3768 replies to this topic

[Rac19]

I would think a rasa f2 6" system would have quite a substantial image  circle.

 

Similar to a C6 hyperstar v4:

 

https://starizona.co...cts/hyperstar-6

 

maximum usable sensor diagonal 28mm, whereas the Origin sensor is a miniscule 8.9mm, 1/3 the limit.

 

an asi2600 is 28.3mm as a reference.

 

Bob

It does seem that the sensor size is much smaller than it could be. It's not a cheap unit so you would think that a sensor size which matches the available image circle would a given.

Edited by Rac19, 14 January 2024 - 02:14 PM.

[jprideaux]

For most objects and must of their intended customers the IMX178 should be fine. To satisfy those those that want to take better advantage of the available image circle, Celestron will probably offer an upgrade package with a larger sensor (hopefully with a region-of-interest option in the App user-interface). If this is the case and if Celestron is smart, they should give some details about their upgrade plan and verify if the firmware must be matched to the sensor options or whether the user is free to just put on any sensor that they may happen to have.

[Psion]

I think it would be counterproductive for Celestron to announce an upgrade to a better camera today, it would kill sales of this model. It's clear that only their camera will go into the Origin, so has every manufacturer.

[Wildetelescope]

It does seem that the sensor size is much smaller than it could be. It's not a cheap unit so you would think that a sensor size which matches the available image circle would because given.

Larger sensor means larger housing.   They want to keep the foot print of the camera small so that it does not increase the effective size of the central obstruction.   This is why ALL these scopes are using 1/2 nd 1/3 inch sensors.  Anything bigger requires bigger everything including cost. 

 

JMD

[GSBass]

Just thinking no one is happy with fov or camera that I can see, they have time and resources to correct the error before shipment if they are nimble at all…. If they are not then they at least have time to choose a new camera and announce availability later in the year..

I guess it comes down to how much importance they have placed in making origin a success. I think it’s a fail if they don’t address this before shipment. The only thing I can think of that might help their case is a demonstrable mosaic mode.

I think it would be counterproductive for Celestron to announce an upgrade to a better camera today, it would kill sales of this model. It's clear that only their camera will go into the Origin, so has every manufacturer.

[smiller]

Larger sensor means larger housing.   They want to keep the foot print of the camera small so that it does not increase the effective size of the central obstruction.   This is why ALL these scopes are using 1/2 nd 1/3 inch sensors.  Anything bigger requires bigger everything including cost. 

 

JMD

I don’t believe that is true with most current cameras.  Look at these planetary cameras from ZWO.  Both the 11.3x11.3mm IMX533 and the 19x13mm IMX294 are in the same housing as the IMX178 cameras below.  Apologies for hand written text:

 

 

Yes, in the limit, the camera can’t be shrunk to the size of the sensor but these cameras aren’t even close to having a housing that is encroaching on the sensor size.   When you look at the camera they unscrew from the Origin scope it’s clear that the housing is much larger than the sensor…. much much larger. It’s easy to imagine engineers putting a slightly larger sensor into that housing.
 

Having been a technical lead for electro-mechanical/digital/Firmware engineering teams for small consumer imaging products for years, I just say this: Don’t underestimate the ability of engineers to improve products and find solutions to simple problems like this.

Edited by smiller, 14 January 2024 - 03:13 PM.

[amitshesh]

Could it be that the origin is so expensive because almost all it's parts are newly designed?

Usually the saving would come from manufacturing at scale and reusing. It appears to me that the only part that largely still exists is the evo like mount. Celestron has designed the OTA from scratch, the internal focusing mechanism from scratch, the camera housing from scratch. So despite being a major telescope maker, they are closer to a vespera in that they have to have a separate exclusive manufacturing process for building the origin. So they have to recover costs by passing them on to the customer, just like pretty much all the startups in this sphere.

Edited by amitshesh, 14 January 2024 - 09:54 AM.

[smiller]

Could it be that the origin is so expensive because almost all it's parts are newly designed?

Usually the saving would come from manufacturing at scale and reusing. It appears to me that the only part that largely still exists is the evo like mount. Celestron has designed the OTA from scratch, the internal focusing mechanism from scratch, the camera housing from scratch. So despite being a major telescope maker, they are closer to a vespera in that they have to have a separate exclusive manufacturing process for building the origin. So they have to recover costs by passing them on to the customer, just like pretty much all the startups in this sphere.

I think that’s a big part.  There is a very strong price volume curve for highly engineered low volume products because the initial R&D cost is a strong component just like tooling (another fixed initial cost), material cost and manufacturing assembly labor costs.

 

When volumes increase, or you start leveraging your components into new products, then this R&D and tooling overhead starts to drop and that can be a big factor early in a product evolutionary cycle.

 

As volumes increase or overtime, the initial R&D cost and initial tooling cost starts to get amortized over more and more products and pretty soon you’re down to the variable costs of a mature product:   material cost, assembly labor and factory overhead, sales and warranty costs, and gross margin.

Edited by smiller, 14 January 2024 - 10:25 AM.

[Digital Don]

Could it be that the origin is so expensive because almost all it's parts are newly designed?
 

The ZWO Seestar is also a completely new design and only costs 1/8 the price of the Origin.

 

In all fairness to Celestron, the Origin is a different class of instrument so one would expect it to be more expensive.  

 

The ultimate question is which one meets your expectations.  If it's the Seestar, you're ahead $3500, if it's the Origin, you're not!

 

Don

[smiller]

The ZWO Seestar is also a completely new design and only costs 1/8 the price of the Origin.

 

In all fairness to Celestron, the Origin is a different class of instrument so one would expect it to be more expensive.  

 

The ultimate question is which one meets your expectations.  If it's the Seestar, you're ahead $3500, if it's the Origin, you're not!

 

Don

This is dependent on the sales expectations and how they distribute the fixed R&D costs on a per unit basis.  Let’s say the Celestron costs about 2x to design but ZWO expects 10 times as many to be sold.  Then the R&D cost would contribute about 2/0.1 = 20x as much per unit to the Celestron as the SeeStar.  These numbers are just meant to be illustrative.

 

Sort of like why high-zoot sports cars (or fighter planes) cost a lot more… is the Origin the sports car of robo-scopes?  Curios minds want to know…

Edited by smiller, 14 January 2024 - 08:40 PM.

[GSBass]

If someone is looking at Celestron, they will be comparing to vespera pro, not seestar, seestar is last robot on market with just a 2mp sensor, everyone else has moved on, it’s why I expect zwo to announce a new entry this spring, it’s only good to be the cheapest when things are equal

The ZWO Seestar is also a completely new design and only costs 1/8 the price of the Origin.

 

In all fairness to Celestron, the Origin is a different class of instrument so one would expect it to be more expensive.  

 

The ultimate question is which one meets your expectations.  If it's the Seestar, you're ahead $3500, if it's the Origin, you're not!

 

Don

[firemachine69]

exactly. the asi178mc-like sensor is 8.92mm diagonal and totally wastes that fast focal length. At least an APS-C size, which would add $1k to the price.

 

Total fail, IMO

 

Bob

 

 

For the price, it should come with a 533, at least. 

[GSBass]

Yeah, makes zero sense…. The only people they are making happy is their competition

For the price, it should come with a 533, at least. 

[ColSanderz]

If it had a 533 (mono or color) , I would have already pre-ordered it. Or the 676. 

 

Well, we'll see what they come up with for upgrades. Maybe this initial offering should be ignored anyways until their app and stacking is proven via reviews and user samples. 

For the price, it should come with a 533, at least. 

[Rac19]

If the previously stated, potential image circle of 28 mm is correct, the IMX294 (28 mm diagonal) would be a good match. The IMX533 (diagonal 16 mm) would be an improvement and a square sensor is appropriate for handling field rotation.

 

It does seem that a common house should be feasable for all three sensors making it possible to give customers a choice, at an appropriate price premium for the larger sensor.

 

EDIT: One issue could be the ability of the Rasberry Pi to process the larger images quic

y enough for EAA. Post processing images copied to a PC should be OK though.

Edited by Rac19, 14 January 2024 - 10:30 PM.

[eyeoftexas]

… it’s only good to be the cheapest when things are equal

Not completely.  If ZWO is making a profit on each one sold, then all they need is to keep this niche of the market. They have sold a lot of units, and probably have cornered the low cost market (only the D2 to compete).  This is a good niche to have because a lot of people who are novices and pondering should they try taking photos will gravitate to them. It’s better to be out only $500 than $4K when you discover you don’t have time/skills/interest it takes to make nice pictures.

The other consideration ZWO is taking is whether the Seestar is the direct line to their other products (cameras, Air, mounts) or is the next step to Vespera or Origins.  If the latter then they would definitely be wise to go for that market.  Of course, they could want the entire market and then we’ll see the ZWO versions of those.

[Rac19]

 It’s better to be out only $500 than $4K when you discover you don’t have time/skills/interest it takes to make nice pictures.

I think that is where the SeeStar has a niche to itself. Another market could be customers who want to satisfy their curiosity but do not want to make a big commitment (in time or money). It is, of course, very portable as well.

[GSBass]

It would certainly be stupid if they did not expand … clock is ticking for skywatcher to release their cheap bot now that synta has already bought the software and they are positioned to sell far more than zwo. Market will start evolving fast now….. I personally am not interested in the cheap bots but that will soon be the most crowded space I think

Not completely.  If ZWO is making a profit on each one sold, then all they need is to keep this niche of the market. They have sold a lot of units, and probably have cornered the low cost market (only the D2 to compete).  This is a good niche to have because a lot of people who are novices and pondering should they try taking photos will gravitate to them. It’s better to be out only $500 than $4K when you discover you don’t have time/skills/interest it takes to make nice pictures.

The other consideration ZWO is taking is whether the Seestar is the direct line to their other products (cameras, Air, mounts) or is the next step to Vespera or Origins.  If the latter then they would definitely be wise to go for that market.  Of course, they could want the entire market and then we’ll see the ZWO versions of those.

[Psion]

A lot of people bought the Seestar because the price of $500 is such that they wanted to give it a try, and they do astronomy marginally. Even astronomers bought it out of curiosity. I'm afraid significantly fewer people, I'd say hundreds, will buy a Celestron in this design. I was looking at how many total Vesper telescopes were sold in 3 years, I think 2.5k if I understand correctly.

I am very familiar with the astronomy community here, we often meet in person at large events, the astronomy forum works very well, and I have only seen 5 eVscopes here, two of which were bought by institutions and three by individuals. Astronomical equipment on a much better level than smart telescopes is owned by at least 4-5k people in our country. Of the astronomers who take very high-quality images, almost nobody wants it because the quality they are used to is not yet achievable with smart telescopes.

[GSBass]

Although not indicative of total amount of owners, just the fb groups of the top 4 robotic scope makers have over 27,000 members and probably the amount of lurkers there are equal to owners that never join those groups and prefer other social media. The robotic movement is huge in our hobby and is bringing lots of new people in….. additionally Vaonis sold 14000 hestia scopes in a month, although not a robot it does stack and seems likely to me a portion of that crowd will buy seestars or vesperas after they get a taste of limited Dso imaging. So that’s why I am very confident there will be a ton of robotic entries coming… the market is very hot and a ton of money will be made

A lot of people bought the Seestar because the price of $500 is such that they wanted to give it a try, and they do astronomy marginally. Even astronomers bought it out of curiosity. I'm afraid significantly fewer people, I'd say hundreds, will buy a Celestron in this design. I was looking at how many total Vesper telescopes were sold in 3 years, I think 2.5k if I understand correctly.

I am very familiar with the astronomy community here, we often meet in person at large events, the astronomy forum works very well, and I have only seen 5 eVscopes here, two of which were bought by institutions and three by individuals. Astronomical equipment on a much better level than smart telescopes is owned by at least 4-5k people in our country. Of the astronomers who take very high-quality images, almost nobody wants it because the quality they are used to is not yet achievable with smart telescopes.

[amitshesh]

The ZWO Seestar is also a completely new design and only costs 1/8 the price of the Origin.

In all fairness to Celestron, the Origin is a different class of instrument so one would expect it to be more expensive.

The ultimate question is which one meets your expectations. If it's the Seestar, you're ahead $3500, if it's the Origin, you're not!

Don

Looking at the hardware of the seestar: either zwo is barely breaking even with them/losing money, or the hardware is not exactly what they claim. Seestar does not, for example, say what glass is used in it.

Other cost savings are in the form of the design of their OTA which is more bare bones than a conventional OTA needs to be.

It's interesting that the place of manufacture discrepancy does not exist between seestar and origin. Both are made in China. Vaonis has substantially more dev and manufacturing costs, being located in France.

[Psion]

Think of it as fiction, but this is my estimate of sales for the first year after the smart telescope launch. The Y-axis is the number of units sold and the X-axis is the price of the device. 

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[GSBass]

I’m sure the bean counters made sure they had a healthy profit, 500 dollar systems are always going to be very cheaply made and how long they will last is an unknown, my dwarf is also entirely plastic…. Hopefully it will last a while but do not expect it to last many years, those parts will wear or break and it’s not feasible to repair… seestar is in that same boat. Vaonis products are a higher quality and it is feasible to repair them up to a point…. But they do become out dated and so decision have to be made on whether it’s worthwhile to repair or upgrade…. I think that can be seen with stellina scopes now… you can repair but does it make economic sense……. Sooooo long story short, I think smart scope makers should design for minimum of 5 years trouble free operation, designing to last longer is great but I think obsolescence is a new word in our hobby that has to be considered because these are appliances more than traditional lifetime purchases

Looking at the hardware of the seestar: either zwo is barely breaking even with them/losing money, or the hardware is not exactly what they claim. Seestar does not, for example, say what glass is used in it.

Other cost savings are in the form of the design of their OTA which is more bare bones than a conventional OTA needs to be.

It's interesting that the place of manufacture discrepancy does not exist between seestar and origin. Both are made in China. Vaonis has substantially more dev and manufacturing costs, being located in France.

[Wildetelescope]

Looking at the hardware of the seestar: either zwo is barely breaking even with them/losing money, or the hardware is not exactly what they claim. Seestar does not, for example, say what glass is used in it.

Other cost savings are in the form of the design of their OTA which is more bare bones than a conventional OTA needs to be.

It's interesting that the place of manufacture discrepancy does not exist between seestar and origin. Both are made in China. Vaonis has substantially more dev and manufacturing costs, being located in France.

The color correction is not bad given how fast the scope is.  UV/IR cut filter cleans things up a lot, narrow band filter more so.  Glass is probably FPL 51 comparable.  I am betting that the 2 inch triplet is used in some other application that is massed produced already, so they are leveraging economies of scale.  Filters are just big enough to cover the sensor, which is clever and cost saving.  There is an entire group of folks that have already cut into these things to do mods.  The mechanics are very basic. Bushings vs bearings etc….  About what one would expect for the price point.  I guarantee that the Vaonis instruments have higher grade internal mechanics.  But the design works for the Seestar.  It is really a rather slick piece of engineering, balancing cost and functionality. 

 

JMD

[Psion]

In my experience with testing many tens of telescopes, it is obvious that Seestar has better correction of chromatic aberration, better said spherochromatism. In my opinion there could be FCD100 glass which is equivalent to FPL-53. Vespera C and Vespera P have a significantly worse correction and have FPL-51, Vespera II has FPL-52.