ZWO Seestar 50

[PeterW]

If the onboard processing was better so you could show nebulae better and mosaic mode was added then it would be almost perfect. Sure a cooled camera on an apo with a really solid EQ mount will beat it…. 

Field of view you can’t win on…. Good for big nebulae or able to shoot planets and galaxies… half your buyers will hate you. I think the balance is great, but we still need mosaic!

you can always wait, a bigger and more costly one will probably arrive, will it be better, will it have different compromises??

 

Peter

[Ratlet]

I love Ed's videos but I made it 3 minutes in and gave up.  He's missed the point of the scope.

I couldn't help but think of @MarkRadice on Refreshing views on taking his 90mm on an azgti to Florida and doing live stacking.  I think Mark would get the point and the benefit of a scope like the seestar.  I think it would be great to take it out quickly set it up on some targets you couldn't hope to see by eye with a scope 10x the size.

I really enjoy sketching and the images the seestar makes look just about perfect for something to sketch from.  Nice balance of detail and colour.

I wish something like this existed when I started out.  I think it would be a better fit for what I want from my images than the cooled camera route I went down.  Though that's with the benefit of hindsight of course.

[ONIKKINEN]

I get the feeling that Ed had decided before the review that he will not like it because it seems he is a bit anti-technology for some reason, which is odd since his videos are usually pretty good and more on the objective side than subjective. I find it very odd that he decided to compare the Seestar to a Takahashi on an equatorial mount, you cant probably even get a flattener for the Tak for the price of a Seestar. Very tone deaf for sure.

I also dont quite buy the idea that you shouldn't buy one now because there will be a better one in a few years. If we followed this logic then we would never buy anything, since technology is always on the move.

[Ratlet]

13 minutes ago, ONIKKINEN said:

I get the feeling that Ed had decided before the review that he will not like it because it seems he is a bit anti-technology for some reason, which is odd since his videos are usually pretty good and more on the objective side than subjective. I find it very odd that he decided to compare the Seestar to a Takahashi on an equatorial mount, you cant probably even get a flattener for the Tak for the price of a Seestar. Very tone deaf for sure.

I also dont quite buy the idea that you shouldn't buy one now because there will be a better one in a few years. If we followed this logic then we would never buy anything, since technology is always on the move.

I guess the 'there will be a better one along soon' doesn't apply if you collect vintage scopes?

Ed collects vintage scopes so it might inform his statement.  

Edited March 25 by Ratlet

[inedible_hulk]

I don’t have a squig in this fight, but to be fair to Ed, he seemed to me to be framing his review from a ‘buy once’ philosophy.

[ONIKKINEN]

17 minutes ago, inedible_hulk said:

I don’t have a squig in this fight, but to be fair to Ed, he seemed to me to be framing his review from a ‘buy once’ philosophy.

Neither should i really "shout across the ravine" since i dont have a Seestar, nor am i planning on getting one. I get that, from a buy once philosophy standpoint the Seestar is not a good long term investment, if someone is planning on sticking with the hobby for lets say 5+ years and would like to re-use parts of the first purchase (like you could with a traditional setup).

But if 500 bucks is all there is to spend and one wants to image deep sky objects, then there is no better option. Not sure even doubling the budget would get a reasonably better option (not to even mention the setup of all the automatic voodoo required for live stacking astrophotography). I dont think the "buy once, use for 10 years" thing is intended for the target audience for the Seestar. Its a gateway drug, a kick in the back down the hill of Astrophotography. Since it doesn't cost an arm and a leg you can grab a ledge before the freefall and claw yourself out of the hobby if it wasn't your thing after all.

[LaurenceT]

Ed's probably still miffed he dropped somebody elses telescope the other day and totalled it, must have cost him dear😆.

[inedible_hulk]

59 minutes ago, ONIKKINEN said:

But if 500 bucks is all there is to spend and one wants to image deep sky objects, then there is no better option.

I wouldn’t disagree, but Ed might, and all I’m saying is that I can understand his point of view, even if I don’t necessarily agree with him. Is that a bad thing?

I haven’t taken the S50 plunge myself, but I am enjoying all the creativity and ingenuity on display here from those who have.

[Paul M]

I think Ed Ting certainly stuck his neck out abit but, he actually covered all the reasons that I (still!) don't have a smart scope.

I smiled when he mentioned that the Seestar is great on M42 but things tail off soon after. I've made the point myself that it's almost as though it was designed to showcase M42!  But that's a bit unfair, I know. I'd love one but I think I'm holding out for one of the next geneartion from Vaonis,the Vespera Pro, perhaps. But Then I worry that, as Ed said, the next next thing will be along soon after with even better features, and I am firmly in the buy once camp. I don't have a huge astro budget and all purchases take me week/months/years to decide. In a new and rapidly advancing market I'm more cautious/anxious than ever.

The skill is knowing just when is the right time for ones self, and your budget

The Seestar is an awesome peice of equipment, but I worry that I've already seen everything it can do right here on this thread.

[RT65CB-SWL]

Ed Ting released a video on his YouTube channel on Sunday. I will leave it at that! 

 

Edited March 25 by RT65CB-SWL

[paulastro]

7 hours ago, Richard N said:

I suspect Ed might be regretting his review. He’s getting a lot of pushback in the comments. 

So he should in my view.  I've always respected Ed and liked his reviews.  I will say though in this case he made it clear from the start he didn't like the S50, and then did everything he could to rubbish it.

As others have said,  he completely missed the point of it to the degree that I feel he must have known what he was doing.   Comparing the unprocessed S50 images with those of processed pics with setups costing many times the price was plainly misleading.

I've been a visual observer for over fifty years, and bought one because its amazingly cheap for what it does with the least effort.  I am delighted with the quality of the images it produces whilst knowing  its limitations and don't need anything better. 

Also, heading toward my 70th year with heart difficulties, I won't be following Ed's advice and be sitting on my hands waiting  for technology to improve  and prices to possibly  fall further.

I'm sorry Ed, but this is not one of  your finest moments.

Edited March 26 by paulastro

[Elp]

It did seem unnecessarily pessimistic from the start didn't it?

[Ratlet]

Playing devil's advocate here, but Ed Ting is known to have high standards and to be particularly cautionary on astro imaging, particularly for people just starting out.

His standard position is that if not to start out in astrophotography, so something that is designed to be an easy start (and one that is soon outgrown) it's unlikely to be a comfortable fit for his opinions on what is useful.

Edit:  I'm wishing I hadn't wandered in here.  I'm looking at the images and thinking about getting one.  Would be ideal for going on holiday, or even for imaging faint stuff to sketch from.  This forum is dangerous!

Edited March 26 by Ratlet

[LaurenceT]

3 hours ago, Ratlet said:

Playing devil's advocate here, but Ed Ting is known to have high standards and to be particularly cautionary on astro imaging, particularly for people just starting out.

His standard position is that if not to start out in astrophotography, so something that is designed to be an easy start (and one that is soon outgrown) it's unlikely to be a comfortable fit for his opinions on what is useful.

Edit:  I'm wishing I hadn't wandered in here.  I'm looking at the images and thinking about getting one.  Would be ideal for going on holiday, or even for imaging faint stuff to sketch from.  This forum is dangerous!

The " holiday" thing was a major part of my pitch to my Domestic Financial Controller

" the Az GTi is soooo noisy on a campsite".....

Edited March 26 by LaurenceT

[Ratlet]

1 hour ago, LaurenceT said:

The " holiday" thing was a major part of my pitch to my Domestic Financial Controller

" the Az GTi is soooo noisy on a campsite".....

For all the times I've used (and I've taken it apart) I still can't find the coffee grinder.

[Elp]

31 minutes ago, Ratlet said:

For all the times I've used (and I've taken it apart) I still can't find the coffee grinder.

I think it's like that to keep you awake during the night

[PeterW]

I’ve seen a lot of nebula images that show essentially nothing, as Ed noted, but it’s there in the data, it just needs better processing to do it justice. If they could add some extra processing levers to allow more to be pulled out then I might drop off the fence, but I can’t be bothered if I have to download and run the data through extra software. 
For newbies who want to see something it’s a game changer… most astro objects through a similarly priced store scope (apart from the moon, maybe the planets and maybe a few asterisms) will be much worse,  especially when you factor in the  issue with trying to find stuff! How many cheap scopes linger in lofts and cupboards as they could find stuff and it didn’t look like on the box….

 

Peter

[Cosmic Geoff]

I originally bought the Seestar S50 on the assumption that I would use it about twice a year on hassle-free visits to dark skies sites, and it was worth it just for that. In fact I have had it for six months and used it more than any of my other outfits, and imaged nebulae I never thought I would be able to image.

To me, the proposition that one shouldn't buy one because an outfit costing four times as much (+ hours of processing time) will give better results is ridiculous.

[happy-kat]

It's on the list if I exhaust me using the rig I've created

[LaurenceT]

17 minutes ago, happy-kat said:

It's on the list if I exhaust me using the rig I've created

It won't replace the rig you've created which I imagine is quite complex and expensive but it can compliment it.

[Pixies]

Cuiv (the lazy geek) has even replied to Ed's video! 

[LDW1]

Don't ever think that Ed doesn't know what he is saying, what he is doing, ever !  But by human nature many like to interpret how they like to ......, right or wrong !

[M40]

20 minutes ago, LDW1 said:

Don't ever think that Ed doesn't know what he is saying, what he is doing, ever !  But by human nature many like to interpret how they like to ......, right or wrong !

I'm not sure there is much misinterpretation going on, but as with all things, if it's not for you it's not for you. It's not the first video I have seen that compares the ss50 with something in a different league, but I do find it difficult to accept it as a fair review when you compare the straight out of the box ss50 image against a full ap setup image post processing. Additionally I'm not sure I buy the comment...don't buy it now, there's a better one coming next week, that could apply to every electronic device we own including the washing machine.

[Elp]

Here's a question. If the SS as it is cost 1000 would it be so popular? The low cost of entry is one of its main selling points, and possibly a previous barrier to those who'd like to image but hadn't taken the steps.

[900SL]

I couldn't agree more with Ed Tings review of the Seestar. I have yet to see a half decent image, it's a one trick pony and you can't 'grow' with it. 

Granted, it does most everything for you at a rock bottom price, but I find it too restrictive, too noisy and it will gather dust and represent 500 quid lost if you decide to go further with astro imaging. Ed was spot on the nail in my opinion. It's the Polaroid camera of astro

Edited March 26 by 900SL