A Small Telescope That Surprised Me

For a long time, I simply did not see the point of smart telescopes. The first generation of devices I really noticed were instruments like the Unistellar eVscope or the Vaonis Stellina and Equinox. They were technically interesting, but they also cost several thousand euros. And at that price point, I inevitably compared them with what the same money could buy in conventional astronomy equipment. That comparison never really worked for me. Some of those early devices tried to preserve the experience of looking through a telescope by placing a small display behind an eyepiece. Instead of looking directly at the light coming from an object in the sky, you were effectively looking at a camera image on a tiny screen. That always felt like an awkward middle ground. If I want to observe visually, I would much rather use a traditional telescope. There is something fundamentally different about actually looking at Jupiter, a globular cluster or the Orion Nebula through an eyepiece. The image might be faint, imperfect and nowhere near the colourful photographs we are used to seeing online. But it is live. And if the goal is simply to see an impressive image of an astronomical object, a quick image search will produce something vastly better than either a visual telescope or one of those early smart telescopes. From an astrophotographer's perspective, they did not make much more sense to me either. Small optics, relatively modest cameras, limited control over acquisition, little freedom to configure the optical train. All of that at a price where you could already start building a fairly capable conventional astrophotography setup. So for years, I more or less filed smart telescopes under interesting technology, but not for me. Then they got cheap The situation changed with devices such as the ZWO Seestar series and the telescopes from Dwarflab. We are no longer talking about several thousand euros. Depending on the model, these instruments now cost somewhere in the range of a few hundred euros. That changes the equation. The optics are still small. A 30 mm telescope is not suddenly going to compete with a large refractor or reflector, and many of the images I had seen from these devices did not particularly impress me compared with what I was used to producing with my normal astrophotography equipment. But that comparison is also slightly unfair. At a few hundred euros, I am no longer asking whether a smart telescope can replace a serious visual telescope or a full astrophotography setup. I am asking how much capability can realistically be packed into such a small, inexpensive and self-contained system. And that turns out to be a much more interesting question. For someone taking their first steps into astronomy or astrophotography, these instruments solve a remarkable number of problems at once. Put the telescope outside. Turn it on. Connect your phone. Select an object. The telescope works out where it is, finds the target, tracks it and starts collecting images. A few minutes later, something appears on the screen that clearly is the nebula, galaxy or star cluster you selected. And importantly: it is your image. Of course you can find a much better photograph of the same object online within seconds. But there is a significant difference between looking at somebody else's photograph of the Pac-Man Nebula and watching it slowly appear in an image being recorded from your own garden. For beginners, I can absolutely see the appeal. I still do not think a smart telescope replaces a visual telescope. They are fundamentally different experiences. But I started to understand that perhaps replacement was the wrong way to think about them. Curiosity eventually won My own reason for buying one was considerably less philosophical. I wanted to play with it. Several people in our local Astro Stammtisch group had bought smart telescopes by then, particularly Seestars and Dwarf telescopes, and naturally that made me curious. There was also a very practical use case I could suddenly see for myself: travelling. My normal astrophotography setup is not exactly something you casually throw into a backpack. A small smart telescope, on the other hand, is. For holidays or short trips, the idea of having a complete astrophotography setup that I could simply carry with me was increasingly appealing. Not necessarily to produce exhibition-quality images, but simply to make use of a dark sky when I happened to find one. Set it down somewhere, point it at a nebula or galaxy, let it collect photons for a while and take home a small astronomical snapshot from that place. That sounded fun. But there was another question that interested me much more: What happens if I treat the data from one of these telescopes like real astrophotography data? Most images I had seen from smart telescopes had been processed directly inside their respective apps. Considering how little effort is involved, the results can be remarkably good. But they still tend to look like automatically processed images. As someone who normally spends a considerable amount of time processing astrophotography data in PixInsight and Photoshop, I wanted to know what was hiding underneath that automatic processing. And this is where the Seestar suddenly became much more interesting. It does not only give you the finished stack. It gives you the individual exposures as well. That means I can take those files and run them through essentially the same workflow I use for data from my normal equipment. Now we are talking. I bought an S50 I eventually found a used Seestar S50 and bought it more or less on impulse. I deliberately chose the S50 rather than one of the smaller 30 mm models. It is still tiny compared with my normal equipment, but the slightly larger aperture and focal length made it considerably more interesting to me as an imaging instrument. My expectations were not particularly high. They changed surprisingly quickly. My very first test was deliberately terrible. I put the telescope outside on the terrace in the city, directly next to an illuminated window, and pointed it at the Crescent Nebula. The telescope was still operating in its normal alt-azimuth mode. I let it collect roughly 45 minutes of data. That should not be a particularly promising astrophotography setup. And yet there it was. The nebula's general shape was already there, along with some surprisingly fine internal structure. That was the first moment where I thought: Okay. This is considerably better than I expected. The tracking surprised me almost as much as the image quality One thing I had underestimated completely was the tracking. With a conventional astrophotography setup, tracking is one of those areas where you can easily disappear into an entire rabbit hole of its own. Mount quality, polar alignment, guiding, correction pulses, periodic error. Plenty of things can go wrong before you ever get to image processing. The Seestar, on the other hand, simply got on with it. There is no separate guiding system and no external guiding camera correcting the mount in the way I would normally expect. Yet the field remained remarkably stable. That became even more obvious once I switched to equatorial mode and started using exposure times of up to 30 seconds. Thirty seconds may not sound particularly long compared with a conventional deep-sky setup, but for such a compact integrated mount, without a separate guiding setup, I found the result genuinely impressive. The stars remained controlled, the target stayed stable in the field and the system simply kept collecting usable frames. For me, that was one of the points where the Seestar stopped feeling like a clever toy and started feeling like a surprisingly competent imaging instrument. Giving it a proper chance A little later I tried two more targets: the Pac-Man Nebula and the Wizard Nebula. This time I used the Seestar in equatorial mode, allowed longer individual exposures and simply let it collect data for four or five hours. And even the results produced directly by the Seestar app were genuinely impressive. Not impressive in the sense that I suddenly wanted to replace my normal astrophotography equipment, but impressive considering what had just produced them. A tiny telescope that I had carried outside almost like a camera tripod had autonomously found a faint nebula, tracked it for several hours, stacked the exposures and produced a perfectly presentable image with almost no work from me. That alone changed how I thought about the device. Then I downloaded the individual exposures. And things became much more interesting. There is much more data in there than the app shows I processed the Seestar data using more or less my normal workflow in PixInsight, followed by some final adjustments in Photoshop. Gradient correction. Noise reduction. Separating stars and nebula. Stretching the faint structures carefully. Working on contrast and colour. Putting everything back together. Suddenly the difference became substantial. There was considerably more detail in those tiny exposures than the automatic processing had suggested. Structures became clearer. Faint nebulosity appeared. I could handle stars independently instead of letting them dominate the image, and shape contrast far more carefully. The Seestar had captured proper astrophotography data. Obviously there are limits. A 50 mm aperture does not magically become a 130 mm refractor. The sensor is small. Resolution is limited. The optics and mount impose their own constraints. I am still not expecting to produce large exhibition prints from it. But that is also no longer the benchmark I think makes sense. For images on the web, for documenting an observing session, for travelling, for experimentation, and simply for the pleasure of seeing how far you can push a very small instrument, the quality is remarkably good. Far better than I had expected. A very different kind of entry point into astrophotography