Orion StarShoot 5 MP Solar System Color Camera

Did a quick search and didn't find any info on this camera.

http://www.telescope...s/Orion-Star...

Does anyone have any experience? Looks interesting. 2.2 micron pixels in a 1/2.5" format, 51fps, lots of binning options. 8-bit a/d conversion though. Any thoughts?

I'm looking at an asi120mm or mc for Christmas. But this may have potential, and at $199.99 not a bad price.

It looks a lot like the NexImage 5 which is a tad cheaper. The NexImage 5 has been around long enough to see that it works pretty well. Here is a picture I took with mine. If you go with the Orion then we'd like to see how it works for you. Actually, no matter what you get we'd like to see some pictures.

Thanks for the response Steve! It seems to be the same chip, but a few different features (like more binning options).

I see by your signature line, you also own the ASI120MC. That is probably the camera I will end up with, but I am trying to do my research on all the options out there. What can you tell us about how the ASI120MC and the NexImage 5 compare to each other. I would love to know.

I am also not above getting the ASI120MM and filer wheel, but that may be a little beyond my price range.

Great images, by the way!

One other detail...

I plan on using my 8" f/3.9 Imaging Newt and a Televue 5x Powermate, bringing me up to 4000mm f.l. @ f/19.5.

What can you tell us about how the ASI120MC and the NexImage 5 compare to each other.

The ASI120MC has larger pixels (3.75 versus 2.2 microns). The rule of thumb is you want to aim for 5 * pixel size (in microns) for your focal ratio. So you want f/19 for ASI and f/11 for NI5. I use f/10 cats to image with so I use nothing for the NI5 and a 2.5x PowerMate with the ASI. I should use my 2x PowerMate instead but it is 2" which means I also need to attach my Baader 2" click-lock eyepiece adapter. It is huge and changes my balance. I prefer not to have to use any extra lenses.

I learned how to get good pictures with the NI5 before getting the ASI. I have only tried the ASI a few times and the results weren't as good as with the NI5. I am sure I can get the ASI to perform as well as the NI5 if I spend more time using it. There are many fantastic pictures posted here that were taken with the ASI. I was expecting WAY better results with the ASI but if it is better than the NI5 then it probably is only a tad better. The proof is in the pictures. My pictures are taken in Florida from my driveway with little time spent (so far). The best pictures are taken from a remote site in Arizona (e.g.) by people who have spent many hours learning their craft and waiting for that once a year night where seeing is perfect. I will be sticking with the NI5 until I learn more.

Thanks again Steve. I didn't know about the 5x rule of thumb. So that means if I wanted to go with the NI5, I could use a 3x barlow to bring me to f/11.7, but that would give me a 2400mm focal length which seems a little short.

But if I go with the ASI120MC/MM, I can use the 5x powermate which brings me to f/19.5 @ 4000mm focal length. It seems like this would be the way to go. Now I have to decide between the mono or color. Hmmmm....

Thanks again Steve. I didn't know about the 5x rule of thumb. So that means if I wanted to go with the NI5, I could use a 3x barlow to bring me to f/11.7, but that would give me a 2400mm focal length which seems a little short.

But if I go with the ASI120MC/MM, I can use the 5x powermate which brings me to f/19.5 @ 4000mm focal length. It seems like this would be the way to go. Now I have to decide between the mono or color. Hmmmm....

This was taken with my NI5 in my 12" 1500mm f4.9 with no barlow. It was also the first time using it.

Wow, that's a great first light! Very impressive.

I did some further calculations: if I went with the NI5 and a 3x barlow, that would give me 0.19 arcsec/pixel. Now if I went with the ASI120MC and a 5x barlow, that would give me the exact same 0.19 arcsec/pixel. Interesting....

... I did some further calculations: if I went with the NI5 and a 3x barlow, that would give me 0.19 arcsec/pixel. Now if I went with the ASI120MC and a 5x barlow, that would give me the exact same 0.19 arcsec/pixel. Interesting....

The pixel size of the camera is not important as long as you can spread the image of Jupiter over the optimal number of pixels and that is determined by the size of your scope. A 14" scope will get more pixels than a 5" scope.

If I did the math right then you will get 30.8 * d pixels for a 50" image of Jupiter where d is the diameter of your scope in inches. A 14" scope will get 30.8 * 14 = 431 pixels for the width of Jupiter when it is 50 arc-seconds in size. This is provided you have the Barlow that will give you a focal ratio of 5 * pixels size (in microns).

Of course you can use different Barlows and get a different number of pixels but that would possibly be less than optimal.

This was taken with my NI5 in my 12" 1500mm f4.9 with no barlow. It was also the first time using it.

I would like to see what you can do with a 2x Barlow. Did you get your replacement 12" scope yet?

This was taken with my NI5 in my 12" 1500mm f4.9 with no barlow. It was also the first time using it.

I would like to see what you can do with a 2x Barlow. Did you get your replacement 12" scope yet?

Yes, we should get together sometime so you can show me how to really use it. I'm bringing it to the winter star party tonight which should be completely cloudy.