21 replies to this topic

[adamsdp]

I am trying to plan out my equipment lineup for eaa/astrophotography.  I have used a C6/focal reducer/ASI 533/Evolution mount setup for eaa and bought an AM5 mount to get into astrophotography.  I am not motivated enough to have more than one main scope/camera setup and feel like the focal length sweet spot for general astrophotography somewhere around 600-900mm.  One idea I have is to get an Askar 71F and use it at native 490mm for smaller targets and use the 0.75 reducer for larger objects.  It seems like this would be a way to have one scope/camera setup without have to rearrange much when switching from widefield to general purpose.   The drawback seems be that 490mm doesn't seem ideal for general use and at f/7, somewhat slow.  

 

The other plan is to use my SV105 for general use and get either a Seestar 30 or Dwarf 3 for widefield.  This seems to have the big advantage of having an easy to setup/use image system for nights with less time or motivation.  Just wanted to post to get advice about these ideas and see if the Seestar and Dwarf telescopes has filled the widefield spot in member's lineup that they didn't feel the need for a more traditional setup.  Thank you.

[LDW47]

I am trying to plan out my equipment lineup for eaa/astrophotography.  I have used a C6/focal reducer/ASI 533/Evolution mount setup for eaa and bought an AM5 mount to get into astrophotography.  I am not motivated enough to have more than one main scope/camera setup and feel like the focal length sweet spot for general astrophotography somewhere around 600-900mm.  One idea I have is to get an Askar 71F and use it at native 490mm for smaller targets and use the 0.75 reducer for larger objects.  It seems like this would be a way to have one scope/camera setup without have to rearrange much when switching from widefield to general purpose.   The drawback seems be that 490mm doesn't seem ideal for general use and at f/7, somewhat slow.  

 

The other plan is to use my SV105 for general use and get either a Seestar 30 or Dwarf 3 for widefield.  This seems to have the big advantage of having an easy to setup/use image system for nights with less time or motivation.  Just wanted to post to get advice about these ideas and see if the Seestar and Dwarf telescopes has filled the widefield spot in member's lineup that they didn't feel the need for a more traditional setup.  Thank you.

With the new Framing mode and the $ value, SeeStar's the man, everytime.  But if you can go out and get your hands on a D3 now, not have to wait for months, go ahead and give it a try, you might get to like it. Maybe !  Chances are you might want to end up with another brand though, from my D2 experiences.

Edited by LDW47, 11 November 2024 - 12:22 PM.

[josjavpol]

Here is a link to the S30 (and S50) field of view, pointing at the North America Nebula, and at M8 and Trifid, both in mosaic and normal mode:
https://www.cloudyni...luding-mosaics/

[BrentKnight]

I am trying to plan out my equipment lineup for eaa/astrophotography.  I have used a C6/focal reducer/ASI 533/Evolution mount setup for eaa and bought an AM5 mount to get into astrophotography.  I am not motivated enough to have more than one main scope/camera setup and feel like the focal length sweet spot for general astrophotography somewhere around 600-900mm.  One idea I have is to get an Askar 71F and use it at native 490mm for smaller targets and use the 0.75 reducer for larger objects.  It seems like this would be a way to have one scope/camera setup without have to rearrange much when switching from widefield to general purpose.   The drawback seems be that 490mm doesn't seem ideal for general use and at f/7, somewhat slow.  

 

The other plan is to use my SV105 for general use and get either a Seestar 30 or Dwarf 3 for widefield.  This seems to have the big advantage of having an easy to setup/use image system for nights with less time or motivation.  Just wanted to post to get advice about these ideas and see if the Seestar and Dwarf telescopes has filled the widefield spot in member's lineup that they didn't feel the need for a more traditional setup.  Thank you.

You might consider an Askar FMA180 (or the FMA135) co-mounted on the AM5 with your 105.  I get a solid 7.5° x 5° FoV with a 2600 - 3.6° square with your 533.  It's a very fun little telescope to use.

 

Auriga and the Flaming Star Nebula

[adamsdp]

With the new Framing mode and the $ value, SeeStar's the man, everytime.  But if you can go out and get your hands on a D3 now, not have to wait for months, go ahead and give it a try, you might get to like it. Maybe !  Chances are you might want to end up with another brand though, from my D2 experiences.

Thanks and will give the SeeStar 30 a good look.

[adamsdp]

You might consider an Askar FMA180 (or the FMA135) co-mounted on the AM5 with your 105.  I get a solid 7.5° x 5° FoV with a 2600 - 3.6° square with your 533.  It's a very fun little telescope to use.

 

Auriga and the Flame Nebula

Beautiful image!  Very tempting.

[BrentKnight]

Thanks and will give the SeeStar 30 a good look.

Honestly, if I were to grab a Smart Telescope, the S30 would be the leading candidate - if for no other reason than to just try them out...

 

For someone just starting out, my rig with the FMA180, WD-17 and ASI2600MC-Pro can't compete price wise with any of these ST's.  But since I do already have all the gear, and it's really very easy to set this rig up, an ST is a hard sell for me.

[licho52]

I agree with the above, S30 seems to the best option on the market at the moment. It's cheap enough to be a gift or an impulse buy even.

[LDW47]

Honestly, if I were to grab a Smart Telescope, the S30 would be the leading candidate - if for no other reason than to just try them out...

 

For someone just starting out, my rig with the FMA180, WD-17 and ASI2600MC-Pro can't compete price wise with any of these ST's.  But since I do already have all the gear, and it's really very easy to set this rig up, an ST is a hard sell for me.

The S50 is a known performer and only $150 more, whats there not to like as a first scope, as the OP mentions, eh.

[licho52]

The newer sensor is the trump card, and so are the smaller size and lower price. S50 sales will take a substantial hit imo.

[bradhaak]

The newer sensor is the trump card, and so are the smaller size and lower price. S50 sales will take a substantial hit imo.

I agree.

 

I would expect ZWO to either phase out the S50, or come out with an S50A (or whatever name seems good) with a higher res sensor and a wider FOV. Otherwise, they have two products that are too similar and that will cannibalize each others markets.

[LDW47]

The newer sensor is the trump card, and so are the smaller size and lower price. S50 sales will take a substantial hit imo.

Don't count your chickens, many will buy one of each. As with telescopes most don't give up anything, they like to compare one against the other in their backyards. Just watch the used market, lol.

[BrentKnight]

The S50 is a known performer and only $150 more, whats there not to like as a first scope, as the OP mentions, eh.

I think for me, it's the size and to a lesser extent the price difference.  From my experience with a C8, a 130mm and an 80mm refractor and my little FMA180 (40mm), the FMA180 is the most fun to use.  It's good because its much more forgiving of my inexperience and it gives me great views all the time.  Its no good for most galaxies, but that's what the larger (and longer) scopes are for.  I think that will appeal to first-time telescope buyers as well.

 

None of these ST's really fill a need that I don't already have covered - I don't think the S30 will either, but for the price its a no-brainer... but then I've never had a scope I could take with me on any weekend trips...  It's about the size of my Nintendo.

[LDW47]

I agree.

 

I would expect ZWO to either phase out the S50, or come out with an S50A (or whatever name seems good) with a higher res sensor and a wider FOV. Otherwise, they have two products that are too similar and that will cannibalize each others markets.

I don't think so unless they have had that planned all along, the S50 is too good to disappear just because it has a little sister. They will just keep adding little things to it until bursts, lol.  Its established, its a winner, the S30 is just the second in a planned line, wait awhile to speculate.

[LDW47]

I think for me, it's the size and to a lesser extent the price difference.  From my experience with a C8, a 130mm and an 80mm refractor and my little FMA180 (40mm), the FMA180 is the most fun to use.  It's good because its much more forgiving of my inexperience and it gives me great views all the time.  Its no good for most galaxies, but that's what the larger (and longer) scopes are for.  I think that will appeal to first-time telescope buyers as well.

 

None of these ST's really fill a need that I don't already have covered - I don't think the S30 will either, but for the price its a no-brainer... but then I've never had a scope I could take with me on any weekend trips...  It's about the size of my Nintendo.

You definitely talking about a long time astronomer ie. yourself not a first timer as in the post we keep referencing, there is no doubt. Read some of it again, maybe.

Edited by LDW47, 11 November 2024 - 07:07 PM.

[BrentKnight]

You definitely talking about a long time astronomer ie. yourself not a first timer as in the post we keep referencing, there is no doubt. Read some of it again, maybe.

The OP has an AM5 and some gear.  If they are happy with that setup - and willing to learn the ropes, the FMA180 is a significantly better solution for wide-fields.  No need for mosaics...

 

I was a first timer (to EAA) just a couple years ago.  I'm no genius, but I was able to figure things out.

[LDW47]

The OP has an AM5 and some gear.  If they are happy with that setup - and willing to learn the ropes, the FMA180 is a significantly better solution for wide-fields.  No need for mosaics...

 

I was a first timer (to EAA) just a couple years ago.  I'm no genius, but I was able to figure things out.

Thats not the gist of their query, eh. Its more like your story, right.

[jprideaux]

I was fortunate to be one of the first to get the Dwarf3 (ordered the first day available).  
The following is M31 that I took back on Oct 4th from a bortle 4 location using the wide-angle lens which supports astrophotography.

I was using the Dwarf3 in equatorial mode.

 

The following is from the saved JSON file giving the collection details:

 

{
    "DEC": 41.268750870929665,
    "RA": 0.7123138829418069,
    "binning": "1*1",
    "exp": "10",
    "format": "FITS",
    "gain": 70,
    "ir": "Astro",
    "shotsStacked": 286,
    "shotsTaken": 296,
    "shotsToTake": 999,
    "target": "M 31"
}

 

The above means 286x10 seconds = 2860 seconds or 47 minutes 40 seconds integration.  Only 10 frames discarded.  

 

The following is my post-processed effort of working with the saved FIT file.

 

 

As a comparison, I also recently tried the SeeStar S50 mosaic mode on M31 for about 3 hours but from a bortle 7 location.

The following is my post-processed effort on that.

 

As an owner of both scopes I'm happy about the following:

1. that the Dwarf3 supports both imaging through the wide-angle lens as well as native equatorial mode 
2. that the SeeStar S50 now has a mosaic option.

 

 

[LDW47]

 

I was fortunate to be one of the first to get the Dwarf3 (ordered the first day available).  
The following is M31 that I took back on Oct 4th from a bortle 4 location using the wide-angle lens which supports astrophotography.

I was using the Dwarf3 in equatorial mode.

 

The following is from the saved JSON file giving the collection details:

 

{
    "DEC": 41.268750870929665,
    "RA": 0.7123138829418069,
    "binning": "1*1",
    "exp": "10",
    "format": "FITS",
    "gain": 70,
    "ir": "Astro",
    "shotsStacked": 286,
    "shotsTaken": 296,
    "shotsToTake": 999,
    "target": "M 31"
}

 

The above means 286x10 seconds = 2860 seconds or 47 minutes 40 seconds integration.  Only 10 frames discarded.  

 

The following is my post-processed effort of working with the saved FIT file.

 

 

 

As a comparison, I also recently tried the SeeStar S50 mosaic mode on M31 for about 3 hours but from a bortle 7 location.

The following is my post-processed effort on that.

 

 

As an owner of both scopes I'm happy about the following:

1. that the Dwarf3 supports both imaging through the wide-angle lens as well as native equatorial mode 
2. that the SeeStar S50 now has a mosaic option.

 

I think the S30 will add some to that story, no doubt.

[bradhaak]

If you're only going to do wide-field captures, then the Dwarf 3 is probably your best bet.

 

If you're going to do both wide and narrow-field captures (which is true for most users), the S30 is better (IMHO).

 

The reason is simple. The Dwarf has a great sensor and works pretty well within the limits of its buggy and convoluted software. Because of the resolution of the sensor and the small aperture, it takes horrendous amounts of time to get a decent image. And because of the wide field, it's going to take that long time for a capture, even if you are shooting a small target and are going to crop most of the field.

 

The S30 is probably going to take longer to capture a wide field, but will take much less time to capture a narrow field image. Like the Dwarf 3, the S30 uses a very new and sensitive sensor, so it's capture times are probably going to be faster than the S50.

 

So the trade off is always having long capture times no matter what the target is, or having the size of the target determine how long it's going to take.

 

And FWIW, I have a Dwarf 3 and am selling it in the very near future (whenever I actually get around to actually listing it) because of the buggy software, broken promises about the software feature set, and the length of captures.

 

I preordered the S30 within a few minutes of it being listed at my preferred dealer.

 

Good luck with your decision.

[Dwight J]

I saw a couple of images using the D3 wide angle camera of the Milky Way.  They looked ok but I can’t remember the exposure times.  A niche market would be a very wide field camera capable of decent MW images and time lapse.

[LDW47]

If you're only going to do wide-field captures, then the Dwarf 3 is probably your best bet.

 

If you're going to do both wide and narrow-field captures (which is true for most users), the S30 is better (IMHO).

 

The reason is simple. The Dwarf has a great sensor and works pretty well within the limits of its buggy and convoluted software. Because of the resolution of the sensor and the small aperture, it takes horrendous amounts of time to get a decent image. And because of the wide field, it's going to take that long time for a capture, even if you are shooting a small target and are going to crop most of the field.

 

The S30 is probably going to take longer to capture a wide field, but will take much less time to capture a narrow field image. Like the Dwarf 3, the S30 uses a very new and sensitive sensor, so it's capture times are probably going to be faster than the S50.

 

So the trade off is always having long capture times no matter what the target is, or having the size of the target determine how long it's going to take.

 

And FWIW, I have a Dwarf 3 and am selling it in the very near future (whenever I actually get around to actually listing it) because of the buggy software, broken promises about the software feature set, and the length of captures.

 

I preordered the S30 within a few minutes of it being listed at my preferred dealer.

 

Good luck with your decision.

My thoughts also, you just say it better !