict what new Robotic scopes will be out in 2 years. Often companies will keep their roadmap secret so the competition will not know their development plans.

Vaonis could come out with a Stellina-pro.
ZWO could come out with a SeeStar 70 or something.
Unistellar could come out with a new model.
Dwarf Lab could come out with a Dwarf3
A new player could offer something as well.

When to jump in the game with whatever is out now is a personal choice.

I tried the SEeStar S50 and it was ok.  I eventually sold it.  There was allot to like about the seestar.  The case, the compact form, all in one.  A few annoyances:

 

1) The aperture was too small.  An 80 mm apo would be a huge improvement but would cost a lot more and be larger.

2) the software on my tablet would not work in landscape mode.   

3) plate solving was hit or miss. 
4) Having to reinitialize the thing.

5) couldn’t find a full moon.  
6) a zero power red dot finder would be a great addition when troubleshooting.

[GSBass]

I don’t think that anyone would argue with the fact that we are still at the forefront of robotic telescopes … even the best ones still lack some things we desire… it’s an evolution

I tried the SEeStar S50 and it was ok.  I eventually sold it.  There was allot to like about the seestar.  The case, the compact form, all in one.  A few annoyances:

 

1) The aperture was too small.  An 80 mm apo would be a huge improvement but would cost a lot more and be larger.

2) the software on my tablet would not work in landscape mode.   

3) plate solving was hit or miss. 
4) Having to reinitialize the thing.

5) couldn’t find a full moon.  
6) a zero power red dot finder would be a great addition when troubleshooting.

[sanford12]

Why I will never buy a Smart Telescope

1. I like using my eyeball and eyepieces to see the objects as they appear to my human eye

 

2. I could easily download astroimage pictures on my cell phone from the HST, JWST, or earthbound observatories that are much better than these smart telescopes can get.  

3. They take all of the fun out of the challenge of old school astronomy, like GEM polar alignment, using setting circles, etc.  The smart telescopes are just too easy to use. No challenge. 

Why I'll never spend the money on a big heavy scope again. 

1 I like to see things that I never could see unless I spent mega bucks on a large scope and accessories.

2 You could download any image no matter what scope you use. The post processing makes the image your own.

3 Before covid bought a almost new 8" Celestron equatorial with Star Sense camera dirt cheap. A heavy PITA to haul & setup. Sucked the joy out of observing. 

 

 

Still have a Celestron GoTo 6" scope that I use that same Star Sense Camera on. Setup time is the same as the SeeStar. Don't miss standing in the cold to observe at all. The best scope is the one you'll use. 

 

Been a long time member of an audio forum. Very similar back and forth. There's always someone ready to poop on someone else's view of the hobby. 

Edited by sanford12, 10 February 2025 - 12:04 PM.

[Infiniumguy]

I'm a big fan and enjoying the Vaonis Vespera 2. I'm curious if there are any fun rumors on what Vaonis might next introduce? So far the Vespera platform has been a delight to use as is the Singularity app. I'd love to see something about EQ mode or even better a larger frame of similar design with a 70mm  or even 80mm Objective lens. A cooled camera would also be a nice improvement. I'm just dreaming. Any ideas others have for rumors would be fun to hear. 

[jprideaux]

I'm a big fan and enjoying the Vaonis Vespera 2. I'm curious if there are any fun rumors on what Vaonis might next introduce? So far the Vespera platform has been a delight to use as is the Singularity app. I'd love to see something about EQ mode or even better a larger frame of similar design with a 70mm  or even 80mm Objective lens. A cooled camera would also be a nice improvement. I'm just dreaming. Any ideas others have for rumors would be fun to hear. 

I have not heard anything from Vaonis about what might be next.  I don't think the Vespera design lends itself to equatorial-mode.  The moment-arm for the moving the tube with equatorial-mode may be too much for the motors and clutches.

The Vespera design probably also does not lend itself for a cooled sensor.

 

Of course Vaonis could eventually release a new and improved Stellina either in the same form-factor or something a bit different.  The Stellina had an 80mm objective.   I'm hoping that they do come up with something new new..

[Astronotrip]

I'm a big fan and enjoying the Vaonis Vespera 2. I'm curious if there are any fun rumors on what Vaonis might next introduce? So far the Vespera platform has been a delight to use as is the Singularity app. I'd love to see something about EQ mode or even better a larger frame of similar design with a 70mm  or even 80mm Objective lens. A cooled camera would also be a nice improvement. I'm just dreaming. Any ideas others have for rumors would be fun to hear. 

as you said they made the Stellina (80mm) a while ago so they know how to do it... 
Would be nice if they could revive it but at a slightly more reasonable price  

they said 2025 would be dedicated to software improvements. Maybe a new scope in 2026?

Edited by Astronotrip, 25 May 2025 - 02:05 PM.

[GSBass]

I guess they picked a good year to concentrate on software, seems risky to put a new scope out til all the trade deals are complete, U.S. is a pretty major part of their market, I think close to 70%

as you said they made the Stellina (80mm) a while ago so they know how to do it... 
Would be nice if they could revive it but at a slightly more reasonable price  

they said 2025 would be dedicated to software improvements. Maybe a new scope in 2026?

Edited by GSBass, 25 May 2025 - 04:29 PM.

[Astronotrip]

I guess they picked a good year to concentrate on software, seems risky to put a new scope out til all the trade deals are complete, U.S. is a pretty major part of their market, I think close to 70%

it wasn t on purpose but indeed too much uncertainty !