Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home page


Astrophotography and Sketching >> CCD Imaging & Processing

Pages: 1 | 2 | (show all)
Rick J
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 03/01/08

Loc: Mantrap Lake, MN
Re: SBIG ST-2000XM or ST-8300M? new [Re: Micheal]
      #4214378 - 11/28/10 01:38 AM

Quote:

Educate me please. Why is it a complete mismatch? Are you talking about at full f/11.5? What about at reduced f/6.3? That ccd calc program I downloaded and tried out seemed to indicate it would be a good choice but I really have no clue what I am really looking at.




Another thumbs down if it is to run on the 14" EdgeHD. That scope is designed for a large pixel camera and NO reducer. That's the whole idea of its design, eliminate that element and all the problems it creates. Using one is like driving a sports car with the brake on. It still works, sort of.

Now for the APO it would be a very good match. That's the type scope it is designed for. But not for the EdgeHD. A standard SCT 6.3 corrector/reducer is fine for a standard SCT, if you can stand the problems it creates, but won't work with your scope that already has a flat, corrected field. It would just screw things up horribly. You'll need a pure reducer such as the Optec NextGEN 0.7X Ultra WideField reducer. That would reduce you down to f/7.7 Binned 2x2 that is a 0.8 pixel. Such tracking is extremely difficult to achieve and requires a night of superb seeing. What is your seeing? Do you even know this? If not measure it with your DSLR. It will guide you as to what chips to consider so you don't severely over sample the image as the 8300 does. Also high resolution, if allowed by seeing (like atop Adam Block's Mt. Lemon location) greatly increases imaging time meaning when you do get one of those nights you may only have time for half the data and thus a noisy image. It may be weeks or years before similar or better seeing occurs with that object well positioned to take advantage of it. Reducers just add reflections as well and you'll have enough of them even without one. Exact spacing is another problem with them.

I image with an f/10 14" LX200R and use an 18 micron pixel nearly every clear night. I limit imaging to an hour of the meridian if low and 2 hours if high just to achieve the seeing needed for that size pixel. Check my posts here for examples. You'll see even then I'm seeing limited most of the time.

Of the two cameras the 2000 would be far better considering it could be used on both scopes more effectively. With a 14" finding a guide star won't be a problem. While I rarely guide, if I'm monitoring my imaging I do turn on the guider camera to monitor seeing. I've never had an issue with a star for this. One is always on the chip. Smaller aperture may however. But again this is a function of your mount's tracking ability at the image scale you are using.

Rick


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Bill W.
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 10/09/05

Loc: Western PA, USA
Re: SBIG ST-2000XM or ST-8300M? new [Re: Rick J]
      #4214526 - 11/28/10 07:26 AM

I debated the same thing this past June. I ended up selling my ST-2000XM and buying a QHY9 (8300). Let me say that I don't think you can go wrong with either imager. Both have their strong points. There aren't too many cons.

8300

1. Bigger field of view.
2. Smaller pixels for wide field imaging.
3. Lighter than my ST-2000XM.
4. Better Ha performance.

2000XM

1. On board guiding.
2. Reasonably small pixels.
3. Doesn't require 2 inch filters.
4. Option to add AO7 or AO8.

My QHY9 can be binned at 1x1, 2x2, 3x3, & 4x4. So, it's pretty versital because you're only going up 5.4 each time instead of the 7.4 on the ST-2000XM. While the on-board guiding is nice I didn't use it that much. I ended up using a guidescope because when I would shoot through my blue or Ha filter I could never find a good guide star. I only had trouble finding a guide star once while doing luminance. The larger field of view of the 8300 is nice but will show vignetting, bad collimation, etc. more readily. IMHO, the biggest drawback of getting a 8300, for me, is the cost of 2 inch filters. Narrowband filters can cost a good bit more... even LRGB filters are a good bit more. You can spend a easy $1000 getting a color filter wheel and cheap LRGB filters. If you decide on the ST-2000XM try to avoid the first generation. The first generation 2000XM came with a smaller guide ccd and a slightly noisier imaging ccd. Like I said, I don't think you can go wrong with either imager. Check out my website at the link at the bottom of the page. I've use both imagers using the same optics. Good luck... it is a hard decision.

-Bill


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


Reged: 11/23/06

Loc: Melmac
Re: SBIG ST-2000XM or ST-8300M? new [Re: Jeff in Austin]
      #4215140 - 11/28/10 02:24 PM

.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Konihlav
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 03/05/09

Re: SBIG ST-2000XM or ST-8300M? new [Re: Alph]
      #4215167 - 11/28/10 02:42 PM

my pure decision between these two cameras NOT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT WHAT telescope you use it with would be 8300.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
AlanP
super member
*****

Reged: 10/29/07

Loc: Howell, MI
Re: SBIG ST-2000XM or ST-8300M? new [Re: Konihlav]
      #4217179 - 11/29/10 03:12 PM

OK, so I am a OSC guy... I have a Atik 383L+ and two ST-2000XCM Cameras. My favorite? The ST-4000XCM, really.
But back to the question at hand. If your Camera ices; with the ST-8300, some dis-assembly is required. With the ST-2000XM, you do some backing, or buy a Desiccant Plug replacement that makes life really easy.

Buying new, ST-8300 or equivalent [the Atik uses replaceable desiccant packs]. Buying used, the ST-2000XM, because of price, internal guide chip, SBig great service support, faster Ha, good image size and file sizes and fast download times and easier maintenance. AlanP


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


Reged: 08/06/10

Loc: Southern California
Re: SBIG ST-2000XM or ST-8300M? new [Re: Alph]
      #4243621 - 12/12/10 03:38 AM

Quote:

The KAF-8300 is a complete mismatch for the EdgeHD 14". The KAF-0900 is the best match for the HD14.



Okay sure thing Alph. Theoretically sound advice. I'll just go shell out more than twice as much for the camera as I did for the scope itself. Oh yea, I forgot, I'm not made of money. I think I'll just bin 2x2 or even 3x3 instead. But thanks for the advice anyway.

BTW, anyone had a chance to image with their Lepus yet?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
David Williams
member


Reged: 09/05/10

Re: SBIG ST-2000XM or ST-8300M? new [Re: Micheal]
      #5669908 - 02/08/13 10:34 PM

Hi: Maybe I need a Mickey Mouse mouse? Just kidding.

Well as for me, I'd got a Meade LX200GPS 10" F10 on a wedge in a 10'X10' roll-off roof observatory. And a Canon Rebel T2i (DSLR) at 18 megapixels (it's got good sensitivity and white balance) but not a real CCD. Then an ST-237A CCD and finally my mom helped me and we broke down and bought an ST-2000XCM CCD. Now that last one seemed to have a right-hand edge defect which was a virticle band with dots. But the CCD was used, at $1600

I've heard that the ST-237A (which is good as an autoguider) can be used seperately as an autoguider like if you piggyback a nice APO refractor (something like F5-6 would be good) and use that with the ST-237A. Then it would have the extra benefit of not having the filter to look through so a dimmer guide star could be used. PS: you want/need the autoguider to be pointed the same way as your main scope, so there isn't any field rotation.

PPS: I'd recommend checking around still. The New CCD Astronomy book by Ron Wodaski is good. And Ice In Space forum (even though in the Southern Hemisphere) is good as well as this CN place. Sometimes Astronomy clubs can help.

I'm thinking about going up, in megapixels from my 2 with the 2000XCM to the Celestron or Orion (Parsec), 10 megapixel equivalent. However I've heard that their Celestron CCD has a Maxim lite software that supports it that crashes when doing imaging. I hope you check into that.

Besh wishes and clear skies.
David


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Calypte
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 03/20/07

Loc: Anza, California
Re: SBIG ST-2000XM or ST-8300M? new [Re: WadeH237]
      #5670005 - 02/09/13 12:33 AM

I'm not sure you can even get the ST-2000xm new, unless it's NOS (new old stock). SBIG discontinued the entire ST line, except maybe the 8300. But if you're really interested in one, send me a PM.

Edited by Calypte (02/09/13 12:37 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mmalik
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/13/12

Loc: USA
Re: SBIG ST-2000XM or ST-8300M? new [Re: Micheal]
      #5670296 - 02/09/13 08:36 AM

An un-related comparison here...; if you are new to imaging, may be it would be better to start with DSLR and then work your way into CCD.

A DSLR idea here...; a review here...; some imaging results here....


On a side note some image processing instructions here....


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Calypte
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 03/20/07

Loc: Anza, California
Re: SBIG ST-2000XM or ST-8300M? [Re: mmalik]
      #5670618 - 02/09/13 12:08 PM

I started with a used ST-7E. If CCD is what you want to do, then dive in and do it. I did have the help of some on-site tutoring from friends who were already doing CCD imaging.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Raginar
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 10/19/10

Loc: Rapid CIty, SD
Re: SBIG ST-2000XM or ST-8300M? new [Re: Calypte]
      #5672545 - 02/10/13 03:12 PM

I agree with Calypte. Get a cooled CCD if you can afford it. First off, OSC isn't 'easy' and DSLRs while cheap and readily available aren't sensitive until you mod them out (and make them worthless for regular photography).

The difference in image size is significant between an ST-2000 and a 8300. I guess it just depends on what you're trying to image and the pixel size/image scale you want. The 2000 has a 'better' chip in regards of QE and the statistics side of things... the 8300 is 'newer' and costs a little more.

Personally, I just got a ST-10XME and I'm flabbergasted by its ability to gather light. Those older CCDs were awesome .


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
EdmontonAB
Pooh-Bah
*****

Reged: 04/30/08

Loc: Sooke, BC , Canada
Re: SBIG ST-2000XM or ST-8300M? new [Re: Raginar]
      #5876200 - 05/21/13 03:31 PM

Modding a DSLR does not make it worthless for regular photography.

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


Extra information
15 registered and 31 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: 6427

Jump to

CN Forums Home




Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics