61 replies to this topic

[Regulus 1.36]

Although I haven't heard any news of a new product from ZWO, the name suggests they might release a future Seestar S80. As a fan of the current S50, I would be willing to pay for an upgraded version.

 

Hypothetically speaking, if they were developing a new version, what features would you like to see in it? It should be more significant than the S50, and in my opinion, they could skip including a tripod and add more to the product.

 

What would you like to see in the S80?  Higher-end optics, a more extensive camera diagonal, or special app features?

 

I already own the S50, but I would go for the S80 once it becomes available.

 

Thoughts?

Edited by Regulus 1.36, 07 January 2024 - 07:02 AM.

[jprideaux]

An 80mm objective will cause the unit to be quite a bit larger and they will probably not be able to make almost everything out of plastic which would make it quite a bit more expensive. At the higher price point. I would hope it would also have some extra features that the S50 does not have. Perhaps a mount that is designed to operate in either alt-az or equatorial mode. Or a sensor de-rotator. Perhaps a user-accessible filter-wheel. A more advanced and bigger sensor. Of course all of this may make it up around $1500 or $2000.

[Regulus 1.36]

An 80mm objective will cause the unit to be quite a bit larger and they will probably not be able to make almost everything out of plastic which would make it quite a bit more expensive. At the higher price point. I would hope it would also have some extra features that the S50 does not have. Perhaps a mount that is designed to operate in either alt-az or equatorial mode. Or a sensor de-rotator. Perhaps a user-accessible filter-wheel. A more advanced and bigger sensor. Of course, all of this may make it up around $1500 or $2000.

I understand the Seastar with an 80 mm aperture would be larger than the S50, but that is not a concern and my main focus for this device is EAA, with astrophotography being secondary since I don't have much time to dedicate to a single object.

Regardless of the mode used, a SeeStar is far more capable, lighter, and more transportable than any of my current telescopes. Even the S50 kills an 8 or 10" dob on most objects in the night sky in basic EAA mode.

I also speculate that an S80 would have a suggested retail price of around $1,000, which is highly affordable when you consider its all-in-one nature and competitors.

Anyway, I'm sure it's coming, and looking forward to it.

Edited by Regulus 1.36, 07 January 2024 - 08:35 AM.

[jprideaux]

Yes I also hope there is a follow-model to the S50.

Note that Celestron is announcing “something big” tomorrow on Monday. Nothing is known for sure yet but it MIGHT be their version of a smart-scope based on a new Rasa6 as the optical component. Or they may just be offering a Rasa6 ota as part of their product line and you would need to put together your own system by buying discrete parts. We will see.

[tcaron21]

With Astrocooker and any other Photoshop like program, I use free version of Pixlr Edit, I cant image my pictures being munch better. In 5 Bortle skys, I'm limited anyway.

I just wish the field was horizontal or at least flexible. A matrix option would be nice. Rumor is it is coming but you can do that manually. Its just sloppy.

 

I'm seeing more with the S50 then I've ever seen with my 14" dob.

 

Watching for the performance of the Vespera Pro, not to buy but curious with a 50mm and higher resolution, what it can really do.

[smiller]

IMHO you don’t need an 80mm scope to significantly upgrade what a SeeStar S50 could do.  Just go look at some of the best Astro photos from people with 50 mm refractors and you’ll see what is possible.

 

An 80mm option would be wonderful, but I think the cost increase would not be worth it unless they improved a few key things that could also be done on the S50:

 

1) A larger sensor, such as the IMX533 11.3x11.3mm 9 megapixel chip or the newer ~7x7mm square sensor Sony recently released.  Images would cover a much larger field of view and be much more than 2 megapixels.  Also, this essentially increases total light gathering power by the ratio of the area of the sensor in a similar way that lowering the F-ratio does.

 

2) To use a larger sensor, you probably need the optics to be closer to a true achromatic with a reducer/field flattener.  So possibly improved fundamental optical glass.

 

3) Supporting an equitorial mode or at least a mode where the scope can be tilted away from the target by a modest angle to greatly reduce field rotation (semi equitorial).   This is being done now by creative individuals but just needs to be officially software supported with hardware that is robust to this mode of operation.

 

4) Improved processing that automates even more of what experienced deep sky astrophotographers do with their sophisticated imaging toolchain (Imagine the equivalent of BlurXterminator and NoiseXterminator being built in).  With the right “BlurX” like functionality, it can make up for some defects in the optics.  This may require an enhanced processing chip or utilizing the cell phone/tablet computing power.

 

I think much of this can be done in a similar form factor (compact size) and possibly with a modest increase in cost (still well under $1000 perhaps).

 

These would make the S50 a truly powerful tool that would seriously compete with what the average person can do with a custom rig.

Edited by smiller, 07 January 2024 - 02:24 PM.

[Psion]

Yes I also hope there is a follow-model to the S50.

Note that Celestron is announcing “something big” tomorrow on Monday. Nothing is known for sure yet but it MIGHT be their version of a smart-scope based on a new Rasa6 as the optical component. Or they may just be offering a Rasa6 ota as part of their product line and you would need to put together your own system by buying discrete parts. We will see.

I wouldn't be too impressed with the Sestar S80, it's not a significant shift.  I would consider a 6" or 8" RASA with an ASI 533 MC Pro camera to be a nice scope. If it was in the $2-3000 price range, I'd go for it.

[BrentKnight]

Size of the objective is secondary to the size of the FoV.  40mm to 50mm rigs do pretty amazing things - mostly wide-field things though.

 

I'd also like to see more interactive features added to the current Seestar implemented in software.  Given what ZWO has done with the Air though, I don't think this is a priority for them or their Seestar customer base...

[Digital Don]

Although I haven't heard any news of a new product from ZWO, the name suggests they might release a future Seestar S80. As a fan of the current S50, I would be willing to pay for an upgraded version.

 

Hypothetically speaking, if they were developing a new version, what features would you like to see in it? It should be more significant than the S50, and in my opinion, they could skip including a tripod and add more to the product.

 

What would you like to see in the S80?  Higher-end optics, a more extensive camera diagonal, or special app features?

 

I already own the S50, but I would go for the S80 once it becomes available.

 

Thoughts?

Let's skip the '80' and go right to this!  

 

Don

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[Regulus 1.36]

Let's skip the '80' and go right to this!  

 

Don

Awesome!

[Regulus 1.36]

IMHO you don’t need an 80mm scope to significantly upgrade what a SeeStar S50 could do.  Just go look at some of the best Astro photos from people with 50 mm refractors and you’ll see what is possible.

 

An 80mm option would be wonderful, but I think the cost increase would not be worth it unless they improved a few key things that could also be done on the S50:

 

1) A larger sensor, such as the IMX533 11.3x11.3mm 9 megapixel chip or the newer ~7x7mm square sensor Sony recently released.  Images would cover a much larger field of view and be much more than 2 megapixels.  Also, this essentially increases total light gathering power by the ratio of the area of the sensor in a similar way that lowering the F-ratio does.

 

2) To use a larger sensor, you probably need the optics to be closer to a true achromatic with a reducer/field flattener.  So possibly improved fundamental optical glass.

 

3) Supporting an equitorial mode or at least a mode where the scope can be tilted away from the target by a modest angle to greatly reduce field rotation (semi equitorial).   This is being done now by creative individuals but just needs to be officially software supported with hardware that is robust to this mode of operation.

 

4) Improved processing that automates even more of what experienced deep sky astrophotographers do with their sophisticated imaging toolchain (Imagine the equivalent of BlurXterminator and NoiseXterminator being built in).  With the right “BlurX” like functionality, it can make up for some defects in the optics.  This may require an enhanced processing chip or utilizing the cell phone/tablet computing power.

 

I think much of this can be done in a similar form factor (compact size) and possibly with a modest increase in cost (still well under $1000 perhaps).

 

These would make the S50 a truly powerful tool that would seriously compete with what the average person can do with a custom rig.

I agree. Maybe a S50 Pro model with a larger camera sensor, some software enhancements, and features. All I know is I'm done with visual astronomy.  Having such a capable telescope that's small and easily transportable and yet affordable.  

 

As I mentioned, I will use this more for basic EAA. Viewing a tablet, I will spend 2 or 3 minutes per messier object. The images that appear in that time frame are what one would see if they were using a 10" dob. This YouTube shows what I'm talking about. This is going to make a great camping telescope. No need to be dark-adapted and that means I can have a campfire, sit back, and relax. 

 

56 Messier is 5 hours in this mini marathon. https://youtu.be/ppR...l-3c9DHqVLBR9Al

Edited by Regulus 1.36, 08 January 2024 - 05:47 AM.

[Rasfahan]

The S50 isn‘t held back by the size of its lenses. But by their optical quality, the lack of tracking accuracy, the huge delay between subexposures and the generally-shoddy QC. An S80 will not perform any better unless significant improvements are made.

[Nerd1]

The S50 isn‘t held back by the size of its lenses. But by their optical quality, the lack of tracking accuracy, the huge delay between subexposures and the generally-shoddy QC. An S80 will not perform any better unless significant improvements are made.

If I take the time to perfectly level my Seestar, it tracks very good.  My stack rejection rate goes to almost 0. What limits the seestar is the sensor imo. The resolution just isn't there, but thenn again it's 500 bucks.

[BrentKnight]

Honestly I just don't see it.  What would be ZWO's incentive to make a Mach 2 version?

 

Dedicated smart scope manufacturers are all going bigger and more expensive.  They have no other products and so they have to directly compete with other dedicated smart scope manufactures.  They will all have a "line" of smart scopes to chose from - various sizes and prices.

 

ZWO does not need a line of smart scopes.  They have hit a home run with the best bang for the buck setup in the Seestar 50.  Price seems the only bottom line for many folks buying these scopes, and I doubt anyone could make anything as cheap as ZWO's offering.  If folks outgrow the Seestar 50, they will likely migrate to a DIY and ZWO starts making a real profit.  In fact every time any smart scope owner outgrows any smart scope they currently own, ZWO will start making a profit.  When the price of entry goes up into the thousands, folks will consider alternatives.  The only way ZWO would lose out is if people upgrade to different manufacturers smart scopes, and I don't think the jury is out on that actually happening.

 

If ZWO does decide to make a Pro version, I don't see it going in the direction of a bigger telescope (unless it's necessary for a bigger sensor).  Any future updates will be to the processor and more software updates (exactly what they have done with the Air).  I don't see the price or form factor changing much at all.

 

I can see a future where DIY components start taking on more smart scope features though.  Smart mounts sound logical where the control and automation (and power distribution) is built into a standard mount where you could choose your own camera and OTA.

[Regulus 1.36]

Honestly I just don't see it.  What would be ZWO's incentive to make a Mach 2 version?

 

Dedicated smart scope manufacturers are all going bigger and more expensive.  They have no other products and so they have to directly compete with other dedicated smart scope manufactures.  They will all have a "line" of smart scopes to chose from - various sizes and prices.

 

ZWO does not need a line of smart scopes.  They have hit a home run with the best bang for the buck setup in the Seestar 50.  Price seems the only bottom line for many folks buying these scopes, and I doubt anyone could make anything as cheap as ZWO's offering.  If folks outgrow the Seestar 50, they will likely migrate to a DIY and ZWO starts making a real profit.  In fact every time any smart scope owner outgrows any smart scope they currently own, ZWO will start making a profit.  When the price of entry goes up into the thousands, folks will consider alternatives.  The only way ZWO would lose out is if people upgrade to different manufacturers smart scopes, and I don't think the jury is out on that actually happening.

 

If ZWO does decide to make a Pro version, I don't see it going in the direction of a bigger telescope (unless it's necessary for a bigger sensor).  Any future updates will be to the processor and more software updates (exactly what they have done with the Air).  I don't see the price or form factor changing much at all.

 

I can see a future where DIY components start taking on more smart scope features though.  Smart mounts sound logical where the control and automation (and power distribution) is built into a standard mount where you could choose your own camera and OTA.

 

ZWO might not need to produce a line of smart scopes, but they probably will because they can do so. ZWO came out with a hit because it's a low-cost offering, and that's how people recognize the S50 as inexpensive. The next logical move is to expand by offering a higher-lever product for those willing to pay a little more to own a nicer smart scope that's still below the cost of its competitors. 

 

Whether or not the S50 telescope model grows into the S80 version is not important to me because I see my S50 as a replacement for a visual telescope. Although EEA users are a smaller subset, however, if ZWO, the manufacturer, were to target the beginner market with a high-quality smart scope, they could revolutionize astronomy and contribute to its future growth.

 

An 8" Dobsonian telescope typically costs around $700. These telescopes are large, bulky, heavy, and not as capable as a smart scope on DSOs when used in basic EAA mode. Nevertheless, an 8" DOB is the most recommended telescope for new astronomers. The Seestar smart scope only needs a few upgrades to become an excellent all-arounder, and I would be willing to pay for those changes. I believe others would do the same. If ZWO were to create an S50 Pro or S80, they would beat their competitors in pricing and demonstrate their ability to offer a higher-end smart scope.

 

No more waiting for one's eye to become dark adapted while being so effortless to transport and set up.

Edited by Regulus 1.36, 09 January 2024 - 05:57 AM.

[smiller]

Honestly I just don't see it.  What would be ZWO's incentive to make a Mach 2 version?
….

Your logic is based on a lot of assumptions:  

 

1) S50 is not profitable.

2) Future smart scopes can’t be profitable

3) the only path forward for an user of an S 50 is to buy a full Astro photography rig and that is what they’ll want to do, presumablybecause smart telescopes will never produce good enough images.

4) that the smart telescope market can’t be a new market that grows revenue in a significant and profitable way by tapping into a huge new potential set of customers.

 

I would bet against nearly all of these assumptions.  With three startups plus ZWO and now Celestron all producing smart telescopes, it’s pretty obvious what the future holds.   The pace of advancement is breathtaking and technology progress will further enable these smart scopes.

 

This is simply a classic case of “The innovators dilemma “.

Edited by smiller, 09 January 2024 - 10:32 AM.

[Rasfahan]

I see the future of the S50 as follows: Integrated AI processing of the images (by using a different processing unit) will hide any deficits from users. It just is the logical step forwards. We will not get better optics, mechanics or sensors. ZWO is not in the game to lead with quality but with their prices - and software advances are always cheaper than better manufacturing, especially if you just blatantly infringe on others’ copyright.

[BrentKnight]

Your logic is based on a lot of assumptions:  

 

1) S50 is not profitable. I can't imagine S50 makes ZWO much money - there isn't much money there.  It's a viable product for them though as it brings folks into their market.

2) Future smart scopes can’t be profitable.  Not an assumption I made or agree with.  There are two different types of manufacturers here though.  The first type makes nothing but smart telescopes and the other type makes many different types of astro products.  The first type depends on smart telescope sales for their income, the second type does not.

3) the only path forward for an user of an S 50 is to buy a full Astro photography rig and that is what they’ll want to do, presumablybecause smart telescopes will never produce good enough images.  There are many reasons someone goes with a smart telescope.  There will be many reasons why someone will move on from their first smart telescope.  I feel that many folks will chose to upgrade to DIY (especially if more smart technology gets built into the components).  As mentioned in (2), the first type of manufacturer depends on a user upgrading to another smart telescope.  The second type (specifically ZWO) has no real financial reason to prefer an upgrade to another smart telescope - especially given the bulk of their offerings are DIY.

4) that the smart telescope market can’t be a new market that grows revenue in a significant and profitable way by tapping into a huge new potential set of customers.  Again, I never said this.  Obviously smart telescopes are tapping into a new customer base.  This is pretty great for the whole hobby.

 

I would bet against nearly all of these assumptions.  With three startups plus ZWO and now Celestron all producing smart telescopes, it’s pretty obvious what the future holds.   The pace of advancement is breathtaking and technology progress will further enable these smart scopes.

 

This is simply a classic case of “The innovators dilemma “.

Celestron just announced their entry into the Smart Telescope market.  I read a lot about how expensive it is and how big it is (compared to the S50).  I see this as one of the future trends of smart telescopes, that they will get bigger, more expensive and less easy to use.  Especially if Smart Mounts with built-in processors and other as yet undreamed of innovations are added to components, it's going to be less an easy sell to go with an all-in-one device. 

[Tom K]

If I take the time to perfectly level my Seestar, it tracks very good.  My stack rejection rate goes to almost 0. What limits the seestar is the sensor imo. The resolution just isn't there, but thenn again it's 500 bucks.

I picked up one of these and use the bubble level on it before attaching the Seestar.   Every time I am dead nuts - or very, very close.   From there the knobs make dialing it in a breeze.

 

https://www.bhphotov...bble_level.html

[photon08]

the huge delay between subexposures

It got better, but it seems to be still longer than that on eVscope.

[Tom K]

I think there are significant tradeoffs for the simplicity and compactness of these automated scopes.   If I were advising them based on making the most money possible, I would recommend a good enough and cheap enough version like the S50, and then maybe one or two variants of a larger version such as an S80.   Maybe you could have an option as to which imaging chip you want, but not much else.   Too many SKUs and you will confuse folks and make problems to accurately predict inventory.

 

I don't see these devices going equatorial as they will need much more robust structures to deal with the loads on the RA bearing.   This will be compounded by a longer focal length although clever use of mirrors can fold that up neatly.  If I were ZWO I would come out with one more version - a bit larger and with a bit more capabilities.   These products will introduce a bunch of people to astrophotography and some percentage of those will want to do better - like many of us have over decades - and they will convert to the more traditional systems.   

 

Many, many times over the years I have shown my images to folks - even terrestrial photographers - and they want to give it a try, but the very steep learning curve and high price of entry kills that desire every time.   These little - and cheap - scopes will get them hooked and with any luck they will own three or more ZWO cameras just like I do.   This is also why the Celestron system that is nearly 8x the price of an S50 will fail in the marketplace.

 

Just my $0.02

[smiller]

I agree with the sentiment that cost is a big factor in the potential market and the trick is to find that sweet spot for higher volume adoption and defining the targeted user well.  This is so new it’s hard to tell what new users come out of the woodwork and what the potential is.   Clearly ZWO found one at $500.  My gut tells me anything under $1000 may be a pretty fruitful area and good software is key in providing a lower cost way to enhance the bang for the buck.   Much above a grand does feel much less likely to me.    But time will tell…

 

This will may also trigger standard equipment makers to work harder towards bridging the gap in ease of use in configuring and operating a system more classic system.  Or it may spawn ideas and subsystems that help bring that to fruition (ex: ASIAir).

 

In any case, it’s going to be interesting to watch.  I know a neighbor that saw my first basic pictures a year ago and wanted to do it, but there was nothing I could recommend for them: too hard and too expensive for their level of technical skills.   I’m getting the feeling that I’ll have several decent options to suggest within a couple of years.

Edited by smiller, 10 January 2024 - 11:23 AM.

[Phil Cowell]

To be honest an 8” DOB isn’t the target scope for the primary customer base of the S50. They don’t want the collimation hassle or the nudge nudge. Most want to be able to share pictures with friends and family members. With the SeeStar using folded optics the step up to an 80 would not be a huge change. Mostly sensor, optics and any gearing to match the new sizing. The electronics could be common.

It going to be an interesting couple of years. It’ll be interesting to see if the SeeStar and other smart scopes. Are much impact on the dob market. My bet is it will.

 

ZWO might not need to produce a line of smart scopes, but they probably will because they can do so. ZWO came out with a hit because it's a low-cost offering, and that's how people recognize the S50 as inexpensive. The next logical move is to expand by offering a higher-lever product for those willing to pay a little more to own a nicer smart scope that's still below the cost of its competitors. 

 

Whether or not the S50 telescope model grows into the S80 version is not important to me because I see my S50 as a replacement for a visual telescope. Although EEA users are a smaller subset, however, if ZWO, the manufacturer, were to target the beginner market with a high-quality smart scope, they could revolutionize astronomy and contribute to its future growth.

 

An 8" Dobsonian telescope typically costs around $700. These telescopes are large, bulky, heavy, and not as capable as a smart scope on DSOs when used in basic EAA mode. Nevertheless, an 8" DOB is the most recommended telescope for new astronomers. The Seestar smart scope only needs a few upgrades to become an excellent all-arounder, and I would be willing to pay for those changes. I believe others would do the same. If ZWO were to create an S50 Pro or S80, they would beat their competitors in pricing and demonstrate their ability to offer a higher-end smart scope.

 

No more waiting for one's eye to become dark adapted while being so effortless to transport and set up.

[Phil Cowell]

I think the Celestron will do fine. If the current configuration doesn’t work well in the market they still have 6” RASA OTA’s. Its a no lose.

 

I think there are significant tradeoffs for the simplicity and compactness of these automated scopes.   If I were advising them based on making the most money possible, I would recommend a good enough and cheap enough version like the S50, and then maybe one or two variants of a larger version such as an S80.   Maybe you could have an option as to which imaging chip you want, but not much else.   Too many SKUs and you will confuse folks and make problems to accurately predict inventory.

 

I don't see these devices going equatorial as they will need much more robust structures to deal with the loads on the RA bearing.   This will be compounded by a longer focal length although clever use of mirrors can fold that up neatly.  If I were ZWO I would come out with one more version - a bit larger and with a bit more capabilities.   These products will introduce a bunch of people to astrophotography and some percentage of those will want to do better - like many of us have over decades - and they will convert to the more traditional systems.   

 

Many, many times over the years I have shown my images to folks - even terrestrial photographers - and they want to give it a try, but the very steep learning curve and high price of entry kills that desire every time.   These little - and cheap - scopes will get them hooked and with any luck they will own three or more ZWO cameras just like I do.   This is also why the Celestron system that is nearly 8x the price of an S50 will fail in the marketplace.

 

Just my $0.02

[Regulus 1.36]

Celestron just announced their entry into the Smart Telescope market. I read a lot about how expensive it is and how big it is (compared to the S50). I see this as one of the future trends of smart telescopes, that they will get bigger, more expensive and less easy to use. Especially if Smart Mounts with built-in processors and other as yet undreamed of innovations are added to components, it's going to be less an easy sell to go with an all-in-one device.

I like Celestron's entry into the smart telescope market, but it's quite expensive. While it may be capable, one can easily put together a system on their own that is far more capable and less costly. However, what you're really paying for here is convenience.

The S50 shines in terms of convenience because not only is it easy to use, but its abilities far exceed its price point. It's difficult to put together an astrophotography or EAA rig for less than what the S50 costs.

Even us visual astronomers are using less effective equipment that costs more.

The SeeStar S50's true potential has been overlooked despite its many advantages over other entry-level telescopes. Even at a price point of $1000, which is comparable to a 10" dob, the S50 offers a unique experience that makes it stand out over any entry-level visual telescope.

However, SeeStar is only marketed as an astrophotography scope. Hopefully, someone will work on expanding its uses.

EAA & Astrophotography are two different ways of viewing with the same rig.

Edited by Regulus 1.36, 25 January 2024 - 08:16 AM.