SeeStar vs DSLR vs Cooled Astro Camera: How do they compare?

[@AbdurAstro]

Hi everyone. I made a new video showing how I process data of the Dumbbell nebula (from the SeeStar S50) here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jaKxqa18os-FkJYsi=IJrif0VR50IB-fpr It's part of my SeeStar Roundup series (in collaboration with @AllStarTelescope) where viewers send in their data of the object of the month (this month is the Iris Nebula) and I process all of our data together. Hoping my viewers from this channel can join in for next month as well. It's good practice as you get to download the RAW stacked SeeStar image and process along with me.

[@jaydias13]

Hi @AbdurAstro, thank you for the video! I'm interested in the Celestron Origins for the same reasons you mentioned here (setup time and future upgrades), but on the side would like to also have a very portable one on the side for traveling and I was set on the Seestar S50 until the Dwarf 3 came out. Which of these two would you pick? Seestar S50 or Dwarf 3? Thank yoiu in advance!

[@AbdurAstro]

@@jaydias13 Hi there. Between the S50 and Dwarf 3, I think the Dwarf 3 has an edge as it is newer. It has an 8mp sensor compared to a 2mp one on the S50. So it will have a larger field of view and thanks to the smaller 2micron pixels (vs 2.9 micron), it's actual resolution will be fairly close to the S50. But the S50 has a slight advantage here as the objects look 17% larger with the S50 when zoomed in at 100%. I like that the Dwarf 3 has mosaic mode out of the box (although ZWO is working on one for the S50 it seems) and the Dwarf 3 has an option for equatorial mode in the software but I will have to see how well that works if I can get my hands on a review unit. The widefield camera on the Dwarf 3 is an advantage for milky way shots. So over all I don't think you can go wrong with either as they are both good value but the Dwarf 3 has an edge spec wise.

[@jaydias13]

@@AbdurAstro Thank you! I'm indeed leaning towards the Dwarf 3 because of the equatorial mode and longer exposure time.

[@johndaley9188]

I'm new at this hobby and own/use the Seestar S50. I selected the S50 because of its size, portability, and how it operates. Cost was not a factor. At all. I'm pushing 80 and mobility is an issue. Setting up the scope on my deck and returning to my recliner to run the app, for me is perfect. I embrace the technology incorporated in the S50 and have been enjoying capturing/sharing images for 6 months. Still love it. Compact, light and smart. Yes!

[@AbdurAstro]

Happy to hear the SeeStar is working great for you. The portability and ease of use is definitely a huge reason I recommend the SeeStar and the fact it can get nice images is great too :)

[@Эль-Цзи]

What do you do or did when you were younger that the cost doesn't matter at all to you?))

[@johndaley9188]

@user-bm4ni5wp2h OK, I'm a Vietnam war veteran, 8 years Navy as an electronics technician. Moved to DC and became a technical consultant to the Navy department. Living now on a pension, SSA, and wise financial planning returns. Interesting that you picked out that one sentence to comment on. My entire adult life was filled with work, doing home/auto repairs and spending time with my wife of 50 years that I unfortunately lost a couple of years ago. As I said , I'm retired and just trying to make the best of it. In fact, tonight's forecast is clear sky's. Might be time for a S50 all-nighter.

[@Эль-Цзи]

@@johndaley9188 Thanks for the answer! I was just wondering. And I am pleased and surprised that a man at the age of 80 is so active and shows interest in such an unusual business as space exploration using a smart telescope. Good luck in everything, good health and long life!

[@40Sec]

I absolutely love seeing what the Seestar is capable of. I wouldn't trade my cooled camera for anything at this point, but I honestly wouldn't recommend getting into the full astrophotography experience for most people as it's such an investment in terms of money, time, and in learning to accept frustration as part of the process. I love that the Seestar gives people access to the night sky at such a low price point for the hardware, and fingers crossed that it helps ignite some passion to move to the next level for even a small percentage of those who use it.

[@AbdurAstro]

Very well said. I also see the SeeStar as a tool for most people to get started in astrophotography without spending too much money until they know if they have the patience to use a larger setup. Astrophotography has gotten easier (I remember trying to manually guide by looking through a reticle eyepiece back in the day) but it can still be frustrating sometimes. I think I spend about 50% of my time tinkering, optimizing, and fixing issues and the other 50% imaging.

[@alandyer910]

An excellent and useful comparison. It helps people understand what the SeeStar is capable of and its limitations and what the benefits are of spending more on higher end gear, to illustrate if they are worth the cost and complexity. People who complain that such comparisons are unfair miss the point. If you only compare products with nearly identical specs you’ll likely not see much in the way of differences. So why bother? It is the differences that are informative in helping people decide what to buy. Carry on!

[@AbdurAstro]

Thank you Alan. You said it much better than I could have. Wishing you clear skies :)

[@bobcarn]

That was a nice comparison. Thank you. I have a Seestar that arrived last December. I'm in my 60s and on a pension, so cost is a concern. Astronomy is a deep interest, and I do have a telescope, but my arthritis, lack of skill, and living in a light-polluted area make it very difficult to use. While I love astronomy, I have too many interests to devote enough time to learn how to use a telescope properly. My Seestar is a total joy. I can set it up, turn it on, and then sit back and see wonderful things. While I can only see a handful of stars in my area, I get amazed at the things that show up from my SeeStar. The other night I saw the Dumbbell Nebula for the first time and was amazed and thrilled. I'm regularly checking out the Sun for sunspot activity. I can't wait to see what these devices will be like in 10 years.

[@AbdurAstro]

I'm right there with you my friend. It's an exciting time to be getting into astrophotography. Things are so much more accessible than they used to be. Being able to see color in nebular in near real time is absolutely amazing. I am tracking sunspots with me SeeStar as we speak. The Sun is quite active right now.

[@pleaseholdinc]

Love the idea of comparing the three cameras. I have a Seestar and use 10 times more than my Celestron SE8. Mainly because it is so easy and fast to set up anywhere. The Seestar has the highest "bang to buck" ratio of any telescope or camera I've ever purchased.

[@AbdurAstro]

I totally agree. The SeeStar is along along with me. Can't say the same for all the big scopes.

[@markkitaoka8783]

Thank you. I'm a commercial photographer and wanted to dip my toe into Astro, so I bought a SeeStar. I'm not interested in dropping loads of cash into this hobby. Your comparison is very educational. Thanks.

[@AbdurAstro]

Thank you. Always happy to hear when my videos help someone. Wishing you clear skies! :)

[@blaircolliver5194]

A very informative video. Thank you!

[@dougiesmart1623]

A brilliant and informative video there, well done 😊. The Seestar is an amazing bit of kit for the money. I didn't notice you mentioning about your mount cost used with your 2600 and DSLR as the Seestar has the mount included in the cost. I would guess that your Skywatcher EQ6 mount would be an additional $1500 for the 2600 and DSLR. Also to control these rigs would need auto-guiding and controlled by either a laptop, ASIAIR, Eagle etc adding further to the cost. I adding all these additional items certainly increases the costs of the 2600 and DSLR options. Sadly it's an expensive hobby 🤣. Keep the great videos coming 😊

[@MrGp3po]

I priced out the actual components (some are estimates) of the Seestar and came up with about $2000 for an equivalent rig. I ordered mine pre-production at $399. Really a bargain.

[@AbdurAstro]

Thank you. In this video I was just focusing on how these three setups compare in terms of the image quality and I could have used a much cheaper mount (like my SkyGuider Pro) instead so I didn't include the mount cost. I had done the full cost breakdown for the SeeStar in this video (with an Excel spreadsheet): kzbin.info/www/bejne/faOmgXdonN1ohc0 and I had found that to get the same features as the SeeStar S50, I would have to spend US$ 2356.

[@astrodad-simonb277]

Love this as I recently took 135mm on to of my 120mm Esprit, at 9:28 in the video you used STF and made the back ground darker but I could pick up what you clicked, can you let me know how you did that ? :-) thanks !

[@AbdurAstro]

Of course. I opened up the STF window. Then linked all the channels by clicking on the chain icon. Then I zoomed in to the R channel until I could see both the left and right lines on the histogram. Then I moved the right line further right and the left line right as well (since all the channels are linked, the G and B channel automatically adjust when we adjust the R channel. That decreased the stretch and contrast of the view to match what I expected the final brightness and contrast level to be once I processed all the images.

[@astrodad-simonb277]

@@AbdurAstro Thank you !! :-) Best Simon

[@AbdurAstro]

@@astrodad-simonb277 Anytime! Always happy to help :)

[@captaincook6666]

Hi mate. In PI you can measure SNR and FWHM to compare. I recently had a problem with focus changing. I did these measurements for different stacks and was able to show BXT improved things so i could use the higher snr stack.

[@DirtyBird]

The ZWO takes top spot on the Veil nebula, however, FOV aside, the Seestar is a formidable contender. For M13 I felt the Seestar was every bit as nice as the MC2600 image. For $3000, I could have 6 Seestars simultaneously capturing a mosaic of the entire Veil complex, capturing 6 different objects at once, or all of them capturing a single object at 6x speed. My Seestar arrived today, which of course means it will rain for the next few weeks. :( Thank you for this side-by-side comparison.

[@michaeledmonds3027]

Perfect, thanks so much. I'll watch that video for instruction. Michael

[@TheKman1138]

Very nice comparison. As someone new to astrophotography, I've been looking for comparisons like this. I just purchased a Nexstar Evolution for viewing only, but with the intent to take a stab at astrophotography down the road. Initially I wanted to try an astro cam for the Evo, but I don't want to jump directly into a cooled camera to start as that's quite an investment. While the idea of the Seestar and its "set up and go" design appeals to me, I would like to take some shots from my own scope (being well aware of the limitations with the alt-az mount, etc...). That said, would it be advisable to grab a Seestar for DSO and save the planetary objects for the iPhone with the smart phone adapter? Or is there a more suitable beginner/intermediate level astrophotography cam, maybe in the $400-$500 range I could start with? Any suggestions appreciated!

[@AbdurAstro]

The NexStar Evolution is a good viewing mount. I love mine. The ALT-AZ is really easy for visual observing. The SeeStar would be much easier to use for DSO imaging than trying to use the Evo Mount with an SCT. Most SCTs have a very long focal length which adds to the challenge. If you plan to put a smaller refractor telescope on the Evo Mount for imaging that might be doable but would be a bit of a struggle so I still think the SeeStar would be an easier option. You can definitely do planetary imaging with the Evo mount though. An iPhone with a smartphone adapter like the one I reviewed here (kzbin.info/www/bejne/jnPOqJ-Oe6yKZrMsi=mt_67Py88_r3GlzR) would let you get some good images of the moon, planets, and (if using a solar filter) the Sun. I shared some examples in the linked video too. If you did want to get a better planetary camera, you can get one of these at a very good price and you can use it for guiding or planetary imaging in the future too even if you get a different telescope: bit.ly/3DGJIZC An actual cooled astrophotography camera would cost more and I do recommend just getting a good one instead of getting the most basic one and then upgrading soon after as you find it's limitations :)

[@davidandersen208]

It was a very nice comparison. The Seestar S50 did much better than expected. of course there will be better pictures with the 2600mc Duo, but I think that a DSLR camera with a slightly better FOV would also take better pictures than the S50.

[@AbdurAstro]

Thank you. The ASI2600MC Duo is definitely much better and I love that camera. But it cost several times more than the SeeStar so I agree the SeeStar did much better than I would expect for the price. I do wish the new mirrorless cameras were better for serious astrophotography as they have very low noise sensors but it's impossible to get real RAW images from them as most of them pre-process their RAWs in camera. In my experience with mirrorless cameras I often got weird rings and other artifacts with them.

[@ronlevandoski4805]

I did a similar comparison between the Canon 6D, a ZWO 533MM and a Seestar owned by my neighbor. The Canon easily beat the Seestar and the ZWO 533 was the best by a very wide margin on a Askar FRA300 60mm quintuplet.Unlike this video, I enlarged all my images for comparison to the same size. Makes a huge difference. Since enlargement is a key click, can't understand why the different images scales here.

[@AbdurAstro]

​@@ronlevandoski4805 Hi there. Since the telescope focal length is fixed, the magnification of the image is determined by the size of the camera pixels. What do you mean by enlargement? Do you mean zooming in to the Canon image beyond 100%? or do you mean resizing the image in software?

[@MickyMouseLimited]

Thank you your review was the best I have found on KZbin. Everyone else is pushing an agenda trying to promote or sale something. I am actually really pleased with the result of the non modified DSLR. For the price you pay you have mange to capture an image that is actually comparable to a setup that cost almost 3 times. The smart telescope is not bad for the price but due to the small sensor is to weak to compare with a full frame camera. For me the grand picture is more important that pixel peeping so for this reason are lean towards the full frame sensor of the DSLR and I am really happy to see that an non modified censor can hold up against dedicated astronomy camera. I am quite convinced of the dslr was modified with will be extremely close to the Astro camera. I am planing on getting a new mirror less full frame with 24 pm or less. I have found that Sony and Nikon have developed some amazing options where Nikon has a camera that offers 500 second exposure out of the box. I feel that this setup might punch really hard against a Astro camera especially when take in to account the price difference and the fact that the mirror less can also take shots during the day. What is your opinion?

[@AbdurAstro]

Thank you so much. I always strive to provide a completely honest and unbiased review. Astronomy/astrophotography have been my passion for most of my life and I just enjoy sharing that with everyone. I just ask that anyone who enjoys my videos and wants to see more of them shares them with their family and friends who might also be interested in astrophotography. As more people watch my videos I can make more of them :) Unmodified DSLR cameras can get some amazing images especially with some fast optics. I took this one with the unmodified 6D and a 135mm F2 lens kzbin.info/door/Oigpu7c-bT3C6oItFLQq7Qcommunity?lb=UgkxR1wZeVrefbo7mHd823iUnjLMReG8YuTK The fact that you can get them for so cheap on the used market makes DSLR cameras a great deal if you need a large sensor and don't want to spend as much for an astro camera. And as you said, they can also be used for daytime imaging. And a modified DSLR would be a lot closer to the astro camera on targets that have Ha (like the Viel nebula) than the unmodified one I used in this test. I noticed the DSLR was missing out on a lot of Ha due to that. But I mainly use the DSLR for timelapses now so I couldn't justify modifying it. I scenario where I found the DSLR really struggling against the cooled camera was when I was imaging from a really hot location (night time temperatures around 20-30C. In that case I found I was dealing with a lot of walking noise (since I was using a star tracker that couldn't dither). That would be less of an issue if you are using an actual mount and guiding so you can dither your images to reduce noise. Although modern mirrorless cameras have very capable sensors, one thing to watch out for is that many models from all brands suffer from the firmware pre-processing all the RAW files. That means you can't always properly calibrate your data with calibration frames. In some cases you might end up with faint colored rings in your images if you stretch them a lot. I experienced that issue with several Fuji mirrorless cameras and I know Sony, Nikon, and even many Canon models suffer from those issues. They likely won't be a problem if you don't stretch your images to reveal as much faint detail as possible, but just something to watch out for. The biggest advantage of the SeeStar is portability and ease of use but of course that comes at the cost of a small sensor and limitations like an alt-az mount. Each of these setups have their advantages and disadvantages so I ended up with all 3 so I can utilize their individual strengths.

[@1701c14]

Great video! Another option might have been the Canon 60Da with its APS-C size modified sensor 😊

[@AbdurAstro]

That's a a great suggestion as well Mark. The only challenge with that was the cost of a new 60Da in most places and finding a used one has been difficult where I am. If one can find one for a good price then it's definitely a contender.

[@gerf2548]

Good info on the SeeStar, I may end up ordering one. I also have some interest in the upcoming Dwarf 3 scope, I've heard good and bad. I hope maybe you'll obtain one and compare it to the SeeStar. I'm older now and have mobility issues. No more lugging a heavy SCT to the backyard and sitting out in the cold all night. lol I enjoy your reviews. 👍

[@AbdurAstro]

Thank you. I will see if I can get a Dwarf 3 to compare. On paper both the Dwarf 3 and SeeStar S50 have their advantages but I am very curious to see how they will compare in real world tests. I do prefer the higher image scale/magnification of the SeeStar S50 but the Dwarf 3 does have a larger field of view for objects like Andromeda and the Pleiades. I will let you know if I am able to get a Dwarf 3 to compare. I don't enjoy lugging a heavy SCT to the backyard either but I have to take out my C11 this week for some tests so I can make more videos for this channel :)

[@gerf2548]

@@AbdurAstro Good luck on man handling that C11, my Meade 8" use to be bad enough. I have to use a wheelchair most of the time now, so no more heavy telescope setups for me. I subscribed to you channel and I'm looking forward to future reviews. 😃

[@AbdurAstro]

@@gerf2548 Thank you and happy to have you as a subscriber. I will be collimating the C11 at F2 with the hyperstar adapter again so I'll need all the luck I can get. The rest of the week is looking cloudy so I have a few days to rest and work on other projects before I start imaging with that setup.

[@Garmy1]

I would like to see a comparison between a vespera and seestar on those targets

[@AbdurAstro]

Thank you for the suggestion. I will see if I can make that happen. The Vespera has the same sensor as the SeeStar S50 but it has a 200mm focal length quadtuplet apo instead of the 250mm triplet apo of the SeeStar. That will give the Vespera a larger field of view and faster optics. I would be curious to see how it fares compared to the SeeStar.

[@tamartin7001]

Very Helpful! thanks

[@AbdurAstro]

Thanks for watching.

[@santiagomadruga4298]

Pixel size of Canon 6D (6.54) is more than double of S50 (2.9) and more than ASI2600 (3.76). So, maybe the biggest difference in resolution is because of that. Also Canon 6D is very old, 2012. TBH I would really like to see your comparison with a modern mirrorless, as Nizon Z6II, Canon R6, Sony A7V, etc.

[@AbdurAstro]

The smaller pixel size of the SeeStar is both an advantage and a disadvantage. The Canon 6D might be old but if you use the correct gain settings it is still a very capable camera. Almost all the new mirrorless cameras suffer from one issue or another for astrophotography. Particularly things like colored rings, blotchiness in the background, star eater, etc. The Canon 6D calibrates better than almost any mirrorless camera. Different horses for different courses.

[@txdave2]

Thanks for this very interesting comparison.

[@AbdurAstro]

Thank you Dave. Glad you like it :)

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

Were all the Canon camera pics using a 300mm lens?

[@AbdurAstro]

Hi. The Canon DSLR pics were using the same 300mm f5 app refractor telescope as the ASI2600MC Duo cooled astro camera.

[@anata5127]

What’s about color of stars in the cluster? They all look white-green.

[@AbdurAstro]

That's because this is raw data with no color calibration. I just wanted to compare how the images looked from the different setups. In my Siril processing video, I did the color calibration and the color looks better (although I would go easier on the saturation next time I process it): kzbin.info/www/bejne/d6CbYmWQeKuCqq8si=NaieSAfOU_C2tIl1

[@michaeledmonds3027]

Thanks for your video... I have a SeeStar, and it's amazing for its price, package size, and optical quantity. However, the image files it produces are very small and can't handle any enlargement to reveal more detail. And, with its alt-az mount, field rotation it terrible after about 30 minutes of sub collection. With a higher resolution camera sensor and an EQ mount, SeeStar's APO optics could really produce some great images. But that's not its mission. For that, you need astro gear better suited for hours of image cature: EQ mount, APO optics, cooled astro camera, dew heating, and a computer controller like the ZWO ASIAIR. But $500 turns into $5000. Add much more expense for capturing tiny objects....

[@AbdurAstro]

Thank you. I agree that the SeeStar has it's limitations and that the images can't handle enlargement due to the 1920x1080 resolution of the sensor. But because the SeeStar takes so many short 10s exposures on each target, we can take advantage of that to use drizzle integration (the algorithm developed for the Hubble Space Telescope due to it's own low resolution sensor at the time). I made a video showing my processing steps in Siril (along with using drizzle integration) here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/d6CbYmWQeKuCqq8si=Zsn6Qng337alCpUx That way your 1920x1080 images get upsampled to 3840x2160 as the processing programs can use the slight differences in positioning between images to recover additional detail. It's a lot like the pixel-shift mode in many new mirrorless cameras which gives you a higher resolution image from a lower resolution sensor. Although field rotation becomes noticeable after about 30 minutes, I was able to get about 1.5 hours of data on some targets and with background extraction during processing and some cropping, it wasn't too much of an issue. Especially since you can get a much larger image after drizzle integration so you can crop more.

[@michaeledmonds3027]

Thanks for your well thought out response. So "drizzle" is done in software after you've captured all your subs? By using Siril? How do I find and implement drizzle? I saw that drizzle was located in SeeStar's advanced settings for a few days, then removed. Maybe ZWO will put it back in at some point. Thanks for more information, Michael.

[@AbdurAstro]

@@michaeledmonds3027 Glad I could help. You are correct. Drizzle is done in software while processing the image on the computer later. All tracking mounts have some amount on inaccuracy so the image is not exactly in the same place between frames. This works to our advantage so you don't need to enable anything in the SeeStar settings for that (which is probably why ZWO took out that setting). You do have to spend some time processing your images though so it is an extra step over just letting the SeeStar automatically stack the image as it normally does. I go over the entire process of drizzling and processing SeeStar images in this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/d6CbYmWQeKuCqq8si=Zsn6Qng337alCpUx

[@NoName-zi9qs]

The only issue I see with the S50 is the field rotation caused by its alt-az configuration.

[@AbdurAstro]

Definitely one weakness of the S50 but considering the price and ease of use, it gets amazing images even as an alt/az scope.

[@nikaxstrophotography]

They don't the dedicated camera and rig and dedicated scope will always win in image quality. The seestar is great for on the rush quick and easy imaging.

[@AbdurAstro]

They all have their advantages and disadvantages and the SeeStar's main advantage if portability and convenience. The cooled astro camera is definitely the best but not everyone can afford one. For many years the only camera I could afford for astrophotography was an old Canon 30D DSLR. This video lets people know how all three of them actually compare in practice on broadband targets as well as targets that do better in narrowband.

[@KevinRudd-w8s]

Its all horses for courses. They all have their advantages, I suspect many astro photographers will end up owning all three or similar.

[@AbdurAstro]

Exactly. I see it as an additional scope for many astronomers who already have other setups. But it is still an excellent starting point for anyone who doesn't have an imaging scope yet.

[@anandarochisha]

scary..i mean look at the investment difference

[@AbdurAstro]

Amazing that the SeeStar can even get close on some targets considering the investment difference. I won't be selling any of my bigger imaging scopes anytime soon but I am excited for more people to join the astrophotography community thanks to smart telescopes like the SeeStar.

[@ronlevandoski4805]

Why didn't you enlarge the Canon image to the same size as the Seestar and ZWO cam images? Very poor execution of this comparison if you ask me!

[@catherinegrimes2308]

I was thinking that myself, it wasn't a fair comparison.

[@AbdurAstro]

@@catherinegrimes2308 Hi there. Since the telescope focal length is fixed, the magnification of the image is determined by the size of the camera pixels. Zooming in manually to make them all the same size wouldn't increase the actual image scale of the images and that would be like using digital zoom on a camera. Comparing each of the images at 100% (native magnification) is the only way to do a fair comparison.

[@catherinegrimes2308]

@@AbdurAstro That is a point of view, but I would consider it to be more helpful if the images were of the same size especially as the image taken with the Canon 6D showed M13 to be so small you couldn't see a lot of detail on it. I would have thought that people would have wanted to see all the images of M13 to be of a comparable size and they were not. In the video you said "If we zoom in on the centre in each of the other two images as well we can make a better job of comparing them", you didn't zoom in far enough on the 6D. Also the image taken with the ASI2600MC wasn't rotated correctly.

[@AbdurAstro]

@@catherinegrimes2308 Zooming into an image beyond 100% magnification (as determined by the focal length and pixel size) makes the image blurry and pixelated. So zooming in to the Canon 6D image more than I did would only serve to make the Canon 6D image look more pixelated. I appreciate your viewpoint though and I tried to see if it was possible to also implement your suggestion in my future videos. However, even though PixInsight (the software I was using) is the gold standard of image processing, it does not allow us to assign arbitrary zoom levels (as that would require additional calculations to maintain accuracy and slow things down). I can only zoom an image to 100% as I did in the video, and then zoom to 200% and 300% etc. The zoom function is in integer multiples (whole numbers) only. So there is no easy way to make all the images visually the same size. And I just saw that you are correct in pointing out that the 2600MC image wasn't rotated the exact same way as the others. That is because I didn't rotate the camera the same way when switching between them but it should have no effect on the results of the video. Thank you and I appreciate any and all suggestions in the future as well.

[@bokvaj]

So basically you are comparing - different optics, different pixel size, different cameras, unmodified camera, astro camera... Yeeaaa. Whats the point comparing apples vs rocks? Sorry, but its absolute nonsense. SeeStar is complete solution, where you cannot upgrade further to anything better. Yea. its cheap. Its still a toy (if you compare it to decent rig) for bright targets like M42, andromeda, clusters.... Its on AZ mount, so fast shots, you will have no possibility to shoot feint objects without additional tools. DSLR unmodified is a bit better, with decent refractor/reflector. But, you loose a LOT of red light that is crucial at ... wait for it ... feint nebulosity :). And 2600MC Pro DUO ? its complete different universe. On your mount (guessing 6R Pro) you are able to do 15 mins guided exposures, without star trails, without blown stars (huge well). In dark places you can get the dark nebulosity, almost anything you want.... You can upgrade to any refractor/reflector you want.

[@Talalpro_1]

Cope Just let him do a video😭

[@AbdurAstro]

Hi there. Thanks for commenting. I consider all feedback to be good as it helps me improve. Sometimes, comparing apples to oranges IS the point of a comparison. Otherwise, everyone would be using an AP1200 with a C14 EdgeHD. Most people without unlimited budgets have to balance cost, portability/convenience, and expected performance. I am as dedicated as one can be but even I don't like tearing down and setting up my big rigs each time. The point of this comparison was to see how each of these different setups at different price points compare. I included two very different targets to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of each. Of course one can modify their DSLR or buy a pre-modified one but that is an additional cost that puts it in a different price bracket than the SeeStar. Is it worth the price difference? That is up to each person to decide. While I am well aware of the capabilities of my EQ6R, there is a reason I have an AM3 for portable use. Most amateur astrophotographers aren't aiming to get an APOD. Many are very happy with images they get from simple equipment as they just want to share the images with family and friends. If you are a master astrophotographer who has won multiple APODs, then the SeeStar isn't for you. I assure you ZWO won't be holding you down and forcing you to buy one. Since you consider the SeeStar a toy and don't seem to think it can produce images worth taking, I would love to see some of your amazing images.

[@40Sec]

If you're looking for a review on a single piece of hardware, I promise you they're out there. It's great to see three potential entry points into astrophotography given side by side so people can know what might be right for them. Although I have a more complex rig, videos like these have me considering getting a Seestar for general outreach as well as for sharing with the youth I work with, many of whom have never had opportunities to use telescopes of any type.

[@santiagomadruga4298]

@@AbdurAstro you make a very good point on setting up big rigs. Impossible to know, but for people without permanent observatories I wouldn't be surprised if in the long run they use more the simple-to-use S50 than expensive rigs that take a lot of time to setup. Convenience in the real life is super important. Personally, I'm getting so used to the S50 that I don't like the idea of getting a sophisticated rig that would take me several walks and half an hour to setup.

[@MrSummitville]

You are comparing different sensors, that have very different pixel sizes. You have not matched the focal length properly with each sensor. That is not very wise. This is a terrible comparison and total waste of time. Hey, lets compare apples, to lemons ... Duh?

[@AbdurAstro]

And yet here you are commenting on it. Very easy to move along if you can't understand the point of a comparison. This kind of comparison can help people see what each kind of setup can do, even if it is an oranges to apples comparison. You are welcome to do a better comparison on your own and share the results.