106 replies to this topic

[Dpasqa]

I’ve been happy with my Vespera Passenger and have enjoyed it for a year. Right now I’m wanting more, like seeing planets and sharper images. I a.so have run out of desirable things to image, most are too small to bother with and a lot of nebula are not in the database the one good thing is Celestron integrates with SkySafari like most forward thinking smart scopes do. Without SkySafari and limited items in the database I’ve run out of large enough targets to image. 
 

I don’t know if the origin will deliver enough of the improvements I’m hoping for but at 4K it is daunting to consider dropping that much money. 
 

I look at Vespera Pro but that may or may not show better images but you’re stillimited by the aperture size. I’m glad they are shipping soon so I can read reviews and won’t but til they work out the bugs,probably this time next year. 
 

I’m not bad rapping Vaonis, my Passenger is incredible, I just would like more. 
 

What are you guys thinking about the origin. 

Edited by Dpasqa, 19 April 2024 - 10:03 AM.

[Psion]

I don't think you'll get that much more help with the Celestron Origin. The arcsecond/pixel resolution is very similar to the PRO version, and the lens diameter will allow for better resolution (Dawes limit). However, I wouldn't have high expectations from Celestron.

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[Doug Culbertson]

I don't think you'll get that much more help with the Celestron Origin. The arcsecond/pixel resolution is very similar to the PRO version, and the lens diameter will allow for better resolution (Dawes limit). However, I wouldn't have high expectations from Celestron.

That's a great visual comparison; thanks for posting it! 

[Dpasqa]

I don't think you'll get that much more help with the Celestron Origin. The arcsecond/pixel resolution is very similar to the PRO version, and the lens diameter will allow for better resolution (Dawes limit). However, I wouldn't have high expectations from Celestron.

Very interesting. I’ll reserve judgement til I see real photos but on paper it looks pretty good to ms. 

[eportis]

I have ordered the Origin because of its speed. I do EAA and am primarily interested in seeing an image develop rather than producing an image comparable to what a dedicated astro-photographer could achieve. If one is primarily interested in the final image rather than the visual experience I suppose the Pro could be just as effective as the Origin for less money, but will take more time.

[Psion]

Yes, it takes significantly more time. However, it will depend very much on the processing by Celestron's software.

[carolinaskies]

Yes, it takes significantly more time. However, it will depend very much on the processing by Celestron's software.

Processing isn't going to be an issue just like it hasn't been for other smart scopes because the stacking is based on a cumulative last + 1 rather than reprocessing an entire stack every new image taken.  Celestron should have a much different feel than other smart scopes since they've developed all kinds of new software systems for hardware accessories and don't typically 'rush to market' and then have to readjust like Vaonis having to reengineer it's interface.  

Where I see the Origin marking it's deliniation is in the quality of the 150mm light bucket with F/2 speed.  When you start looking at comparative images, aperture always bears out.  And while my Seestar puts up marvelous images for 10s image stacks, there is no replacement for 3x the aperture even with similar pixel scale because you're still gettign lots more photons on those pixels. 

[RW2024]

Processing isn't going to be an issue just like it hasn't been for other smart scopes because the stacking is based on a cumulative last + 1 rather than reprocessing an entire stack every new image taken.  Celestron should have a much different feel than other smart scopes since they've developed all kinds of new software systems for hardware accessories and don't typically 'rush to market' and then have to readjust like Vaonis having to reengineer it's interface.  

Where I see the Origin marking it's deliniation is in the quality of the 150mm light bucket with F/2 speed.  When you start looking at comparative images, aperture always bears out.  And while my Seestar puts up marvelous images for 10s image stacks, there is no replacement for 3x the aperture even with similar pixel scale because you're still gettign lots more photons on those pixels. 

My concern with the Origin is that 63mm (41%) of the aperture is obstructed so it's not truly 3x and I'm not thrilled with the sensor shipping with it.

What intrigues me is the EQ mount possibilities, sensor upgrade capacity and integration with the StarSense Autoguider which are planned for after release.  I will be watching these specific developments and then decide whether or not to pursue.

[Dpasqa]

All I’m hoping for is a decent upgrade on the quality of the images and the ability to study the planets. I’ll be looking for pictures and reviews  I’m not wasting so much money for a tiny upgrade if that is all you get. We’ll have to wait and see. 

[jprideaux]

I predict it will initially be a mixed bag where it excels beyond the other smart telescopes in some things, is about the same in others, and will lag behind in other things.

 

Excelling ahead will be in getting a decent image faster and also with a bit more resolution.

Lagging behind will be in imaging very large things (as compared to the nice Vaonis mosaic mode) and it won't be nearly as portable.

The ace in the hole for the Origin will be the promise of future significant improvements like equatorial mode and upgrading the sensor.

 

It still won't be all that good for planets.  335 mm focal-length is not really appropriate for planets.  Like the other Smart-telescopes, it is really designed just for DSO (and moon).  I'm sure you could also put a DIY solar filter on it as well.

[carolinaskies]

My concern with the Origin is that 63mm (41%) of the aperture is obstructed so it's not truly 3x and I'm not thrilled with the sensor shipping with it.

What intrigues me is the EQ mount possibilities, sensor upgrade capacity and integration with the StarSense Autoguider which are planned for after release.  I will be watching these specific developments and then decide whether or not to pursue.

The relative collective difference is still significant because the area of a collection of the unobstructed portion is much larger.  152mm vs 63mm is 15028cubic mm more unobstructed vs 3117 obstructed.  This is very significant light gathering.  The sensor allows a much higher resolution than most other smart telescopes.  It also has a filter drawer making it unlike all other smart scopes.  I'm sure it will be implementing the ability to image a larger region than the sensor, it's a thing which most expect any smart scope will eventually have. 

 

[wizzlebippi]

The relative collective difference is still significant because the area of a collection of the unobstructed portion is much larger.  152mm vs 63mm is 15028cubic mm more unobstructed vs 3117 obstructed.  This is very significant light gathering.  The sensor allows a much higher resolution than most other smart telescopes.  It also has a filter drawer making it unlike all other smart scopes.  I'm sure it will be implementing the ability to image a larger region than the sensor, it's a thing which most expect any smart scope will eventually have. 

 

Yes, you are obstructing a portion of the aperture, and 63mm or 41% of diameter sounds huge, but the equivalent unobstructed aperture for 15028 sq mm is 138mm or 5.44".  By smart telescope standards, that's still huge.  

[Psion]

Yes, so far it's the largest aperture among smart telescopes, but the old camera with a small sensor significantly degrades it.

Edited by Psion, 20 April 2024 - 02:00 PM.

[wizzlebippi]

Agreed.  If it were up to me, I would probably have paired the 6" RASA with an IMX678 instead of the IMX178.  

[jprideaux]

I saw this link on Facebook from a beta-tester.  1 hour on M13.  Just the auto-processed JPG "as is" as saved on his iPhone.

[Dale Smith]

That's impressive!

[Bill Jensen]

I saw this link on Facebook from a beta-tester.  1 hour on M13.  Just the auto-processed JPG "as is" as saved on his iPhone.

Richard Berry served as the longtime editor of Astronomy Magazine, among his many accomplishments . 

[FloP]

an IMX676 IMX533 pair would be even better.

Agreed.  If it were up to me, I would probably have paired the 6" RASA with an IMX678 instead of the IMX178.  

Edited by FloP, 21 April 2024 - 06:31 AM.

[Psion]

Here is my M13 from Seestar, for comparison.

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[Digital Don]

Here is my M13 from Seestar, for comparison.

I find the comparison quite informative.  Yes, the Origin image is 'better' - the stars are sharper and there is more contrast.  But it's not 8 times better.  

 

The Origin is, however, 8 times as expensive as the Seestar.  For that difference in price, I would require a similar increase in performance before I would be interested.

 

Don

[Psion]

You can adjust the sharpness with a single click on the Sharp slider. I would rather see better colour rendering of M13 in Origin; these colours are dull and poor, with lots of blue and red stars. Furthermore, I would imagine it showing a 20-minute exposure compared to a 60-minute exposure at Seestar. So far, Origin still doesn't convince me.

[eportis]

Everyone has to decide on what they can and are willing to pay for marginal improvements, but by my estimate if one wants an eightfold improvement on Psion's M13 image we are probably talking Hubble and millions rather than 4K. In one aspect Psion's Seestar image is a better image than that from the Origin in that the center is not quite as blown out. I would very much like to see a 20-minute image of M13 from the Origin. Given how bright an object it is I suspect that it would be impressive enough and more relevant to my EAA perspective.

[Dpasqa]

I am sitting on the fence on this. I want one but like many have said, it may not offer enough improvements to justify 4K. I’m waiting for them to be out and images start showing up online. Then I’ll decide. I’ve imaged most of the large nebula so I’m out of new targets. The Celestron interfaces with SkySafari, that makes it easy to find any target out there. That is big bit the images have to be better too. 

[sevenofnine]

+1 with Digital Don. 8x better image than Seestar?...I seriously doubt it. For that kind of money I would buy a rock solid electronic EQ mount with a decent 80mm ED refractor and camera plus accessories to make photos that are definitely 8x better. This book will show you how:

 

https://www.amazon.c...aps,1145&sr=8-1.

 

However, I still like the little snapshots of the night sky from my Seestar 

 

.

Edited by sevenofnine, 22 April 2024 - 05:29 PM.

[jprideaux]

I saw this link on Facebook of a presentation that Celestron apparently gave at NEAF.

 

https://celestron-si...AF 2024_rev.pdf

 

They said the Origin was first proposed to Celestron management back in 2010  (14 years ago).  Wheels must move slowly at Celestron.

 

Of interest (to me) is the last slide where they lay out a tentative road-map.

 

Phase 1.1 – expected by end of 2024
• Wedge functionality
• Polar alignment routine
• SSAG support

 

Phase 1.2 – sometime in 2025
• Upgrade camera

 

Phase 2.0 - more speculative (things could change or get added)
• Mosaics
• Identification of all objects in FOV
• This can also help with AI image processing
• Automatic best camera settings
• Currently we just use a default of ISO 200 Exp 10 sec. as “auto setting”
• We envision that Origin can look at the sky and determine best settings by
going through a routine
• Region of Interest (primarily to help in low bandwidth scenarios)
• Video capture (primarily for daytime use)