61 replies to this topic

[Demarki]

The Celestron Origin is meant to be a premium, top-of-the-line smart telescope aimed at people with a lot of disposable income.

 

Please explain to me why does this premium $4000 smart telescope comes with an outdated IMX178 while the budget $450 Dwarf 3 comes with a Starvis 2 IMX678?

[Psion]

Nor will anyone explain why they put the telescope on an obsolete heavy mount.

[bradhaak]

I have a great idea for you...

 

Don't buy the Origin. It does everything Celestron promised in less time than its competitors.

 

Smart scopes are literally the sum of their parts, and the only things to judge by are the price and the output they produce. The Origin is expensive and produces better images in less time than its competitors. 

 

There's an old saying in auto racing, "Speed is money. How fast do you want to go?"

 

We've all known the corollary saying for telescopes even if we've never verbalized. it, "Better images are money. How good do you want yours to be?"

 

I don't understand why people think anything else matters. Apparently you are experts in smart telescopes design, I can't wait until you start a company, raise money and make your own. If it's good, I might buy one. 

Edited by bradhaak, 25 August 2024 - 04:54 PM.

[Psion]

I agree and will not buy an Origin, nor will I buy a 6 year old car. I bought a better Celestron RASA 8", a modern Harmonic Equatorial Mount weighing 6,5 kg with tripod and a modern cooled camera. All for the price of an Origin with half the weight and significantly more performance.

[Goldypoker]

The Celestron Origin is meant to be a premium, top-of-the-line smart telescope aimed at people with a lot of disposable income.

 

Please explain to me why does this premium $4000 smart telescope comes with an outdated IMX178 while the budget $450 Dwarf 3 comes with a Starvis 2 IMX678?

 

Nor will anyone explain why they put the telescope on an obsolete heavy mount.

The Celestron Origin is THE premium, top of the line smart telescope….aimed at people who want the best possible smart scope experience currently available on the market and are willing to pay for it accordingly. I love mine, and couldn’t give a darn what chip, mount or tripod component was used in its construction. In fact, my only concern was and is….will it produce the best images of all the available smart scopes, without the user being required to extensively (and/or expertly) post process them. While everyone is entitled to their own opinion in this respect…..all that matters to me after plunking down the $$$ is my own opinion, based on my own experience and comparisons. As such, I am thrilled with it. 

 

Enjoy the Dwarf 3 and its cutting edge technology chip. Maybe third time will be the charm for Dwarf labs? I have absolutely no interest in it (or the value of its components), nor will you hear me asking why Dwarf didn’t provide an aperture worthy of my interest….to each their own.

[bradhaak]

Psion - And you purchased complexity to go along with the performance. Especially if you didn't also buy an ASIAIR or something equivalent to manage everything, and that would most likely blow your budget of equaling the Origin. And, oh yeah, you need to buy an electronic focuser, too. Wait, I almost forgot, you need an auto-alignment system, and software to unify everything without constant configuration issues. It's a shame that the last items don't exist, though, isn't it.

 

I don't believe that anyone has ever said that a more powerful/complex system can't be put together, and with some compromises, can equal the price of even the most expensive of the smart telescopes. The issue for me comes down to whether or not I want to deal with the added complexity, and after watching various technically oriented people fight and struggle with setup, alignment, focusing, and usage, I chose not to deal with it. I believe that most of the other folks on this forum believe the same thing. And while all voices should be and are welcome, repeated critical opinions do get rather boring. Please continue expressing them if you need to validate your own decisions, but at least have the decency to respect other opinions that don't necessarily match yours. 

 

Edit - yeah, my typing sucks...

Edited by bradhaak, 26 August 2024 - 12:06 PM.

[Psion]

I bought my gear a few years before Origin, so it didn't break the budget, and I've been enjoying it for a long time. Admittedly, my total budget for astronomy was $70,000.

 

Please respect my opinion that I want a better telescope for the money, I don't need to save money, that's all.

[bradhaak]

I do. I only request the same, and money is the least of my concerns, too. And technical ability/knowledge isn't an issue either. 

 

And using what was paid years ago as a comparison today is more than slightly specious. But I won't say I've never done something similar to bolster my point of view. 

[Demarki]

I have a great idea for you...

 

Don't buy the Origin. It does everything Celestron promised in less time than its competitors.

 

Smart scopes are literally the sum of their parts, and the only things to judge by are the price and the output they produce. The Origin is expensive and produces better images in less time than its competitors. 

 

There's an old saying in auto racing, "Speed is money. How fast do you want to go?"

 

We've all known the corollary saying for telescopes even if we've never verbalized. it, "Better images are money. How good do you want yours to be?"

 

I don't understand why people think anything else matters. Apparently you are experts in smart telescopes design, I can't wait until you start a company, raise money and make your own. If it's good, I might buy one. 

You are right, I won't be buying the Origin because they chose to use cheap, sub-par parts on a $4K smart telescope in order to make more profit. If it had a camera sensor and mount worth of that price they are asking I would have purchased one. If Dwarflabs can afford putting a new, high res, low noise camera sensor on their $450 telescope so does Celestron for their $4K telescope. There is simply no excuse apart from making more profit.

[chrisecurtis]

You are right, I won't be buying the Origin because they chose to use cheap, sub-par parts on a $4K smart telescope in order to make more profit. If it had a camera sensor and mount worth of that price they are asking I would have purchased one. If Dwarflabs can afford putting a new, high res, low noise camera sensor on their $450 telescope so does Celestron for their $4K telescope. There is simply no excuse apart from making more profit.

Be careful what you wish for. Marrying a sensor to a set of optics, a mount and software is NOT about installing the latest and greatest (there's no such thing) but a careful set of compromises to get the optimum result. 

 

I don't know why Celestron chose that sensor, but I doubt they did it just to annoy you.

[bradhaak]

You are right, I won't be buying the Origin because they chose to use cheap, sub-par parts on a $4K smart telescope in order to make more profit. If it had a camera sensor and mount worth of that price they are asking I would have purchased one. If Dwarflabs can afford putting a new, high res, low noise camera sensor on their $450 telescope so does Celestron for their $4K telescope. There is simply no excuse apart from making more profit.

I'm just trying to figure out what 'cheap sub-par parts you're talking about. This discussion seems to go in circles where you make what sound like authoritive statements but are just opinions, that aren't backed them up with facts. 

 

Facts: The Origin is expensive. It works very well. Because of irs aperture the Origin acquires data faster than it's competition and dumps extremely detailed images out the other end  of the workflow. The data, both processed and raw are cleaner than what I've seen from any other scope. The mount is heavily reworked, fast, robust and integrates with the other components. The aperture means it is relatively heavy and as a result so are it's components

 

Opinion:  If the Origin works as well as it does AND irritates some of the local experts it's a double bonus.

 

Vaonis jammed a state of the art sensor into the Vespera Pro and have a system that is very slow to acquire data. Folks need to figure out that a smart scope is a system and needs to be viewed that way. But the Pro does have  a new sensor, so it fits your criteria. You should buy one.

 

And based on the early images from thr Dwarf 3, $500 might be a little high. Lots of pixels front a mediocre system. They seem to be more concerned with size and specs than image quality . That's great, but I'd rather make better pictures. And, let's not forget about the scenery mode. It might be a good choice for you, too.

 

But, I'm not sure how to take this entire thread, ans I probably made a mistake replying to it. I hope that you are able to find a product that meets your standards. If not, perhaps you should spend the cash to go Psion's very legitimate route of a custom rig from components so that you can pick and choose the ones that are optimal based on your criteria. 

 

I sincerely wish you good luck.

 

I'm out.

[Max-OP]

This video does an excellent job of explaining how Celestron optimized the sensor and software to produce an easy to use, robotic telescope that works extremely well. 

 

https://youtu.be/A_XHd76JaNI

 

I was pleasantly surprised by the sophistication of the software and the images it produces. It is important to remember that in any technology solution it is not about speeds & feeds, but integrating individual components to produce a desired an result. The market seems to indicate Celestron has a very successful product here. Here are a few sample images from a long time visual astronomer. There was no guiding, fiddling with cables or integrating cameras, focusers or dew heaters. I just turned on the telescope and began imaging. No polar aligning. I am not an experienced imager and I do not use any image processing software. My goal is to learn how to enhance RAW files, but that will be later. 

Can an experienced imager build a fancier rig? Sure. But there is a large group of folks that really enjoy the speed and convenience of the Origin. 

Attached Thumbnails

• 
• 
• 

[LDW47]

Nice photos but not $6000 C nice.  Its a dam hobby, which as we all know will keep changing like the wind.  Right, eh !   PS:  And as to the vid. the guy is a salesman just like any other salesman, all sorts of figures that very few will remember how they work in a week or so, lol.

Edited by LDW47, 27 August 2024 - 09:32 PM.

[bradhaak]

For one person the price is too much. For another it's just right. For a third person it's a bargain.

 

Price vs value is subjective. So for you, you're obviously correct. For another person you're not. Don't judge your opinions or your values to be correct for everyone.

[gstrumol]

Remember folks - this is a hobby that is designed to give us joy. If someone is happy with the results they are getting and what it cost, then that's great for them!

[SandyHouTex]

I agree and will not buy an Origin, nor will I buy a 6 year old car. I bought a better Celestron RASA 8", a modern Harmonic Equatorial Mount weighing 6,5 kg with tripod and a modern cooled camera. All for the price of an Origin with half the weight and significantly more performance.

So a RASA 8 and a Harmonic Equatorial Mount are already over $4000.  Was the modern cooled camera free?  How about the computer to control everything?  Free as well?  Power supply and connections?  Free?

Edited by SandyHouTex, 28 August 2024 - 06:30 PM.

[bradhaak]

Don'forget the focuser. Oh yeah, the auto aligning mount. Wait...oh yeah, that doesn't exist.

[SandyHouTex]

You are right, I won't be buying the Origin because they chose to use cheap, sub-par parts on a $4K smart telescope in order to make more profit. If it had a camera sensor and mount worth of that price they are asking I would have purchased one. If Dwarflabs can afford putting a new, high res, low noise camera sensor on their $450 telescope so does Celestron for their $4K telescope. There is simply no excuse apart from making more profit.

The Sony IMX-678 in the Dwarf Labs scope is a security sensor, whereas the IMX-178 sensor is a BSI sensor for better noise and low light performance.

[SandyHouTex]

This video does an excellent job of explaining how Celestron optimized the sensor and software to produce an easy to use, robotic telescope that works extremely well. 

 

https://youtu.be/A_XHd76JaNI

 

I was pleasantly surprised by the sophistication of the software and the images it produces. It is important to remember that in any technology solution it is not about speeds & feeds, but integrating individual components to produce a desired an result. The market seems to indicate Celestron has a very successful product here. Here are a few sample images from a long time visual astronomer. There was no guiding, fiddling with cables or integrating cameras, focusers or dew heaters. I just turned on the telescope and began imaging. No polar aligning. I am not an experienced imager and I do not use any image processing software. My goal is to learn how to enhance RAW files, but that will be later. 

Can an experienced imager build a fancier rig? Sure. But there is a large group of folks that really enjoy the speed and convenience of the Origin. 

Those are e fantastic pics.  I can't wait until it cools down here South of Houston to try mine out.

[SandyHouTex]

Nice photos but not $6000 C nice.  Its a dam hobby, which as we all know will keep changing like the wind.  Right, eh !   PS:  And as to the vid. the guy is a salesman just like any other salesman, all sorts of figures that very few will remember how they work in a week or so, lol.

The Origin only costs $4000.

[spereira]

The Origin only costs $4000.

C$6000 = roughly US$4500.  I think he typed $6000 C.  Not the conventional way to do it, but he tried.

Anyway, your response still holds against his exaggeration.

 

smp

[LDW47]

The Origin only costs $4000.

Not up here in Canada, there are other astro associated places in the world, lol.  I hate to say it it looks / sounds like you aren't too worldly when it comes to astronomical places in the world.

Edited by LDW47, 29 August 2024 - 09:51 AM.

[LDW47]

C$6000 = roughly US$4500.  I think he typed $6000 C.  Not the conventional way to do it, but he tried.

Anyway, your response still holds against his exaggeration.

 

smp

Who are you to say I exaggerated, with sales tax and shipping its within a few $'s of $6000 Canadian, do you ever round a figure, ever, eh.  Or just like to split hairs, lol.

Edited by LDW47, 29 August 2024 - 12:30 PM.

[LDW47]

C$6000 = roughly US$4500.  I think he typed $6000 C.  Not the conventional way to do it, but he tried.

Anyway, your response still holds against his exaggeration.

 

smp

Sorry if I am off $100 or so, I guess I have worked with million $ figures too long in my career, I guess, lol.  PS:  But I tried, eh.

Edited by LDW47, 29 August 2024 - 09:17 AM.

[LDW47]

For one person the price is too much. For another it's just right. For a third person it's a bargain.

 

Price vs value is subjective. So for you, you're obviously correct. For another person you're not. Don't judge your opinions or your values to be correct for everyone.

Did I say that eh, but I am entitled to my opinion or do you own this site. I think it is for many experienced astronomers along with new beginers, ya think.