Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home page


Astrophotography and Sketching >> CCD Imaging & Processing

Pages: 1 | 2 | (show all)
Grafff
super member


Reged: 02/03/10

Loc: Salzburg
ST-8300M vs STF-8300M
      #5111125 - 03/08/12 06:57 AM

It was recently announced a new camera from SBIG: STF-8300M. There is improved electronics, but ... + $ 700. What is the best choice:

SBIG ST-8300M -- $1795
SBIG STF-8300M -- $2495


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
DugDog
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 12/19/07

Loc: Temecula, Ca. USA
Re: ST-8300M vs STF-8300M new [Re: Grafff]
      #5111195 - 03/08/12 08:19 AM

Quote:

The new Model STF-8300 is SBIG's second-generation camera using the popular KAF-8300 CCD. The STF-8300 has new, faster, electronics with 10-megapixel/second digitization rate and a full frame image buffer. The high resolution image downloads in less than one second. The camera uses SBIG's traditional even-illumination, photometric shutter design, and adds a user rechargeable desiccant plug.




For $700 you get your image download faster?

The Parsec already has "internal full-frame 32 megabyte memory buffer" but it downloads in 10 seconds.

$700 can buy a lot of equipment, maybe people will feel better about the extra "F" in the model name, that could be worth $700?

If it was me, I'd keep the $700, and I can wait a few extra seconds for the download.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Grafff
super member


Reged: 02/03/10

Loc: Salzburg
Re: ST-8300M vs STF-8300M new [Re: DugDog]
      #5111239 - 03/08/12 08:45 AM

It seems that there is a difference not only in the time of downloading, but also in the value of Dark Current:
ST-8300M: ~0.02e-/pixel/sec at -15C http://www.sbig.com/ST-8300M.html
SBIG STF-8300M: 0.002e-/p/s at -10C http://www.sbig.com/STF-8300-Monochrome.html


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jrcrillyAdministrator
Refractor wienie no more
*****

Reged: 04/30/03

Loc: NE Ohio
Re: ST-8300M vs STF-8300M new [Re: Grafff]
      #5111263 - 03/08/12 08:58 AM

Having had to recharge a few over the years, the user-serviceable desiccant would be worth something to me. I'd hate to have to ship the thing in every time.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
dawziecat
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 10/20/10

Loc: Rural Nova Scotia
Re: ST-8300M vs STF-8300M new [Re: jrcrilly]
      #5111312 - 03/08/12 09:30 AM

Quote:

Having had to recharge a few over the years, the user-serviceable desiccant would be worth something to me. I'd hate to have to ship the thing in every time.




Ship it in for a desiccant replacement?
Say it ain't so!

Page 34 of the ST8300M manual says "it's easy to replace" and gives instructions.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Grafff
super member


Reged: 02/03/10

Loc: Salzburg
Re: ST-8300M vs STF-8300M new [Re: dawziecat]
      #5111321 - 03/08/12 09:33 AM

Quote:

Page 34 of the ST8300M manual says "it's easy to replace" and gives instructions.




Don't looking for an easy way when it's possible to find a hard way!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jrcrillyAdministrator
Refractor wienie no more
*****

Reged: 04/30/03

Loc: NE Ohio
Re: ST-8300M vs STF-8300M new [Re: Grafff]
      #5111350 - 03/08/12 09:48 AM

Quote:

Quote:

Page 34 of the ST8300M manual says "it's easy to replace" and gives instructions.




Don't looking for an easy way when it's possible to find a hard way!




Cool! Not nearly as convenient as the rechargeable plug on the STF (and on all of the SBIG cameras I've owned) but far better than sending it in. That reduces the relative value of the new feature. Still worth something but it makes the decision a little harder.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jmasin
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 12/22/08

Loc: Murphy, TX (DFW)
Re: ST-8300M vs STF-8300M new [Re: Grafff]
      #5111351 - 03/08/12 09:48 AM

Quote:

It seems that there is a difference not only in the time of downloading, but also in the value of Dark Current:
ST-8300M: ~0.02e-/pixel/sec at -15C http://www.sbig.com/ST-8300M.html
SBIG STF-8300M: 0.002e-/p/s at -10C http://www.sbig.com/STF-8300-Monochrome.html




Not arguing, but hard to believe given they are the same sensor... unless there's something being done off-chip...


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Grafff
super member


Reged: 02/03/10

Loc: Salzburg
Re: ST-8300M vs STF-8300M new [Re: jmasin]
      #5111372 - 03/08/12 10:01 AM

Quote:

Not arguing, but hard to believe given they are the same sensor... unless there's something being done off-chip...



This improvement (with the same sensor) of the value of Dark Current seems to be very strange, as for me. But... this is official information from the official web-site.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
buckeyestargazer
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 01/12/08

Loc: IN, USA
Re: ST-8300M vs STF-8300M new [Re: Grafff]
      #5111667 - 03/08/12 12:48 PM

Please take what I say with a grain of salt because I have no experience with either of these cameras.

Unfortunately for me cost is a very big factor. If it were up to me I would opt for the ST8300M because I don't see much new that would justify the $700 price difference. However, if slow download speeds etc would drive you nuts and you can afford it, go for the STF. Personally I might be tempted to wait for some of the new Sony chip-based cameras before buying an STF.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Grafff
super member


Reged: 02/03/10

Loc: Salzburg
Re: ST-8300M vs STF-8300M new [Re: buckeyestargazer]
      #5114673 - 03/10/12 07:39 AM

It would be interesting to read an owner's review of the camera.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Alph
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 11/23/06

Loc: Melmac
Re: ST-8300M vs STF-8300M new [Re: Grafff]
      #5115122 - 03/10/12 12:48 PM

Quote:

It seems that there is a difference not only in the time of downloading, but also in the value of Dark Current:
ST-8300M: ~0.02e-/pixel/sec at -15C http://www.sbig.com/ST-8300M.html
SBIG STF-8300M: 0.002e-/p/s at -10C http://www.sbig.com/STF-8300-Monochrome.html



That's a typo or false information which is not uncommon on the SBIG website. Be careful not to bring to their attention on their yahoo group otherwise they will terminate your membership


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
MattThomas
Vendor (SBIG)


Reged: 07/28/06

Re: ST-8300M vs STF-8300M new [Re: Alph]
      #5115293 - 03/10/12 02:20 PM

Alph,

Your statement is not at all true. I'm sorry that you feel we will take such action for someone asking a simple question.

The dark current measurements for the STF-8300 were actual results from pre-production cameras - and were measured with a more accuracy than normally measured in production.

I don't expect the actual dark current data to be any different in the ST/STF cameras. The ST-8300 is likely similar, but not previously measured with similar accuracy.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
vdb
sage


Reged: 12/08/09

Re: ST-8300M vs STF-8300M new [Re: MattThomas]
      #5116276 - 03/11/12 05:50 AM

there is an error in your measurement ...
or there is a new enhanced version of the chip ...
Apogee and also many other vendors state much higher dark current ...
The value sbig brings is better then Sony exview chip, and that my friends seems very unlikely ...
Apogee:
0.02 e-/pixel/sec (-30 C; D02 housing); <0.006 eps for High Cooling D09 housing.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
MattThomas
Vendor (SBIG)


Reged: 07/28/06

Re: ST-8300M vs STF-8300M new [Re: vdb]
      #5116601 - 03/11/12 11:43 AM

Quote:


Apogee:
0.02 e-/pixel/sec (-30 C; D02 housing); <0.006 eps for High Cooling D09 housing.




And you take this as the gold standard? Using our less accurate measurement (with only hundredths resolution) we see 0.02 e-/pix/sec average at -10C. (Many ST-8300 cameras measured 0.01 e-/pix/sec or 0.00 e-/pix/sec @ -10C which lead to the more accurate measurements for the STF-8300 pre-production cameras.)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Alph
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 11/23/06

Loc: Melmac
Re: ST-8300M vs STF-8300M new [Re: MattThomas]
      #5116688 - 03/11/12 12:34 PM

Quote:

And you take this as the gold standard?



What about the full well depth of the KAF-3200? Is anyone else wrong again? Your website reports 77Ke while others state 55Ke.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
vdb
sage


Reged: 12/08/09

Re: ST-8300M vs STF-8300M new [Re: Alph]
      #5116825 - 03/11/12 01:43 PM

I'm not taking this as the gold standard it was just one example I could find, here another one from QSI:
Pixel Dark Current <0.02 electron per second at -10C
But hey if sbig can make a camera that has 10 times less dark current I'll sell my QSI 683 in a blink of an eye ...


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
MattThomas
Vendor (SBIG)


Reged: 07/28/06

Re: ST-8300M vs STF-8300M new [Re: Alph]
      #5117053 - 03/11/12 03:55 PM

Quote:

Quote:

And you take this as the gold standard?



What about the full well depth of the KAF-3200? Is anyone else wrong again? Your website reports 77Ke while others state 55Ke.




Well, I don't doubt that you may find some errors on our web site, just as you would on any other.

But in this case, we quote the typical full well achievable on our cameras. It would seem "everyone else" (per your term) is using Kodak's nominal full well specification from the 3200 datasheet. This doesn't mean that their 3200 based cameras don't achieve the same full well as ours.

And just to see, I powered up my personal ST-10. The gain is 1.32e-/ADU, and full well is around 60000 ADU:

60000 * 1.32 = ~79000


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
MattThomas
Vendor (SBIG)


Reged: 07/28/06

Re: ST-8300M vs STF-8300M new [Re: vdb]
      #5117070 - 03/11/12 04:07 PM

Quote:

I'm not taking this as the gold standard it was just one example I could find, here another one from QSI:
Pixel Dark Current <0.02 electron per second at -10C
But hey if sbig can make a camera that has 10 times less dark current I'll sell my QSI 683 in a blink of an eye ...




There is nothing that says the QSI is better or worse than SBIG in this spec. They could be the same based on the way the specs are written. We are both better than 0.02e-/pix/sec at -10*C.

But for reference, you do realize that the QSI spec is 10x better than the Apogee spec? With a 5.8*C doubling (halving) temp for dark current on the 8300, the difference in dark current from -10*C to -30*C is a factor of 10.9 difference. If Apogee is claiming 0.02e-/pix/sec at -30*C and QSI is claiming <0.02e-/pix/sec at -10*C, that would be <0.0018e-/pix/sec at -30*C for QSI.

As for selling your QSI 683, have you measured your dark current? What do you get on your camera?

Edited by MattThomas (03/11/12 04:08 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
vdb
sage


Reged: 12/08/09

Re: ST-8300M vs STF-8300M new [Re: MattThomas]
      #5117133 - 03/11/12 04:48 PM

Never measured it on any of my camera's but maybe I should, I did realize that QSI is also more optimistic then Apogee ... but still much more dark current then the sbig's ...

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | (show all)


Extra information
8 registered and 16 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Oldfield, droid, bilgebay, WOBentley, dr.who 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 4171

Jump to

CN Forums Home




Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics