Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

ASI 290MC/MM yet another new camera from ZWO!

  • Please log in to reply
95 replies to this topic

#1 A. Viegas

A. Viegas

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2988
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2012
  • Loc: New York City/ CT

Posted 07 April 2016 - 01:29 PM

At NEAF  ZWO is also announcing a new camera based on  the imc290/91 sensor.

See attached flyer.   They have this at their booth at NEAIC

very low read noise, even lower than 224...  also slightly more resolution albeit with smaller pixels...     both cooled and uncooled versions.

Al

 

Attached Thumbnails

  • asi290.jpg

  • Relativist, TheRock, Procyon and 1 other like this

#2 StarMike8SE

StarMike8SE

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
  • Joined: 26 Mar 2014
  • Loc: Florida

Posted 07 April 2016 - 02:09 PM

Progress is good.   Looks like geared toward planetary



#3 Relativist

Relativist

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8151
  • Joined: 11 Oct 2003
  • Loc: OC, CA, USA

Posted 07 April 2016 - 09:06 PM

hmmm, looks like a shootout with the 224 is in order.


  • JonNPR likes this

#4 JonNPR

JonNPR

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1466
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2013
  • Loc: Oregon

Posted 07 April 2016 - 11:47 PM

I wonder whether the amp glow is less in the new camera.

 

Jon



#5 DonBoy

DonBoy

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1239
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2007

Posted 08 April 2016 - 11:18 AM

Checking Sony's spec sheets and their new way of evaluating sensitivity it appears that the 290 is almost half the sensitivity of the 224 and also picture quality at low illumination.

 

Screen Shot 2016-04-08 at 12.13.28 PM.jpg

 

Screen Shot 2016-04-08 at 12.13.58 PM.jpg

 

Screen Shot 2016-04-08 at 12.14.35 PM.jpg

 



#6 Astrojedi

Astrojedi

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3795
  • Joined: 27 May 2015
  • Loc: SoCal

Posted 08 April 2016 - 11:45 AM

224 will be hard to beat for sensitivity. Looks like the BSI is not sufficiently compensating for the ~1 micron smaller pixel size. There are also differences in sensor architecture.

 

Another interesting observation from the chart above (which comes as no surprise to any of us) is that sensitivity seems to be generally correlated to sensor size. This is consistent with what we saw in CCDs as well. There are a few reasons for this and I think this relationship will continue to hold going forward.



#7 jimthompson

jimthompson

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1087
  • Joined: 06 Oct 2009
  • Loc: Ottawa, Canada

Posted 08 April 2016 - 12:01 PM

Thanks for digging out the sensor tables Don.  I have gone ahead and pre-ordered one, but my intention is for use with an Halpha scope and narrow band lunar imaging.  The reduced sensitivity compared to the 224 is okay for my application, especially considering that the read noise is less than the camera I am using now.  Delivery according to the ZWO order page begins in May.

 

cheers,

 

Jim T.


  • StarMike8SE likes this

#8 ippiu

ippiu

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 176
  • Joined: 06 Dec 2010
  • Loc: Italy

Posted 08 April 2016 - 12:48 PM

Checking Sony's spec sheets and their new way of evaluating sensitivity it appears that the 290 is almost half the sensitivity of the 224 and also picture quality at low illumination.

 

 

 

Thanks for this.

 

Is possible to have a similar comparison with the new asi 1600 sensor??? Just to understand better the sensor specification.

 

Because if the 1600 sensor is almost tha same as olympus em10, em1 and em5, i had for years these cameras and the sensitivity is not good for deepsky... I tried many times to take photo, as with lenses and skytracker, and with c8 reduced to f5....


Edited by ippiu, 08 April 2016 - 12:50 PM.


#9 DonBoy

DonBoy

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1239
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2007

Posted 08 April 2016 - 01:32 PM

ippiu, I posted a response to your post in the ASI1600 thread.

 

http://www.cloudynig...s/#entry7149683



#10 ccs_hello

ccs_hello

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10241
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2004

Posted 08 April 2016 - 06:33 PM

IMX224/IMX225's native sensitivity (color type) is 1175mV (Green-channel)

The 2350 number is when the sensor is set at HCG mode (high conversion gain, in 224/225 case, it's 2x.)  

HCG lower the full well capacity by 50%.  It's always a tradeoff.

 

From low light EAA point of view, it's a feature worthwhile to turn on.  (Highest possible gain over other parameters to make it "fast".)

Just remember if it's apple to apple comparison, do not inflate the real figure by 2x than make the statement it is the best.  Because it's mo longer apple to apple.

 

BTW, Panny never publish its sensor spec per SONY's measurement methodology.  These image sensor manufacturers all use their own for obvious reasons.

 

SONY's figure is just an engineering figure for camera manufacturing purpose only.

Remember that publishing the signal level without disclosing the true noise level cannot form the SNR, which is one of the image sensor's figure of merit.

 

Clear Skies!

 

ccs_hello


Edited by ccs_hello, 08 April 2016 - 06:34 PM.


#11 Rich_B

Rich_B

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 261
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2016

Posted 08 April 2016 - 07:30 PM

well, doesn't this new Sony figure of merit include SNR ?



#12 ccs_hello

ccs_hello

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10241
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2004

Posted 08 April 2016 - 07:38 PM

I was referring to the "Sensitivity" figure.

 

The new SNR1s figure indeed is SONY's way to express SNR (in Lux rating, a rather "strange" way.)

SNR1s value is partially disclosed on some of SONY image sensors.

Also I think in that chart, IMX224's value is calculated when its HCG mode is turned on.

 

Clear Skies!

 

ccs_hello



#13 wenjha

wenjha

    Vendor

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 1037
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008
  • Loc: SuZhou China

Posted 09 April 2016 - 10:28 AM

the SNR1 test from sony just ignor the pixel size
the color 290 and 224' performance is very close
the advantage is there is mono 290
  • Relativist likes this

#14 Relativist

Relativist

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8151
  • Joined: 11 Oct 2003
  • Loc: OC, CA, USA

Posted 09 April 2016 - 11:56 AM

the SNR1 test from sony just ignor the pixel size
the color 290 and 224' performance is very close
the advantage is there is mono 290

 

Does the 290 have a high gain conversion mode?



#15 JonNPR

JonNPR

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1466
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2013
  • Loc: Oregon

Posted 09 April 2016 - 12:36 PM

the SNR1 test from sony just ignor the pixel size
the color 290 and 224' performance is very close
the advantage is there is mono 290

Sam, thanks. Is the 290 color model free of an IR blocking filter, like the 224?

 

Jon



#16 ccs_hello

ccs_hello

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10241
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2004

Posted 09 April 2016 - 01:01 PM

IMX290LQR data brief shows its "Sensitivity" to be 1300mV.

If you know SONY, you'll know in its marketing material, it will show the best number (as in the IMX225 case with the HCG mode on.)

Since it does not show 2600mV, I really doubt its has the HCG capability.


  • Relativist likes this

#17 Relativist

Relativist

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8151
  • Joined: 11 Oct 2003
  • Loc: OC, CA, USA

Posted 09 April 2016 - 01:11 PM

IMX290LQR data brief shows its "Sensitivity" to be 1300mV.
If you know SONY, you'll know in its marketing material, it will show the best number (as in the IMX225 case with the HCG mode on.)
Since it does not show 2600mV, I really doubt its has the HCG capability.


Thanks, although inference is helpful, this is why I asked the question, it would be good to know for sure.

#18 wenjha

wenjha

    Vendor

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 1037
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008
  • Loc: SuZhou China

Posted 09 April 2016 - 09:00 PM

 

the SNR1 test from sony just ignor the pixel size
the color 290 and 224' performance is very close
the advantage is there is mono 290

 

Does the 290 have a high gain conversion mode?

 

that's true, you can tell from our read noise test result

290 readnoise.jpg


  • Relativist likes this

#19 wenjha

wenjha

    Vendor

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 1037
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008
  • Loc: SuZhou China

Posted 09 April 2016 - 09:01 PM

 

the SNR1 test from sony just ignor the pixel size
the color 290 and 224' performance is very close
the advantage is there is mono 290

Sam, thanks. Is the 290 color model free of an IR blocking filter, like the 224?

 

Jon

 

yes, we choose to use AR protect window as it's very sensitive to IR


  • JonNPR likes this

#20 wenjha

wenjha

    Vendor

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 1037
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008
  • Loc: SuZhou China

Posted 09 April 2016 - 09:05 PM

IMX290LQR data brief shows its "Sensitivity" to be 1300mV.

If you know SONY, you'll know in its marketing material, it will show the best number (as in the IMX225 case with the HCG mode on.)

Since it does not show 2600mV, I really doubt its has the HCG capability.

SONY is lazy, you even cannot find the mono sensor of 178 and 290 on their website



#21 JonNPR

JonNPR

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1466
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2013
  • Loc: Oregon

Posted 09 April 2016 - 10:24 PM

Thanks, Sam. Good to know that the new camera would not be hindered for galaxy EAA.

 

Jon


Edited by JonNPR, 10 April 2016 - 07:35 PM.


#22 Dragon Man

Dragon Man

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3381
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2006
  • Loc: Snake Valley, Australia

Posted 10 April 2016 - 01:47 AM

 

 

Sam, thanks. Is the 290 color model free of an IR blocking filter, like the 224?

 

Jon

 

yes, we choose to use AR protect window as it's very sensitive to IR

 

So in other words, the IR blocking filter window is permanent   :(



#23 mclewis1

mclewis1

    Thread Killer

  • *****
  • Posts: 18678
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2006
  • Loc: New Brunswick, Canada

Posted 10 April 2016 - 08:15 AM

Just as "permanent" as the sensor cover used on the 67x and 81x CCDs. I'm not sure I'd want to consider a DIY removal attempt of the bigger more expensive sensor but it should be possible.

 

The inexpensive security cameras used sensors with fairly restrictive IR blocking characteristics and we learned early on that removing those sensor covers offered better images of galaxies, particularly (but not limited to) those with complex cores (think M82). So we went on a campaign to open up the sensors on these cameras ... and "IR sensor cover bad" became a popular sentiment. We even got one of the LN300 dealers to optionally remove the sensors before shipping.

 

Most color cameras we now label as "good for EAA" have sensors with covers but they are now much better suited for our work. These have wider band pass AR (anti reflective) coatings which don't appear to have any substantial effect on galaxies. This includes all the color Mallincam USB cameras as well as those from Starlight Xpress, Atik, ZWO, etc.


Edited by mclewis1, 10 April 2016 - 10:38 AM.


#24 StarCurious

StarCurious

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 347
  • Joined: 24 Dec 2012
  • Loc: York Region, Ontario

Posted 10 April 2016 - 03:49 PM

 

 

 

Sam, thanks. Is the 290 color model free of an IR blocking filter, like the 224?

 

Jon

 

yes, we choose to use AR protect window as it's very sensitive to IR

 

So in other words, the IR blocking filter window is permanent   :(

 

I think AR window is clear anti reflective, not an IR cut - for this 290 color model.



#25 Relativist

Relativist

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8151
  • Joined: 11 Oct 2003
  • Loc: OC, CA, USA

Posted 12 April 2016 - 03:34 PM

So was this camera at NEAF?


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics