Im upgrading to a seestar s50 this christmas, what is the general opinion?

Compared to my current 60mm refractor on an AZ mount with an iphone 15 cam i think it is, i can spot objects with the press of a button and i will be able to stack photos in the app. I have my orion nebula photo posted if you want to compare what an S50 can do

Well yeah, i have been upgrading every few months or so i prefer to work my way up to more powerful scopes, thats kinda the idea.

In terms of capability it is significantly less powerful than a professional telescope, but for me its a large leap forward.

SonnyE · Dec 19, 2025, 05:38 PM

But just like Digital killed film cameras, and CMOS killed the CCD cameras in time, maybe these tiny phone camera sensor-based auto-astrophotography tools will be the king of the hill.

Not really possible. They will be an increasing presence because they are cheap and easy but the show stopper is aperture, speed and optical quality. That can only be fixed in software to a limited degree. So maybe king of the hill in terms of quantity but not in terms of quality. My CDK will never produce images like the VLT and tiny smart scopes will never equal my CDK…

I can see perhaps larger and more sophisticated versions of these smart scopes showing up (at much higher prices) but sooner or later that would merge with what many of us already have, moderately priced conventional small refractor imaging systems. At some point the simpler old school systems might actually be cheaper with user effort replacing scope sophistication.

SonnyE · Dec 19, 2025 at 05:38 PM

One of the big Hubbub’s surrounding 3i Atlas was taken by a Seestar 50.

So, I think these little automagical telescopes have a place.

Me, myself, and I, have been a long-established DSO Astrophotographer. It’s my jam. Why I made the trip.

So personally, I sure cannot see me stepping back from where I am. But just like Digital killed film cameras, and CMOS killed the CCD cameras in time, maybe these tiny phone camera sensor-based auto-astrophotography tools will be the king of the hill. I’ve seen other things come and go. Lots of ways to skin a cat.

Merry Christmas! And enjoy your new Seestar 50.

(And ignore the assholes)

Thank you :)

SonnyE · Dec 19, 2025, 06:05 PM

And I suppose you thought the same thing when digital emerged? My first digital camera was in 1995. A Casio Point and shoot. It was OK for its time. But my later Sony Mavica 3.5” floppy medium was far improved. (I still have that old darling.)

CCD users thought the CMOS cameras would never live up to CCD. Find a CCD now.

Come back in 5 years, Bill. And have some humble pie. If you have the humility to admit you were wrong.

You are making incorrect assumptions and rudely as well. So here is my background:

I was an extensive film photographer, both astro and landscape, from way back in the 70s and my father and aunt back into the 1950s - I have over a thousand slides now scanned to prove it.

As soon as digital showed up I had a digital astro camera and this was way back in 1993 (actually an auto guider - ST4 - but it took basic images as well). I was an early advocate of digital astro on the old astro film forums and it was my image of M51 taken with a prototype ST8E that went a long way on the film forums to convincing film astro users that digital was the thing to do instead. Since then I have owned MANY digital astro cameras. Look at that list and you will se I also moved to CMOS once it was better than CCD so you can put a stake in that suggestion.

SBIG ST5, SBIG ST5X, SBIG ST7, SBIG ST8E, SBIG ST10E, SBIG 11000M (prototype for testing), SBIG 8300M (2), QSI 6120, Moravian 16200, ZWO 2600MM (2), Moravian 26000EC Pro (2), ZWO 6200MM

As far as regular cameras, I jumped on digital as soon as I could because I learned from astronomy how much better they were. Although I had a nice Minolta X-370 film DSLR I bought one of the early consumer digital cameras (an Epson Photo PC - 1995) and then an early Nikon DSLR (D100). Not because they were new but because they were genuinely better than film in many ways, the most notable of which was instant feedback.

As far as the current crop of smart telescopes….

The bottom line is that there is no substitute for optical speed and aperture and (for some targets) focal length. You cannot make up for that with electronics or software to any significant degree. The sensors are good and getting better (although there is a physics imposed limit to that) but that applies to both smart and not smart systems. What will get better and is getting better is the software, especially AI, but that also affects smart and not smart systems as well to a large degree.

My predication is that two things will happen:

1) More of these “smart” scopes will sell because people want cheap and easy.

2) Larger versions with better optics and mechanics will appear as folks ask for more capabilities and become unhappy with the limitations imposed on the cheaper and smaller versions by physics - of course these will cost more.

So in 5 years (assuming I am alive, hardly a given), we will see more smart scopes but they will still not be able to equal larger systems (smart or not) given the same exposure time and location (level playing field) unless the optics and mechanics are equal to the standard systems - but in that case they will cost as much or more - just require less skill to use. That brings me to the other reason I do not like these smart scopes. As JFK said: “…..and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard,……”

To be honest the biggest problem I have with these systems is not their capability, that can be improved and will be (at significant $$$ cost). It is the same issue I have with AI and that is that any product becomes devalued as it becomes easier to produce. Any economist will tell you that value comes from labor and images from these scopes have less labor and therefore less value. We are entering a dumbed down world with dumbed down people operating smart systems and wanting to say “look what I did” when they did little but spend a few bucks. If that is what the hobby turns into, I will take up painting.

Bill McLaughlin · Dec 19, 2025, 07:41 PM

SonnyE · Dec 19, 2025, 06:05 PM

And I suppose you thought the same thing when digital emerged? My first digital camera was in 1995. A Casio Point and shoot. It was OK for its time. But my later Sony Mavica 3.5” floppy medium was far improved. (I still have that old darling.)

CCD users thought the CMOS cameras would never live up to CCD. Find a CCD now.

Come back in 5 years, Bill. And have some humble pie. If you have the humility to admit you were wrong.

You are making incorrect assumptions and rudely as well. So here is my background:

I was an extensive film photographer, both astro and landscape, from way back in the 70s and my father and aunt back into the 1950s - I have over a thousand slides now scanned to prove it.

As soon as digital showed up I had a digital astro camera and this was way back in 1993 (actually an auto guider - ST4 - but it took basic images as well). I was an early advocate of digital astro on the old astro film forums and it was my image of M51 taken with a prototype ST8E that went a long way on the film forums to convincing film astro users that digital was the thing to do instead. Since then I have owned MANY digital astro cameras. Look at that list and you will se I also moved to CMOS once it was better than CCD so you can put a stake in that suggestion.

SBIG ST5, SBIG ST5X, SBIG ST7, SBIG ST8E, SBIG ST10E, SBIG 11000M (prototype for testing), SBIG 8300M (2), QSI 6120, Moravian 16200, ZWO 2600MM (2), Moravian 26000EC Pro (2), ZWO 6200MM

As far as regular cameras, I jumped on digital as soon as I could because I learned from astronomy how much better they were. Although I had a nice Minolta X-370 film DSLR I bought one of the early consumer digital cameras (an Epson Photo PC - 1995) and then an early Nikon DSLR (D100). Not because they were new but because they were genuinely better than film in many ways, the most notable of which was instant feedback.

As far as the current crop of smart telescopes….

The bottom line is that there is no substitute for optical speed and aperture and (for some targets) focal length. You cannot make up for that with electronics or software to any significant degree. The sensors are good and getting better (although there is a physics imposed limit to that) but that applies to both smart and not smart systems. What will get better and is getting better is the software, especially AI, but that also affects smart and not smart systems as well to a large degree.

My predication is that two things will happen:

1) More of these “smart” scopes will sell because people want cheap and easy.

2) Larger versions with better optics and mechanics will appear as folks ask for more capabilities and become unhappy with the limitations imposed on the cheaper and smaller versions by physics - of course these will cost more.

So in 5 years (assuming I am alive, hardly a given), we will see more smart scopes but they will still not be able to equal larger systems (smart or not) given the same exposure time and location (level playing field) unless the optics and mechanics are equal to the standard systems - but in that case they will cost as much or more - just require less skill to use. That brings me to the other reason I do not like these smart scopes. As JFK said: “…..and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard,……”

To be honest the biggest problem I have with these systems is not their capability, that can be improved and will be (at significant $$$ cost). It is the same issue I have with AI and that is that any product becomes devalued as it becomes easier to produce. Any economist will tell you that value comes from labor and images from these scopes have less labor and therefore less value. We are entering a dumbed down world with dumbed down people operating smart systems and wanting to say “look what I did” when they did little but spend a few bucks. If that is what the hobby turns into, I will take up painting.

I’d suggest a 4” brush, to match your ego.

And you said it best, You are an imaging snob.

(And ignore the assholes)

I tend to agree with those that say the seestar will not match a pure astro rig, logic dictates that, aperture sensor size etc, but then again bang for buck not a bad result, a dedicated astro camera can easily cost more than the Seestar. If you are a beginner then this is an easy access tool, and as you become more involved and build your kit, i can imagine it will find itself in a case going on holiday with you as a valuable accessory to enjoy different seeing conditions experiencing constellations in a different hemisphere, really what’s not to like….. Have fun with your scope

Bill McLaughlin · Dec 19, 2025, 07:41 PM

We are entering a dumbed down world with dumbed down people operating smart systems and wanting to say “look what I did” when they did little but spend a few bucks. If that is what the hobby turns into, I will take up painting.

Exactly.

When I see a Seestar image posted out in the wild it usually is accompanied by a bunch of ‘look what i did’ notes and some wikipedia copy/pastes describing the target. That is boring to me on multiple levels. It’s also egotistical in my opinion too. One (or two) click images are easily distinguishable for me. Ask any of these people pumping out images daily for clicks what ‘deconvolution’ is.

I appreciate people who want to take images of the night sky and I welcome anyone who does with whatever equipment they have right now. My first image was on film in the late 1980s and then again when I got my first CMOS camera.

The issue I have is that these same ones want to be ‘respected’ with their script font signature on a blown out M42 core. Yes, my first images of M42 had a blown out core, but I didn’t publish them even after the digital age arrived. I learned the processes and continue to learn even now. I’ll never stop learning.

Astrophotography will continue to change over the years and when AI becomes ‘not sexy’ we’ll be on the next fad. In the meantime, true astrophotographers will create beautiful images based on real signal and will do so as long as astrophotography is an art.

The dumbed down are easily spotted. We are not alike.

Bill, I hope you never have to take up painting as a replacement for astrophotography and continue to share your craft with anyone that has an eye for the night sky.

Wishing you the clearest skies and excellent guiding rates.

Jason

Jason Cropper · Dec 20, 2025, 03:56 PM

Bill McLaughlin · Dec 19, 2025, 07:41 PM

We are entering a dumbed down world with dumbed down people operating smart systems and wanting to say “look what I did” when they did little but spend a few bucks. If that is what the hobby turns into, I will take up painting.

Exactly.

When I see a Seestar image posted out in the wild it usually is accompanied by a bunch of ‘look what i did’ notes and some wikipedia copy/pastes describing the target. That is boring to me on multiple levels. It’s also egotistical in my opinion too. One (or two) click images are easily distinguishable for me. Ask any of these people pumping out images daily for clicks what ‘deconvolution’ is.

I appreciate people who want to take images of the night sky and I welcome anyone who does with whatever equipment they have right now. My first image was on film in the late 1980s and then again when I got my first CMOS camera.

The issue I have is that these same ones want to be ‘respected’ with their script font signature on a blown out M42 core. Yes, my first images of M42 had a blown out core, but I didn’t publish them even after the digital age arrived. I learned the processes and continue to learn even now. I’ll never stop learning.

Astrophotography will continue to change over the years and when AI becomes ‘not sexy’ we’ll be on the next fad. In the meantime, true astrophotographers will create beautiful images based on real signal and will do so as long as astrophotography is an art.

The dumbed down are easily spotted. We are not alike.

Bill, I hope you never have to take up painting as a replacement for astrophotography and continue to share your craft with anyone that has an eye for the night sky.

Wishing you the clearest skies and excellent guiding rates.

Jason

I can see your points, however; I don’t believe in being critical of others' decisions when it comes to entering into and participating in this very niche and expensive hobby. Also, I would counter and say that we all got into this hobby really on the core basis of: “Look at what I did!”. Unless you entered in from a purely scientific standpoint, I think we all wanted to see what we could do and share it. If not, then we would have stayed in visual astronomy.

I don’t think anything is necessarily dumbed-downed by using a SeeStar or the like, it’s just something that isn’t for you. It isn’t for me either, I like to tinker and I tend to pick some of the most tedious and annoying hobbies, but I won’t discourage anyone from using one of these tools—level setting expectations though is what I believe in.

However, maybe, we can be a little perturbed that we had frustrating nights trying to learn how to do this stuff while freezing our butts off (🤣)!

Jason Cropper · Dec 20, 2025, 03:56 PM

Bill McLaughlin · Dec 19, 2025, 07:41 PM

We are entering a dumbed down world with dumbed down people operating smart systems and wanting to say “look what I did” when they did little but spend a few bucks. If that is what the hobby turns into, I will take up painting.

Exactly.

When I see a Seestar image posted out in the wild it usually is accompanied by a bunch of ‘look what i did’ notes and some wikipedia copy/pastes describing the target. That is boring to me on multiple levels. It’s also egotistical in my opinion too. One (or two) click images are easily distinguishable for me. Ask any of these people pumping out images daily for clicks what ‘deconvolution’ is.

I appreciate people who want to take images of the night sky and I welcome anyone who does with whatever equipment they have right now. My first image was on film in the late 1980s and then again when I got my first CMOS camera.

The issue I have is that these same ones want to be ‘respected’ with their script font signature on a blown out M42 core. Yes, my first images of M42 had a blown out core, but I didn’t publish them even after the digital age arrived. I learned the processes and continue to learn even now. I’ll never stop learning.

Astrophotography will continue to change over the years and when AI becomes ‘not sexy’ we’ll be on the next fad. In the meantime, true astrophotographers will create beautiful images based on real signal and will do so as long as astrophotography is an art.

The dumbed down are easily spotted. We are not alike.

Bill, I hope you never have to take up painting as a replacement for astrophotography and continue to share your craft with anyone that has an eye for the night sky.

Wishing you the clearest skies and excellent guiding rates.

Jason

I am assuming from this post that you were born with all this knowledge, ego is rarely seen in a mirror. How do we measure what is worthy of respect? is it how much we spend on equipment to prove how serious we are, is it due to those who have mastered the minutiae of the many software packages, or should the respect come from someone learning their craft and trying to capture the grandeur of the night sky… Dumbed down is an interesting concept. I took my first astro images with a zenith E in 78, when you had to know your way round the sky to find the object you wanted to image, high street chemists could not process the film, so you had to build a darkroom learn how to push film etc. now i get my goto mount to slew to target my electric focuser makes sure my picture is sharp, my computer runs the sequence of targets and images, meridian flips to make sure the telescope doesn’t crash into the mount, hell you dont even need to be in the same country to image all while safely tucked up in bed. Now I am not necessarily saying it’s already been dumbed down, there is a skill in how the image is processed. one thing I think we can all agree on is that “we are not alike”