ZWO Seestar 50

[Paul M]

17 minutes ago, WolfieGlos said:

no image that I've seen from this thing is "astounding". In fact, most of them are of a quality that I would deem "needs more subs" and would never be shared anywhere.

That's where I am. I've spent £thousands to get there!!

I still share'em though!

[Elp]

I think you're forgetting that the sensor the SS uses is also used in astro cameras.

It's the total imaging time which makes a difference. If you spend 10 minutes doing EAA with a traditional scope setup you'll get similar results to the SS (if aperture, FL and camera sensor were equal). It's the post processing in software which makes all the difference, to which all "good" AP images have been through, I typically spend 3-4 hours post processing mine, and it's guaranteed a noise reduction process is applied to all images, something the software in a SS is not designed to do as a primarily EAA device. It doesn't mean it's not capable of similar to an AP image. If you take the subs, say ten hours on a target, put them through Siril or PI pre process, calibration, registration and stacking then run through post I'm sure you'll get a similar AP result.

[Gfamily]

HEQ5 with Rowan Belt mod - £1300; Starfield 102 - £900;  ASI 585 - £380

vs

Seestar 50 - £550 

[DaveL59]

8 minutes ago, Elp said:

I think you're forgetting that the sensor the SS uses is also used in astro cameras.

It's the total imaging time which makes a difference. If you spend 10 minutes doing EAA with a traditional scope setup you'll get similar results to the SS (if aperture, FL and camera sensor were equal). It's the post processing in software which makes all the difference, to which all "good" AP images have been through, I typically spend 3-4 hours post processing mine, and it's guaranteed a noise reduction process is applied to all images, something the software in a SS is not designed to do as a primarily EAA device. It doesn't mean it's not capable of similar to an AP image. If you take the subs, say ten hours on a target, put them through Siril or PI pre process, calibration, registration and stacking then run through post I'm sure you'll get a similar AP result.

Well in theory you can run for longer capture periods, either using a wedge to reduce the field rotation or by shooting for a shorter duration repeated multiple nights around the same time. Then collate and process the subs it captures and do the other magic etc. If inclined, of course. I think some have shown how on the tube and produced decent results, tho I'm no expert nor inclined to invest that amount of time.

[Elp]

But that's the point of the device. Quick and easy. You can achieve the quick (data capture) with any setup, but not the easy, and definitely not the cheap.

Edited March 27 by Elp

[ONIKKINEN]

There are some pretty damn impressive images on Astrobin taken with a Seestar: https://www.astrobin.com/search/?q="ZWO+Seestar+S50"&d=i&subject=&telescope=&camera=&date_published_min=2011-11-09&date_published_max=2024-03-27&sort=-likes

Of course its possible someone has not been honest and some other telescope was used, but i find it hard to believe that people would bother doing that.

[MonsterMagnet]

9 hours ago, Elp said:

But that's the point of the device. Quick and easy. You can achieve the quick (data capture) with any setup, but not the easy, and definitely not the cheap.

I think the travel point is overlooked a bit.

I am off on holiday tomorrow and for 4 nights of that we are on an island that is going to be Bortle 2.  All the other nights we are in cities so there is no way I would consider taking a proper rig but for the off-chance that I get clear skies in such a remote location I am tempted to take the SS.  It's so small that if I end up not using it then it's not really a massive deal.

I think this is the issue here, the use cases are different to a normal rig but are being compared as if they are the same.

MM

[Bazz]

12 hours ago, 900SL said:

Feel free to post an example astounding image, with supporting details to confirm it is from a Seestar. 

Quite astounding without any proper processing either and to think only £500 

 

[900SL]

47 minutes ago, Bazz said:

Quite astounding without any proper processing either and to think only £500 

 

Where are the diffraction spikes coming from in these images?

I get how this would appeal to somebody looking for a do-it-all box that will point and shoot. No argument there. It's a low cost gateway into imaging.

Seems to be quite popular with the visual crowd, who don't want the time, headache or expense of a full astro-imaging set up and processing learning curve. Also may appeal to some imagers who want a quick grab-n-go, or a n00b looking to get into imaging. 

But those low-res images confirm what is my opinion. It isn't for me, I went past that level a couple of years ago with a APSC DSLR and tracker, and I agree with Ed Tings opinion. But hey, horses for courses. You want to use this, not my concern. I just know I'd be looking to move on within a few months, and this thing is not upscaleable. 

 

Edited March 28 by 900SL

[Tomatobro]

Never in the field of astro photography has one item been loved by so many and disliked by so few.  

[Cosmic Geoff]

I found that surpassing the Seestar images using my other kit was not as easy as the 'experts' seem to suggest. I never wanted to go down the route of buying expensive deep-sky kit, figuring out how to make it work, and spending hours processing the result. 

The Seestar was exactly the device I was waiting for.

A couple of years ago I acquired a DSLR body with the aim of trying out imaging with it. But it just seemed too much of a bother. Even when I bought a lens for it, lugging this big thing around for general photography just made me feel conspicuous. A Smartphone proved a much more practical camera for daily use.

I agree that if you want to produce amazing high-resolution images, the more traditional non-Seestar route is the way to go.

[Bazz]

3 hours ago, 900SL said:

Where are the diffraction spikes coming from in these images?

I get how this would appeal to somebody looking for a do-it-all box that will point and shoot. No argument there. It's a low cost gateway into imaging.

Seems to be quite popular with the visual crowd, who don't want the time, headache or expense of a full astro-imaging set up and processing learning curve. Also may appeal to some imagers who want a quick grab-n-go, or a n00b looking to get into imaging. 

But those low-res images confirm what is my opinion. It isn't for me, I went past that level a couple of years ago with a APSC DSLR and tracker, and I agree with Ed Tings opinion. But hey, horses for courses. You want to use this, not my concern. I just know I'd be looking to move on within a few months, and this thing is not upscaleable. 

 

I think looking at the reviews Ed Tring is in an extreme minority with his opinion.

[PeterStudz]

Interesting stuff…. Although the video/review could have been better I generally agree with Ed Tring and think he’s made some good points. 

Towards the end and in summary, he mentions  “are you happy with the quality of the images that this produces? If yes then buy it. If not then don’t” - seems like good advice. For me (I’m not an imager anyway but if I was) I would want something more/better. At the same time the SeeStar 50 is a great gadget and I can see the attraction.  But I’m holding out for the SeeStar X100 Pro Max.

He also says that he thinks the SeeStar is good at lunar and solar. However, looking at the lunar & solar images it produces I think that this is its weak point. A smartphone with cheap telescope has been able to produce better lunar/solar images for years. For me it looks best at faint fuzzies - DSO. 

Although I prefer visual I do like to take and experiment with the occasional smartphone snap. Usually to document what I’ve seen. To me the SeeStar is the astrophotography equivalent of point-and-shoot… taking a snap. Now, there’s nothing wrong with that and in today’s world there’s a big market for all kinds of snaps. Eg the young, social media etc is full of them with some making a living out of it. Here, the resolution or producing high quality images doesn’t matter. After all, these things are for tiny little smartphone screens. And apart from pushing through some Instagram filters, playing with the stock camera app sliders, there’s no appetite for processing. Having said that - with the SeeStar you’re taking a snap of something you haven’t seen, so maybe it’s not quite the same as a traditional snap. 

In Ed’s review he also mentioned people in visual outreach type events wanting to take pictures of what they’ve seen at the eyepiece. The assumption is that this must be easy. After all, they take snaps of everything else. But as he says “it’s not there yet”. I’ve had this before too. Eg one of my daughter’s friends (who said she wasn’t interested in astronomy) ended up being amazed when she saw the moon through our Dob. Here I also got the “can I take a picture?” Fortunately I’m geared up for that and was easily able to take something with my phone and pass it onto her. This lunar “snap” was then plastered on her social media accounts and used for sometime as her smartphone wallpaper. The fact the image was of low resolution did not matter to her and I doubt that she even noticed or cared. It was a snap of something she had seen, something she’d experienced and enjoyed which she wanted to share. There are a lot of people like that. 

[900SL]

1 hour ago, Bazz said:

I think looking at the reviews Ed Tring is in an extreme minority with his opinion.

He's in a minority for sure. The minority of highly experienced well heeled telescope connoisseurs who also dabble in astrophotography who know their sheet.  😉 

 

[LDW1]

1 hour ago, Bazz said:

I think looking at the reviews Ed Tring is in an extreme minority with his opinion.

Especially if you didn't understand what he was saying, lol !

[LDW1]

22 minutes ago, 900SL said:

He's in a minority for sure. The minority of highly experienced well heeled telescope connoisseurs who also dabble in astrophotography who know their sheet.  😉 

 

Well said, exactly !

[LDW1]

The saddest part of it all is that it takes well meaning beginers or some long time dabblers who know nothing about astronomy and makes them think they are instant experts !  And fye to those long time players that disagree with them, lol !  True experts like Ed Ting for example !

[AstroKeith]

Just watched Ed Ting's review. 

 

I think he is right on so much - in particular it's not great image quality and much better is coming. But, I believe his conclusions are biassed.

I'm a visual only observer. I go after really difficult objects and work actively to improve my own visual performance. Never gone to the 'dark side' (what I call astrophotography), since why not just look at images on the web!

But I've bought one. Costs less than an eyepiece (my Ethos at least), or a week away at a star party. I'm enjoying the technology. It's a good package and must not be compared with astro-photography rigs costing £1000's. No doubt we will see firmware upgrades (post processing and mosaics). Meanwhile I'm having fun and it's something I can share with my grandchildren without them getting bored, cold and disillusioned. Heh they might even get interested in astronomy!

I design telescopes and tracking systems, and ZWO have hit a good spot. Almost everything Ed wanted could double the price. Except better processing which is almost free. Even a bigger sensor might sound affordable, but it will impact the optical design (size of flat field) filter apertures, etc and prices will spiral upwards quickly.

Next time I'm out with my 18" Dobsonian, there will be little friend nearby on the ground busy imaging. (Albeit with gaffer tape over the LEDs!)

 

[LDW1]

I watched Ed's vid one more time and there is no doubt in my mind that the complainers about it did not listen to what he was saying in his review !  There wasn't one derogatory remark about anyone owning the SS just an honest general analysis of what you had and its capabilities vs value, at this point in time and he also pointed out several times that at some point, but not now, these developers / manufacturers will get to a stage where conventional AP will become a back seat rider but not now !  Ed was / is right on the $'s and he did it in a nice, gentle and fun sort of way but todays crowd of no it all astronomers just don't like to be told, unfortunately !   PS:  Even though I own 2 SS's and had a DII he is absolutely correct but like many I want to play with them now and Ed says he appreciates that, if you listen closely !  PPS:  While I am waiting for better !

[tomato]

If only it was as easy the other way around. I can be imaging in under 10 minutes with my permanent dual rig, but it takes 45 minutes to lug my 16” flextube Dob out of the garage, dismantle the back gate to get it into the garden and re-collimate. That’s why the latter is going to be converted to a compact truss tube design.

[paulastro]

54 minutes ago, LDW1 said:

I watched Ed's vid one more time and there is no doubt in my mind that the complainers about it did not listen to what he was saying in his review !  There wasn't one derogatory remark about anyone owning the SS just an honest general analysis of what you had and its capabilities vs value, at this point in time and he also pointed out several times that at some point, but not now, these developers / manufacturers will get to a stage where conventional AP will become a back seat rider but not now !  Ed was / is right on the $'s and he did it in a nice, gentle and fun sort of way but todays crowd of no it all astronomers just don't like to be told, unfortunately !   PS:  Even though I own 2 SS's and had a DII he is absolutely correct but like many I want to play with them now and Ed says he appreciates that, if you listen closely !  PPS:  While I am waiting for better !

It doesn't mean because some people disagree with your point of view that  they are ' part of today's crowd of know it all astronomers  (who) just don't like to be told ufortunately! '.  The fact you have resorted to such insults does no credit to yourself or your arguments.  

[Elp]

I'm not on the SS crew (yet) but the review came across negative from the start, nothing like his other videos that I've seen with his upbeat attitude. Take from that what you will. I did agree to some of his points, but you can't argue with the fact he compared the SS default output to a fully post processed expensive rig setup image (other than the one image he showed processed by a friend). That is misrepresentation. My images straight out of my "expensive" rig certainly doesnt show clear nebulosity on M45 straight from camera or even with the histogram preview slider changes whilst it's imaging.

If he is a "true expert" he should have done a like for like process comparison like others have done.

Edited March 28 by Elp

[Peter Drew]

I think Ed has done Seestar a favour, it's become a "hot" topic.      🙂

[Priesters]

3 hours ago, AstroKeith said:

since why not just look at images on the web!

😔 darn it, think I’ll sell up.  I never thought of that.
 

Or alternatively maybe I just enjoy the process and have got to a point where I’m happy with the outcome.  I’ve also never heard any photographer of any type refuse to take a photo just because someone else has snapped it already.  Anyhow, this thread is already getting a bit tasty without me adding an imagers v visual barney 😉.  We’ll be going all Cloudy Nights next.

Edited March 28 by Priesters

[Gfamily]

1 minute ago, Priesters said:

We’ll be going all Cloudy Nights next.

Actual cloudy nights is probably why this has expanded to almost 60 pages.