eVscope with digital EP

[DaveL59]

I kinda agree in that when looking at the planets, at least the more easily observed ones I'd rather use eyeball MK1 tbh, but the deeper space stuff I can easily see the appeal of one of these. Simple setup and it just works giving a nice image that for many will meet their expectations vs a fuzzy grey thing in an optical eyepiece. I for one don't want a big dob nor a huge unwieldy scope and expensive mount etc., nor can I build an obsy here in a rented place. I may have a play with the Sony DSLR on the back of the TAL100RS some day or using one of the M42 lenses I have. But when I consider the extent many here have gone to with high end camera and other gear, that's way out of budget for me both in terms of costs and the time needed, so I'm almost tempted to go check out that one not far from me... but first up, start a new job and earn some disposable, maybe change the car, etc etc...

[Ags]

Rage, rage, against the dying of the light.

[Elp]

If it encouraged more people to take up the hobby and do something about the increasing light pollution issues in built up areas then that would be good, this would be the prime benefit to encourage the whole science/understanding aspect of the wonders of space. But then there's the flip side where the technology works in light pollution so there's no need to reduce it which would be the narrow minded view.

I'm sure though if a digital ep were to become affordable utilising existing scopes I'd probably do visual more, and opening the hobby to people who have a genuine interest can only be a good thing.

[cajen2]

2 hours ago, Pixies said:

I was completely dismissive of these things when I first heard of them. Expensive and lower quality than proper AP and not the 'real deal' compared to visual astronomy.

Until I used one.

I was at Astro camp and was set up next to the older model with the electronic eyepiece. It was compelling to say the least. It was set up in a few minutes and queues were forming all night. Lots of people wanted to have a shot, with lots of 'ooh' and  'ahhs'. The most telling comment was when Joe Public saw M51 and loudly exclaimed - "Ah, that's what I was expecting to see!"

 

For public outreach, it would be a complete game-changer, especially in situations where the people setting it up might not be die-hard astro-photographers or EEVA experts.

I would get one if I could afford it (which I cant).

 

Yes, that was the same one that I was talking about. That was the initial model and apparently the second version is even better.

What really amused me at Astrocamp was that all the diehard astrophotographers ignored it completely at first, then one wandered over, took a look and said "wow!" Soon there was a whole group of them, plus the visual guys, all cooing over the views. One AP actually said "It's not fair!" 🤣 

In the end the owner was taking requests: "What would you like to see next?" "Sombrero Galaxy, please." He got the scope to slew over and there it was, sitting in the middle of the view.

I defy any of the nay-sayers not to be at least secretly impressed if they actually used one.

[Paul M]

I think this new technology represents a coming of age for astronomy hobbyists.

A few years ago my good friend's wife asked me to recomend a telescope for him. He likes looking at the sky with me but knows nothing about astronomy. So I messesd up big time and I'm now the proud owner of a Celestron 127 SLT Mak 🤪  Ok the scope is nice but I wouldn't give the mount garage space (even though I do!) 

So when I win the lottery I'll buy my good friend a robotic imaging scope. I might even get myself one too!

Hopefully that isn't too long off but when it happens the tec will have only got better. My interest is and will always be astronomy. My eyes are aging at a greater rate than the rest of me so I've drifted away from visual and gone toward imaging over recent years, I'm not too worried how I feed my need! 

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, cajen2 said:

Yes, that was the same one that I was talking about. That was the initial model and apparently the second version is even better.

What really amused me at Astrocamp was that all the diehard astrophotographers ignored it completely at first, then one wandered over, took a look and said "wow!" Soon there was a whole group of them, plus the visual guys, all cooing over the views. One AP actually said "It's not fair!" 🤣 

In the end the owner was taking requests: "What would you like to see next?" "Sombrero Galaxy, please." He got the scope to slew over and there it was, sitting in the middle of the view.

I defy any of the nay-sayers not to be at least secretly impressed if they actually used one.

They will never admit it lol

[badhex]

Genuine question that is difficult to phrase without sounding controversial:

On public outreach and awareness, how many people having seen something from an eVscope would be likely to actually get interested in astronomy, especially given the (current) cost of such scopes and the, let's sadly face it, somewhat less impressive visual views from a standard scope? Does that even matter? 

[Paul M]

It's been my experience that when demonstrating visual astronomy to a novice, or passerby even, that just aligning their eye with the optical axis of the scope can prove difficult. Focusing is another issue!

A robotic scope certainly short circuits the user directly towards imaging but I suspect in this World of busy lives and the need for instant gratification a gradually building image of a deep sky object would tick a lot of boxes... for those with disposable income.

Maybe as a whole family hobby the cost is less prohibitive?

I'd love one myself if only to show off the Universe to friends and family.

[Highburymark]

They are more expensive than I thought - at this level they are getting into night vision territory, which in my view is the better visual option because it delivers live views just like a normal telescope. 
I can see why the eVscope is popular for public events, but I’m sure there will be much cheaper options coming onto the market in the next decade or so.

[Buzzard75]

16 hours ago, Ricochet said:

@Buzzard75 how long do you feel you need to allow the telescope to stack to get a "good" image? What if there are clouds? Does a cloud drifting across the field of view put you back to square one? 

It's really going to depend on the object and how bright it is, brighter ones obviously requiring less time. I will typically stay on any given object for a minimum of five minutes to get an acceptable image. Brighter objects like globular clusters can probably be done in shorter time. When working star parties, it's not uncommon for me to be on the same object for at least 10 minutes as we tend to have long lines with hundreds of people. The people who come around and look at the object later will certainly have the better view than the one who looks at it after 30 seconds. While I'm sure there are gains to be had beyond 10 minutes, I feel you start to get into diminishing returns and the image doesn't really improve that much. So ballpark for me is 5-10 minutes.

[Ricochet]

3 hours ago, Buzzard75 said:

So ballpark for me is 5-10 minutes.

Thanks, that's exactly what I wanted to know. 

[bomberbaz]

3 hours ago, Buzzard75 said:

It's really going to depend on the object and how bright it is, brighter ones obviously requiring less time. I will typically stay on any given object for a minimum of five minutes to get an acceptable image. Brighter objects like globular clusters can probably be done in shorter time. When working star parties, it's not uncommon for me to be on the same object for at least 10 minutes as we tend to have long lines with hundreds of people. The people who come around and look at the object later will certainly have the better view than the one who looks at it after 30 seconds. While I'm sure there are gains to be had beyond 10 minutes, I feel you start to get into diminishing returns and the image doesn't really improve that much. So ballpark for me is 5-10 minutes.

Sorry I probably missed but is yours v1 or v2?

Reason I ask is one would presume the times to resolve a decent image should be lower if the v2 sensor is superior!

[Buzzard75]

8 hours ago, bomberbaz said:

Sorry I probably missed but is yours v1 or v2?

Reason I ask is one would presume the times to resolve a decent image should be lower if the v2 sensor is superior!

Mine is a v1. I was one of the original Kickstarter backers as well as a beta tester. I talked about it in the thread I shared, but I ended up sending my original unit back after about a year and a half because I was having some tracking issues. They sent me back a new unit and I haven't had any issues since. Their build quality has definitely improved from those beta units. I would expect the build quality of their v2 units to be as good as my current unit if not better. The v2 has a wider field of view, higher resolution and better pixel scale due to the larger sensor and smaller pixels. Their processing algorithm is likely the same so I can't speak to how much quicker an image is obtained. I also can't speak for the noise or sensitivity comparison between the two, but I would hope the IMX347 would be an improvement over the IMX224. Otherwise, what's the point of changing out the sensor?

All that being said, I like mine and I'm sure the v2 is better in every way. I just wouldn't spend the kind of money they're asking for on one knowing what else I could buy with it. The current price point is beyond what they originally quoted, but everyone sees value in things differently. You ultimately have to ask, what is that compactness and convenience worth to you in terms of money and reduced image quality when compared to a dedicated astrophotography rig?

[RobertI]

Ade Ashford has done a review of the eVscope 2 in the July 2022 issues of Astronomy Now. It’s definitely worth a read, but spoiler alert, he thinks you can get similar image quality from the eVscope 1 and the huge price hike is not worth it, but he is still very complimentary.

I am a member of the eVscope Facebook group (I don’t have one) and I have to say the owners are doing some very interesting things, most of them seem to be using their scopes as an imaging tool rather than real time EAA, and taking several hours of short exposures and then post processing to produce very nice results. Given the pain factor in getting an imaging rig working consistently, I can see the appeal. 

I used to do EAA with a SX Lodestar and 6” RC, and I know that setup could go very deep, typically mag 20 galaxies, so not sure the eVscope to go that far, but for the brighter stuff it is really good. 
 

I’m pretty sure this is just the start of this kind of setup and it wouldn’t surprise me if Skywatcher or ZWO come up with something better and cheaper before too long.

Edited June 30, 2022 by RobertI

[saac]

1 hour ago, RobertI said:

I’m pretty sure this is just the start of this kind of setup and it wouldn’t surprise me if Skywatcher or ZWO come up with something better and cheaper before too long.

I tend to agree with this, in fact I can see somebody, maybe EV scope, offering an NV integrated set up,  now that would be nice. At a sensible price point of course.  That would be some time in the future though as NV is obviously too expensive at the moment.  I do think however there is a place for this sort of integrated "point and shoot " technology in amateur astronomy especially for outreach. 

Jim 

[bomberbaz]

3 minutes ago, saac said:

I tend to agree with this, in fact I can see somebody, maybe EV scope, offering an NV integrated set up,  now that would be nice. At a sensible price point of course.  That would be some time in the future though as NV is obviously too expensive at the moment.  I do think however there is a place for this sort of integrated "point and shoot " technology in amateur astronomy especially for outreach. 

Jim 

Sorry NV, did I miss something. Just gone back and can't see a reference!

[Ags]

Looks like I am going to have to start the Campaign for Real Astronomy 🤣

[bomberbaz]

NV  = night vision

[bomberbaz]

15 minutes ago, Ags said:

Looks like I am going to have to start the Campaign for Real Astronomy 🤣

oooh challenge. Define real astronomy!

[RobertI]

15 minutes ago, Ags said:

Looks like I am going to have to start the Campaign for Real Astronomy 🤣

Hmmm, CAMRAS, a bit too close to CAMERAS! 😂

Where EAA scores for me is for the galaxy season, where my scopes (and even large dobs) cannot see anything other than faint smudges. But for clusters, globs, doubles, planetary, lunar and even brighter emission nebulae, I’m really happy with visual. 

[saac]

28 minutes ago, bomberbaz said:

Sorry NV, did I miss something. Just gone back and can't see a reference!

No you didn't miss anything, there was no reference, I'm just commenting on where I think these integrated scopes could go in the future. In my opinion NV makes a logical next step in their development. I would certainly welcome something along those lines but the price would most likely preclude it. Just wishful think that all  

Jim

[bomberbaz]

6 minutes ago, RobertI said:

Hmmm, CAMRAS, a bit too close to CAMERAS! 😂

Where EAA scores for me is for the galaxy season, where my scopes (and even large dobs) cannot see anything other than faint smudges. But for clusters, globs, doubles, planetary, lunar and even brighter emission nebulae, I’m really happy with visual. 

I really get this, the tiniest smudge visually gives you nothing but satisfaction of finding it and telling your mates about it, oh erm wait! 😉 

[saac]

2 minutes ago, bomberbaz said:

I really get this, the tiniest smudge visually gives you nothing but satisfaction of finding it and telling your mates about it, oh erm wait! 😉 

Noooo, never tell them , they will be wanting to borrow your kit  

Jim 

[beka]

I think I can get the value of the eVscope for people that already do astronomy and know some of the science, like those mentioned above who use them to acquire images then post process. But for outreach I feel it is too detached from the science. I think some will remember these which kids were always eager to look through. I feel that these digital scopes are just a step removed.

Best