185 replies to this topic

[LDW47]

Umm...all of them? The last four or five nights with my club have seen me show up with all four of them, and four tripods, and four tablets...you get the idea.

 

Small objects, are best with the Seestar. It produces amazing images for its limited FOV. And with the new mosaic mode, it'll get used for larger targets, too.

 

With its 8MP sensor and 2.5° x 1.4° FOV, the Vespera II is wonderful for larger fields. And, it has had a similar mosaic mode since the day it was released, and can go up to 4.33° x 2.43° or 3.25° x 3.25° for 24MP for mosaics. There is currently a software bug that isn't removing hot pixels, but hopefully that will be resolved soon. That highlights the biggest problems with Vaonis: lack of communication and lack of documentation. Their software quality is also a little spotty. They really need to have some form of open beta to help find problems before release and to let their userbase know what's happening.

 

For medium to large fields with very fast and clean data acquisition, the Origin is the king. With its 150MM aperture and an f/2.2 focal ratio, it can gather so much light so fast that no other smart scope can compete. It has a modular design so it's much more future-proof than the others. Celestron has also published a roadmap for future development, so users have some idea where it's going. Of course I'm sure that it's subject to change. One thing I hope is changing is to move a mosaic mode to a higher priority.

 

I already mentioned the Dwarf 3 above. At the end of the night it can produce nice pics with large fields, but I don't always want large fields and I've decided that the effort and time required are not worth the frustration of the experience.

The S30 vs the S50 are like refractor telescopes, for the cost, you have one for widefield views and one for not so widefield views. But on any given nite they give you some sort of astro thrill in their own right. And boy I have a lot of various size refractors so why not one of this and one of that and ......, lol.  The only thing that stopped me with the Origin was mainly the weight, my lugging days are over, I want G&G at this point in my hobby along with some pretty good quality.

Edited by LDW47, 04 November 2024 - 08:19 PM.

[huskershuf]

I'm also trying to decide between the s30 and the Dwarf-3, but I think my primary deciding factor may be different than some.

 

I have a Vespera-II for DSO imaging and an 8" DOB for visual.

What I don't have is a decent DSLR for widefield landscape astrophotography (Milky Way, Constellations, etc).

 

Before the recent s30 release, I had pre-ordered a Dwarf-3 to use for this purpose (and of course as another option for DSO imaging).  Really like the idea of both capabilities in one device.

I know the Dwarf-3 is not the perfect instrument for landscape astro, but I've seen the widefield lens referenced as a 45mm equivalent -- which should make it a decent option in terms of FoV -- and I know with the latest app update it seems the Dwarf-3 wide-field lens can indeed be used in Astro mode.

 

But I've not been able to determine the specs of the wide field lens of the s30 -- or if a wide-field astro mode might exist in the SeeStar App?

 

Does anyone know (or suspect) how the widefield lens on the Seestar s30 (and app modes) might compare to Dwarf 3?

[beesy]

Let me think about this for a second...Okay, I've thought about it and I believe you're very wrong.

 

First of all, do you have  Dwarf 3 or have you ever used a Dwarf 3? Or are you basing everything you believe to be true on videos from folks that were given Dwarf 3 units for free, with the agreement that they would produce positive press?

 

I have one, and was not given one of those early publicity/press units. Mine is from the first production shipment that I got because of a very early preorder.

 

It produces very nice images over very long periods while in EQ mode. Alt-as acquisition is mostly ruined by the huge amount of field rotation that happens because of how long it takes to get good image quality.

 

I am also thinking of selling it, and yes, I I have preordered an S30.

 

Okay, you want to know what's wrong with the Dwarf 3 in the real world? 

• It is very slow. To get a decent image literally takes hours of exposure. With polar alignment and 45 second subs, I haven't seen anything useful come from it in less than two hours. Top quality images take longer.
• The JPG output from the scope is terrible. Admittedly this is just my opinion, but it's not good enough for anything besides a preview of what's happening.
• To get decent images requires stacking individual subs and processing in external apps. This is likely beyond the scope (see what I did there?) of what most users of a $500 product will be interested in doing.
• And yes, you have to stack the subs. The TIFF that is saved in the scope is already stretched and is only a bad 16-bit version of the bad JPG preview. It is almost completely useless for any kind of processing because it's already stretched and somewhat processed.
• The software is badly designed and very odd to use. DwarfLab did a rewrite earlier this year and evidently redesigned large portions of it, but it is still pretty bad and cumbersome to use. I've been told that you can reframe an image, but I have yet to be successful at it.
• The software is incomplete. They promised mosaic mode, it isn't there. The promised AI trained noise removal and superior JPG quality isn't there. Or if the noise removal is there, it needs a lot more training because it looks worse than competitors.
• There is no attempt to save settings or even retain them as you move through the seemingly endless steps to set up a shot. And if you go back to redo an earlier step, it completely forgets any later settings when you get back to that step. Don't even ask if you can retain settings from session to session.
• If I really wanted to live with polar alignment, I would have spent my money on something much more capable than the Dwarf 3. I'm not going to get into the issues with how they set up polar alignment because that would be whole other post. Suffice it to say that with a specific set of steps that work around their implementation, I can usually get good enough alignment in around ten minutes. 

But with lots of time and lots of work, the Dwarf 3 can produce some very nice images.

 

I'm going with the S30 for a tiny grab and go scope because of what I've already seen over the last year with the S50. Yeah, it's been a year. I was one of the early preorders on it, too. Early adopter seems like the story of my life.

 

The S50 produces very good output from a consistent and easy to use interface. It's field-of-view was way too limited for a lot of targets, but the recent 2.1.0 release cured that with ZWOs introduction of mosaics. The same statement holds true for support of polar alignment in the Seestar. Yeah, a few folks are doing a hacked together process that doesn't work very well, but with the mosaic capability, it's not needed.

 

The Seestar mosaic mode (in the app they call it 'Framing') removes most of the advantages of EQ mode. It removes field rotation artifacts, and it removes walking noise. The other thing I've found in using an S50 and Dwarf 3 side-by-side, is that for similar sized targets, their acquisition time is comparable. IOW--the Dwarf 3 with it's nice large sensor, and the S50 at a full 2X magnification take similar pics of a target in roughly equivalent time. But here's the key point. With the S50 I don't have to use that large slow field all the time. I can shrink it down to the size of the target. In the future, I'll probably use a very small mosaic for all captures because of the image quality it produces. the only real polar alignment advantage that the Seestar mosaic mode doesn't overcome is the use of longer subs, but I can live with that.

 

I expect the S30 to produce similar results in a smaller package. It has a larger FOV with a smaller aperture, but I believe that will be offset (mostly?) by the superior sensor.

 

Sorry, but in the real world, at least for me, the Dwarf 3 loses, and it isn't even close.

Thank you for the real world experience/details! I only can afford one reasonably priced smart telescope so trying to find as much info as I can when comparing the S50 to the D3. It appears that the S50 is a little more bulky but still pretty lightweight. This would still be fine for me...

[Starlancer]

Let me think about this for a second...Okay, I've thought about it and I believe you're very wrong.

 

First of all, do you have  Dwarf 3 or have you ever used a Dwarf 3? Or are you basing everything you believe to be true on videos from folks that were given Dwarf 3 units for free, with the agreement that they would produce positive press?

 

I have one, and was not given one of those early publicity/press units. Mine is from the first production shipment that I got because of a very early preorder.

 

It produces very nice images over very long periods while in EQ mode. Alt-as acquisition is mostly ruined by the huge amount of field rotation that happens because of how long it takes to get good image quality.

 

I am also thinking of selling it, and yes, I I have preordered an S30.

 

Okay, you want to know what's wrong with the Dwarf 3 in the real world? 

• It is very slow. To get a decent image literally takes hours of exposure. With polar alignment and 45 second subs, I haven't seen anything useful come from it in less than two hours. Top quality images take longer.
• The JPG output from the scope is terrible. Admittedly this is just my opinion, but it's not good enough for anything besides a preview of what's happening.
• To get decent images requires stacking individual subs and processing in external apps. This is likely beyond the scope (see what I did there?) of what most users of a $500 product will be interested in doing.
• And yes, you have to stack the subs. The TIFF that is saved in the scope is already stretched and is only a bad 16-bit version of the bad JPG preview. It is almost completely useless for any kind of processing because it's already stretched and somewhat processed.
• The software is badly designed and very odd to use. DwarfLab did a rewrite earlier this year and evidently redesigned large portions of it, but it is still pretty bad and cumbersome to use. I've been told that you can reframe an image, but I have yet to be successful at it.
• The software is incomplete. They promised mosaic mode, it isn't there. The promised AI trained noise removal and superior JPG quality isn't there. Or if the noise removal is there, it needs a lot more training because it looks worse than competitors.
• There is no attempt to save settings or even retain them as you move through the seemingly endless steps to set up a shot. And if you go back to redo an earlier step, it completely forgets any later settings when you get back to that step. Don't even ask if you can retain settings from session to session.
• If I really wanted to live with polar alignment, I would have spent my money on something much more capable than the Dwarf 3. I'm not going to get into the issues with how they set up polar alignment because that would be whole other post. Suffice it to say that with a specific set of steps that work around their implementation, I can usually get good enough alignment in around ten minutes. 

But with lots of time and lots of work, the Dwarf 3 can produce some very nice images.

 

I'm going with the S30 for a tiny grab and go scope because of what I've already seen over the last year with the S50. Yeah, it's been a year. I was one of the early preorders on it, too. Early adopter seems like the story of my life.

 

The S50 produces very good output from a consistent and easy to use interface. It's field-of-view was way too limited for a lot of targets, but the recent 2.1.0 release cured that with ZWOs introduction of mosaics. The same statement holds true for support of polar alignment in the Seestar. Yeah, a few folks are doing a hacked together process that doesn't work very well, but with the mosaic capability, it's not needed.

 

The Seestar mosaic mode (in the app they call it 'Framing') removes most of the advantages of EQ mode. It removes field rotation artifacts, and it removes walking noise. The other thing I've found in using an S50 and Dwarf 3 side-by-side, is that for similar sized targets, their acquisition time is comparable. IOW--the Dwarf 3 with it's nice large sensor, and the S50 at a full 2X magnification take similar pics of a target in roughly equivalent time. But here's the key point. With the S50 I don't have to use that large slow field all the time. I can shrink it down to the size of the target. In the future, I'll probably use a very small mosaic for all captures because of the image quality it produces. the only real polar alignment advantage that the Seestar mosaic mode doesn't overcome is the use of longer subs, but I can live with that.

 

I expect the S30 to produce similar results in a smaller package. It has a larger FOV with a smaller aperture, but I believe that will be offset (mostly?) by the superior sensor.

 

Sorry, but in the real world, at least for me, the Dwarf 3 loses, and it isn't even close.

It really is difficult strokes for different folks.  I already take multi hour images with my large rigs so that doesn’t bother me.  Longer integration times that EQ mode gives is exactly what I am looking for.  I also have all the software to process and stack so the tiff and jpg image are already throwaway from any scope for me.  Also because of this no AI processing is also what I want.  I can’t say anything about the software as I don’t have the scope.  

 

Why do I want one?  On those cold or off days that I don’t want to setup a large rigs I can set this up quick and let it go and still have some fun from AP and getting an image.

 

I can completely understand the other view and can’t wait to see images from the S30

[bradhaak]

Good luck - I suspect you will be disappointed.

[Psion]

The S30 will have the advantage of a larger field of view, i.e., it can handle the M42 without framing and acquire data faster. Unfortunately, it will have less resolution in the sense of Dawes Limit 60% less, i.e. objects with less detail.

Attached Thumbnails

• 
• 

[tarbat]

The comparison of Dwarf 3 to Seestar S30 is a different matter entirely.

Seestar S30

• Better signal per pixel.
• Much less sensor read noise, so doesn't need long sub-exposures.
• 25% cheaper.
• Mosaic mode available.

Dwarf 3

• Better theoretical resolution per pixel, but can it maintain that over the long sub-exposure time needed?
• Wider native field of view (but no mosaic mode).
• Slow. That 2μm pixel size and lack of HCG mode really holds the D3 back in my opinion.

Attached Thumbnails

• 

Edited by tarbat, 05 November 2024 - 02:38 AM.

[josjavpol]

We compare the approximate fields of view between Seestar S30 and S50, both in normal mode and in mosaic mode x2.

 

We have chosen a wide nebula such as the North America nebula.

 

The whole image corresponds to the S30 in mosaic mode x2, the nebula appears complete, even the Pelican nebula It peeks out a little.

 

The first red rectangle of 1.44x2.55°, corresponds to the mosaic mode x2 of the Seestar S50, it catches an important part but not the whole nebula.

 

The second red rectangle of 1.22x2.17°, corresponds approximately to the S30 in normal mode (x1).

 

The last red rectangle of 0.7x1.2°, corresponds approximately to the S50 in normal mode (x1).

 

 

 

 

The same with M8 and M20 (Trifid):

 

 

 

Best regards and good skyes 

[huskershuf]

I'm also trying to decide between the s30 and the Dwarf-3, but I think my primary deciding factor may be different than some.

 

I have a Vespera-II for DSO imaging and an 8" DOB for visual.

What I don't have is a decent DSLR for widefield landscape astrophotography (Milky Way, Constellations, etc).

 

Before the recent s30 release, I had pre-ordered a Dwarf-3 to use for this purpose (and of course as another option for DSO imaging).  Really like the idea of both capabilities in one device.

I know the Dwarf-3 is not the perfect instrument for landscape astro, but I've seen the widefield lens referenced as a 45mm equivalent -- which should make it a decent option in terms of FoV -- and I know with the latest app update it seems the Dwarf-3 wide-field lens can indeed be used in Astro mode.

 

But I've not been able to determine the specs of the wide field lens of the s30 -- or if a wide-field astro mode might exist in the SeeStar App?

 

Does anyone know (or suspect) how the widefield lens on the Seestar s30 (and app modes) might compare to Dwarf 3?

 

Just in case anyone else is curious about the potential of the S30 for landscape astro, I did send a note to ZWO and got the following response:

"The FOV of wide lens is 23.2 degrees, but the wide lens does not support long exposure."

[LDW47]

Just in case anyone else is curious about the potential of the S30 for landscape astro, I did send a note to ZWO and got the following response:

"The FOV of wide lens is 23.2 degrees, but the wide lens does not support long exposure."

With a DSLR you can get a pretty decent wide field shot of the MW with a 12-15 sec exposure setting so maybe there is still a chance for ......., ya think. I have an older model cam with a small but top line CCD chip in it and the MW images still look pretty good and todays CMOS's are right up there.  But I'm just talkin' from years gone by.  PS:  12-15 sec. is not long, eh.

Edited by LDW47, 07 November 2024 - 08:50 PM.

[Morgi75]

Let me think about this for a second...Okay, I've thought about it and I believe you're very wrong.

 

First of all, do you have  Dwarf 3 or have you ever used a Dwarf 3? Or are you basing everything you believe to be true on videos from folks that were given Dwarf 3 units for free, with the agreement that they would produce positive press?

 

I have one, and was not given one of those early publicity/press units. Mine is from the first production shipment that I got because of a very early preorder.

 

It produces very nice images over very long periods while in EQ mode. Alt-as acquisition is mostly ruined by the huge amount of field rotation that happens because of how long it takes to get good image quality.

 

I am also thinking of selling it, and yes, I I have preordered an S30.

 

Okay, you want to know what's wrong with the Dwarf 3 in the real world? 

• It is very slow. To get a decent image literally takes hours of exposure. With polar alignment and 45 second subs, I haven't seen anything useful come from it in less than two hours. Top quality images take longer.
• The JPG output from the scope is terrible. Admittedly this is just my opinion, but it's not good enough for anything besides a preview of what's happening.
• To get decent images requires stacking individual subs and processing in external apps. This is likely beyond the scope (see what I did there?) of what most users of a $500 product will be interested in doing.
• And yes, you have to stack the subs. The TIFF that is saved in the scope is already stretched and is only a bad 16-bit version of the bad JPG preview. It is almost completely useless for any kind of processing because it's already stretched and somewhat processed.
• The software is badly designed and very odd to use. DwarfLab did a rewrite earlier this year and evidently redesigned large portions of it, but it is still pretty bad and cumbersome to use. I've been told that you can reframe an image, but I have yet to be successful at it.
• The software is incomplete. They promised mosaic mode, it isn't there. The promised AI trained noise removal and superior JPG quality isn't there. Or if the noise removal is there, it needs a lot more training because it looks worse than competitors.
• There is no attempt to save settings or even retain them as you move through the seemingly endless steps to set up a shot. And if you go back to redo an earlier step, it completely forgets any later settings when you get back to that step. Don't even ask if you can retain settings from session to session.
• If I really wanted to live with polar alignment, I would have spent my money on something much more capable than the Dwarf 3. I'm not going to get into the issues with how they set up polar alignment because that would be whole other post. Suffice it to say that with a specific set of steps that work around their implementation, I can usually get good enough alignment in around ten minutes. 

But with lots of time and lots of work, the Dwarf 3 can produce some very nice images.

 

I'm going with the S30 for a tiny grab and go scope because of what I've already seen over the last year with the S50. Yeah, it's been a year. I was one of the early preorders on it, too. Early adopter seems like the story of my life.

 

The S50 produces very good output from a consistent and easy to use interface. It's field-of-view was way too limited for a lot of targets, but the recent 2.1.0 release cured that with ZWOs introduction of mosaics. The same statement holds true for support of polar alignment in the Seestar. Yeah, a few folks are doing a hacked together process that doesn't work very well, but with the mosaic capability, it's not needed.

 

The Seestar mosaic mode (in the app they call it 'Framing') removes most of the advantages of EQ mode. It removes field rotation artifacts, and it removes walking noise. The other thing I've found in using an S50 and Dwarf 3 side-by-side, is that for similar sized targets, their acquisition time is comparable. IOW--the Dwarf 3 with it's nice large sensor, and the S50 at a full 2X magnification take similar pics of a target in roughly equivalent time. But here's the key point. With the S50 I don't have to use that large slow field all the time. I can shrink it down to the size of the target. In the future, I'll probably use a very small mosaic for all captures because of the image quality it produces. the only real polar alignment advantage that the Seestar mosaic mode doesn't overcome is the use of longer subs, but I can live with that.

 

I expect the S30 to produce similar results in a smaller package. It has a larger FOV with a smaller aperture, but I believe that will be offset (mostly?) by the superior sensor.

 

Sorry, but in the real world, at least for me, the Dwarf 3 loses, and it isn't even close.

These bugs are all software problems. Wait for the final release.

 

But the fact is:

S50's mosaic mode is too time consuming, with lots of discarded subs, so an hour of recording will result in about twenty minutes of stacked images. We need much more hours, which is impossible because of the field rotation. In addition, processing a mosaic of several days is cumbersome.

The D3 gives a 4K resolution image. I can't see anything of the small hd image of the S50 on the 4K monitor.

According to online data, the D3's sensor is one of the latest and greatest, the S50's is the weakest. And this is not compensated by the larger aperture of the S50.

[bradhaak]

This isn't meant disrespectfully but if you haven't used both the Dwarf 3 and an S30, your opinion is meaningless. I own a Dwarf 3 and will for a short time longer, so at least I have a partial basis of actual knowledge.

 

I also own an S50  and have used the mosaic mode extensively and would rather use it than the wide field very slow Dwarf 3. I also have a Vaonis Vespers II with an almost identical mosaic mode and it reinforces that opinion 

 

Talking about the sensor on the S50 is also kind of silly since the one in the S30 is two generations newer.

 

Finally, the DwarfLab software was supposed to be complete when the first units shipped. In it's current form it isn't just buggy, it's incomplete, badly designed, and badly implemented. Read old threads from the Dwarf 2 days. The complaints then were about had, buggy software. So what is your basis for believing the the future will be different than the past or present. One rule for buying is not to purchase based on promises. I pre-ordered and in that case, there is an assumption of trust. Now the facts are available, and it's foolish to ignore them especially since they seem to match history.

[Morgi75]

This isn't meant disrespectfully but if you haven't used both the Dwarf 3 and an S30, your opinion is meaningless. I own a Dwarf 3 and will for a short time longer, so at least I have a partial basis of actual knowledge.

 

I also own an S50  and have used the mosaic mode extensively and would rather use it than the wide field very slow Dwarf 3. I also have a Vaonis Vespers II with an almost identical mosaic mode and it reinforces that opinion 

 

Talking about the sensor on the S50 is also kind of silly since the one in the S30 is two generations newer.

 

Finally, the DwarfLab software was supposed to be complete when the first units shipped. In it's current form it isn't just buggy, it's incomplete, badly designed, and badly implemented. Read old threads from the Dwarf 2 days. The complaints then were about had, buggy software. So what is your basis for believing the the future will be different than the past or present. One rule for buying is not to purchase based on promises. I pre-ordered and in that case, there is an assumption of trust. Now the facts are available, and it's foolish to ignore them especially since they seem to match history.

Believe me, I'm also leaning towards the S50, although I thought I'd wait until the D3 comes out with the final fixes and reviews.
I would buy the S50 or S30, but that 1920x1080 resolution is unacceptable to me.

What do you think of what has been said here:
https://www.youtube....h?v=-0ET06LAOFo

[LDW47]

These bugs are all software problems. Wait for the final release.

 

But the fact is:

S50's mosaic mode is too time consuming, with lots of discarded subs, so an hour of recording will result in about twenty minutes of stacked images. We need much more hours, which is impossible because of the field rotation. In addition, processing a mosaic of several days is cumbersome.

The D3 gives a 4K resolution image. I can't see anything of the small hd image of the S50 on the 4K monitor.

According to online data, the D3's sensor is one of the latest and greatest, the S50's is the weakest. And this is not compensated by the larger aperture of the S50.

Its not weaker just older. What comes out of it is still pretty dam impressive no matter how you look at it, for $500 or a bit less.

[Morgi75]

Its not weaker just older. What comes out of it is still pretty dam impressive no matter how you look at it, for $500 or a bit less.

Now it's $450. I should order..................................

[LDW47]

Now it's $450. I should order..................................

For the price you will never, ever regret it. I own 2 and preordered the S30, its my style, my enjoyment. The other thing to remember is that ZWO keeps adding to its capabilities by way of their frequent updates, so tomorrow who knows what may show up. Many fellow SS'ers keep mentioning additions they would like to have and their reasons. Zwo likes to accomodate many in a timely way.

[Morgi75]

For the price you will never, ever regret it. I own 2 and preordered the S30, its my style, my enjoyment. The other thing to remember is that ZWO keeps adding to its capabilities by way of their frequent updates, so tomorrow who knows what may show up. Many fellow SS'ers keep mentioning additions they would like to have and their reasons. Zwo likes to accomodate many in a timely way.

I've thought about the S30, but I'm afraid that the wide angle of view would make objects that look even smaller in 1920*1080 quite small. My father-in-law has an S50.

[LDW47]

I've thought about the S30, but I'm afraid that the wide angle of view would make objects that look even smaller in 1920*1080 quite small. My father-in-law has an S50.

To be honest for the difference in price, especially with the discount, I would go with the S50 first.  Like me you could go for the S30 later, if you wanted to.  I am a widefield telescope guy so the S30 fits my enjoyment perfectly.  PS:  If your father in law has an S50 already what does he recommend ?

Edited by LDW47, 20 November 2024 - 09:15 AM.

[LDW47]

I've thought about the S30, but I'm afraid that the wide angle of view would make objects that look even smaller in 1920*1080 quite small. My father-in-law has an S50.

The other thing is that if your father in law has an S50 and you got an S30 the two of you could switch scopes back and forth and have the best of both worlds, ya think.

[Morgi75]

Yes, both things should be considered. It is a difficult decision...

[IslandboyMRU]

Hello All, I am thinking of buying the S30 but I am not sure whether it can take photos of the milky way. Could someone confirm this for me?
Also I am told that the D3 does take pucture of the milky way. Please confirm.
Thanks

[GSBass]

Yes d3 can do long exposure milkyway photos and my understanding is the s30 can not, however in my experience dark skies are required, still testing but my experience so far limits me to less than 10 sec subs due to light pollution… it’s a much bigger deal than with a telephoto lense

Hello All, I am thinking of buying the S30 but I am not sure whether it can take photos of the milky way. Could someone confirm this for me?
Also I am told that the D3 does take pucture of the milky way. Please confirm.
Thanks

Edited by GSBass, 24 November 2024 - 02:15 PM.

[LDW47]

Hello All, I am thinking of buying the S30 but I am not sure whether it can take photos of the milky way. Could someone confirm this for me?
Also I am told that the D3 does take pucture of the milky way. Please confirm.
Thanks

With ZWO vs the S30 vs the MW don't count anything out in their future. MW or no Milky Way the S30's capabilities cancels that out pretty fast and they are just begining. Unless thats a big part of your astronomy, eh.  I love the MW but I have other means of shooting it, ZWO has never professed a MW option, did you think otherwise, maybe.

Edited by LDW47, 24 November 2024 - 02:49 PM.

[GSBass]

Yes they complement each other, in my case I use vespera and dwarf 3, which one I grab depends on what I want to shoot…. It will probably be beneficial for people to equate the same way they shop for traditional gear, Most people end up with several scopes to cover their interest, rich field refractors, moderate focal length and more extreme fl for planetary and lunar… we don’t have a bot for the latter yet but I’ll probably have 3 bots when that happens

The other thing is that if your father in law has an S50 and you got an S30 the two of you could switch scopes back and forth and have the best of both worlds, ya think.

[IslandboyMRU]

Thank you all for your insights. I have gone ahead and pre-ordered the S30. Milky Way might be a challenge for any smart telescope so I am looking to have fun with the S30 for what it was really designed for I.e deep sky objects. Thanks once again.