Okay, the first thing I need to tell you about me, is that I am crazy about hobbies.
I am very keen on hobbies in general, but when I get into a hobby, I go all the way. Not only in enjoying the hobby, but I also enjoy thoroughly researching all of the equipment, and accessories, which are used in the hobby.
And of course Astrophotography is no different; after getting (first) The Dwarf 2, and later the Seestar S50 Smart telescope: I was simultaneously researching standard/conventional equipment for Astrophotography.
Working within the limited budget I have, my goal was to locate traditional Astrophphotography equipment, which would provide similar (hopefully slightly better) results, to those which were being produced by these smart telescopes.
I would spend much of my free time, surfing the web and extensively researching: Which bundle, or combination of equipment, would give me the same (or slightly better) results...
Luckily, I have the experience (and skill) required to do conventional astrophotography. And I wouldn't mind putting in the effort & work, to do it "the old fashioned" way.
What I can tell you, is that it’s not really possible.
I’ve tried for probably over two months. Again, spending whatever free time I had, trying to track down and put together, an inexpensive Astrophotography solution (starting from scratch, mind you) – which is to say, if someone were to go out, starting from zero – and buying the equipment required to do some simple Astrophotography.
I also want to point out, that there are quite an assortment of “how to” videos, on YouTube, covering this topic. Which is to say, they have titles such as ‘How to do Astrophotography for under $2000’, or ‘How to do Astrophotography for under $1500’, and similar titles. I like the ones done by 'Nebula Photos' Channel (Nico Carver).
Yes, the aforementioned set ups (shown in those videos) would produce very good images of large/extended deep sky objects. But there are only so many large/extended deep sky objects to photograph… In the interest of full disclosure: I'm not one of those folks who enjoy large/extended nebulae that much...When I was doing DSLR-based astrophotography, those are the objects I was kind of limited to. I happen to really love planetary nebulae (which are generally small).
I began my research/experiment, with a budget of $1200, and quickly found, that I was unable to find any bit of kit to put together, which would even come close to the results produced by either of these inexpensive smart telescopes.
I then raised my “imaginary budget” to $1500, and continued searching, surfing, and researching, for several weeks. I was still unable to find any equipment, which I could recommend to anyone for getting into Astrophotography. And certainly not to get into Astrophotography easily, without a rather steep learning curve.
I simply couldn’t find anything which a complete beginner would be able to quickly or easily utilize. This was very enlightening to say the least.
This is something that not too many people are speaking about. And by people, I mean the more well-known proponents/hobbyists/enthusiasts - And social media influencers involved in Astrophotography.
So, the preceding paragraphs were simply a polite way to say, that these two smart telescopes have cornered the market on Astrophotography. During my research, I have seen and heard several stories, and read many posts from hobbyists - both beginner and intermediate/experienced Astrophotographers, stating their observations. Posts on social media, etc. to the effect of: “I have never been able to see deep sky object “XYZ” Using my 10 inch reflector before – yet this Dwarf 2 is able to see it and image it!
I’ve come across quite a few similar statements, from different amateur astronomers/
Statements such as these, invariably cause you to pause and think for a moment.
It’s really astonishing, that anyone would admit (for lack of a better word) that $500 off-the-shelf smart telescopes, have been producing images which are not only as good, but (often) better, than their expensive telescopes & equipment have been able to produce.
Now don’t get me wrong. Of course, there are many hobbyists who have good/expensive equipment, and:
- Know very well how to get the best performance from it.
- Know how to post-process images very well.
- Consistently produce images, which are easily/obviously better than the images from the smart telescopes.
From what I've seen, in cases such as the above: The resulting photos tend to look noticeably sharper (for one thing!), have much more depth, and definition.
I recall a young lady who was using a very nice astrophotography rig, built around a good 4" apochromatic refractor. These scopes consistently produce some of the nicest, professional-looking images. And when she stated that one of these smart telescopes (The Seestar S50), was producing images just as nice as her rig... What??
I was simply at a loss for words. These are truly amazing findings. And I sometimes wonder, if these results are not shared more frequently, more commonly, and more widely for several other underlying reasons? Such as:
Perhaps some hobbyists would rather not disclose that a $500 smart telescope is able to take images as well as their $4000+ imaging set up?
I sometimes wonder, if those who are very well known in the world of YouTube, as far as astrophotographers go, are reluctant to let this information be known? For fear of the negative impact it would have on sales of traditional (expensive) equipment for astrophotography?
As I typed this, I had the Seestar S50 outside on my deck, imaging NGC 1514 otherwise known as The Crystal Ball Nebula. It is a small planetary nebula, which for all intents and purposes, one would normally only attempt, using a good apochromatic refractor (or an 8" to 11" SCT!) along with a very steady & capable mount...along with an expensive, cooled astronomy camera…Yet, this Seestar S50 (a $500 smart telescope) has captured a very nice image of this object:
I’ve been doing my best to keep this concise, and not to go off on too many tangents. However, the other thing which I’m interested in pointing out, is that:
I am among the hobbyists who would be happy, if conventional astrophotography equipment (along with the various skills required to manipulate images) was, in fact, still the de facto standard when it came to acquiring images of deep space objects.
I'm happy to accept the idea that "if it were easy, everyone would be doing it".
I like the idea of something requiring a bit of study, and acquisition of a set of skills, in order to produce good results.
And this goes for just about any hobby. Those I can think of, just off the top of my head: building scale models, building models from card stock/paper, tying full dress Atlantic salmon flys for display, hand carving songbirds from wood, etc.
And on a related note, even creating pencil sketches of deep sky objects at the eyepiece. Using (typically a large) telescope, or sometimes even a pair of good-sized binoculars. However, almost any size instrument could be used.
These are all things which require one to develop skills, over time, in order to produce satisfactory results. And I like the idea of that.
I wish I could say that the conventional methods of astrophotography give a very obvious/substantial improvement over the results from smart telescopes, but it seems I can’t. Not for ~ $2000…You’re going to have to invest quite a bit more if you plan to beat these smart telescopes!
For approximately a quarter of the cost required, to invest in traditional astrophotography equipment; you can get a device - Which practically does everything a set-up costing four times as much would do. And produces amazing results when it comes to the final astrophoto, obviously.
It goes without saying that this has revolutionized the way people enjoy astrophotography, and even astronomy to some degree. In the past, someone would have their conventional astrophotography set-up deployed in the backyard, whilst likely observing with another instrument (typically another telescope). These days, instead of the large, complex, time-consuming (to set up) traditional rig... A person can simply place a smart telescope outside, allow it to image, while they do some visual observing. And the “set up" of a smart telescope takes a tiny fraction of the time required to set up a traditional astrophotography rig.
This obviously gives the user so much more time, to casually observe the objects in the heavens, which are of interest to them. For example, I intend to continue observing, visually, and even sketching deep sky objects; while my smart telescopes sit there and do their imaging for me.
They are like little robots, doing all the work for you. Explained another way: I'll admit, that I am one of those people, who takes pride in having learned a skill. Having taken the time, and effort to learn new skills, which enable me to produce the desired results (whatever end results the hobby in question requires)...
These two new, affordable, smart telescopes, have only been out for a relatively short time. So it’s still too early to make any concrete predictions.
However, as someone who admittedly enjoys doing things the old-fashioned way, the way which requires hard skills, I could not find any equipment to purchase with a budget of $2000+ which would produce better results than the smart telescopes, which cost only $500.
And believe me when I tell you, I’ve tried, I’ve really tried! I'll admit, that I wish it were the case: that you could produce the same astrophotography results, with a budget of approximately $2000...But try as I might, I was unable to theoretically (or otherwise) prove it.
These are the things, which, all of us as amateur astrophotographers, may end up brooding over a bit. We all still have free will, and we can still choose to do things the traditional way. However, in order to get results better than what these $500 smart telescopes can do – My guess is: We will have to invest somewhere between $3000 and $5000. I’m sure to some people, it’s worth doing that. Especially if they’d rather be able to say that: The work was done by them, manually, using skills that were acquired over a substantial amount of time. And that’s how the outstanding results were achieved.
Unfortunately, for someone like me, on a low budget – able to only spend approximately $2000, I really can’t see myself producing images much better than what these smart telescopes can produce.
Both of these telescopes have their strong points. They both have their pros and cons. I've reviewed each of them in detail, on my blog. Generally speaking: the Seestar S50 is excellent for imaging smaller, deep sky objects. The Dwarf 2 is essential for imaging large deep sky objects.
Let’s keep in mind that the prices are very similar; at right around $500.
Proving that I will “put my money where my mouth is" - I intend to try to "prove myself wrong" so to speak. And, I still intend to acquire some equipment – for around $2000, give or take a few hundred dollars.
And I will put in the effort, to see if the proof is in the pudding. I want to see (with my own eyes) if this is indeed the case. So I plan to go forward with this experiment, and of course will be reporting my findings and all the relevant and interesting details.
So far, I've acquired a (lightly used) 80mm ED triplet refractor, a new ZWO ASI178MC, a ZWO Duo Band filter, and...I guess I'm making progress?
Until next time,
Clear & steady skies!
My blog: Astronomy Product Reviews
