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

Has the $1200 large chipped ASI 1600 made existing modestly priced CCDs obsolete?

  • Please log in to reply
372 replies to this topic

#301 Mickey_C

Mickey_C

    Viking 1

  • ****-
  • Posts: 504
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2005
  • Loc: AZ

Posted 24 May 2016 - 04:12 PM

Pricing it all out, I just bought an STF 8300C used, for $1100 (they did it with shipping for me, and 90 day warranty). I figured bigger chip, proven camera, and I can have it immediately and not have to go through the bugs/firmware/etc issues that plague many new hobby items.

 

Maybe the ASI will cause some price drops on CCDs?

 

I also looked really long hard at the ASI178MC Cooled - which is available now - but again at the end of the day sensor size won me over. I didn't want to spend 3-400 less but have a camera with a smaller sensor size. I might have moved on the ASI1600 if it was available today (and tested/proved on CN).

 

So I made the move, and bought the used 8300C from OptCorp. Bad move at this late date in the game?



#302 Mickey_C

Mickey_C

    Viking 1

  • ****-
  • Posts: 504
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2005
  • Loc: AZ

Posted 24 May 2016 - 04:14 PM

Sorry, thought I mentioned it - I am bumping up from a canon 600D, which in the dead of summer is unusable due to all the heat noise. That was the base comparison I was working from.

 

The ASI1600mc cooled was very attractive...



#303 tolgagumus

tolgagumus

    Vendor

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 3,687
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2014
  • Loc: NJ

Posted 24 May 2016 - 04:28 PM

Mike STF is the current version of this camera. At 1100, I don't think you did wrong. I think you can always get your money back later if you decide you don't want it.

#304 bobzeq25

bobzeq25

    ISS

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 20,394
  • Joined: 27 Oct 2014

Posted 25 May 2016 - 03:04 AM

To me a bad move is when you buy something that won't do a good job for you.  The 8300 will do a good job.  This is not a case of right/wrong, it's a judgment call, one that reasonable people can differ reasonably about.  This thread has made clear that for some excellent imagers, it's not "late in the day", it's still early.

 

To further make the point, josh smith and I differ on this one.  If you look at both our images, you'll definitely go with him.  It is not close.  <grin>



#305 Shiraz

Shiraz

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 617
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2010
  • Loc: South Australia

Posted 25 May 2016 - 03:09 AM

it can work like an 8300 if you want, is a nearly perfect planet cam and an ideal wide angle solar cam. Plus it can do narrowband or image deep broadband with very short subs (20 seconds maybe at f4) - something that nothing else can do at any cost. That can mean that no guiding is needed and a cheapo mount will do -  and you still get perfect stars. And it does it all for waaay less than the big guys charge. "No brainer" and "disruptive technology" come to mind. Not just for beginners, but for everyone.


Edited by Shiraz, 25 May 2016 - 03:47 AM.

  • happylimpet and samuelpkco like this

#306 josh smith

josh smith

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,366
  • Joined: 13 Oct 2013
  • Loc: St Petersburg, Florida

Posted 25 May 2016 - 07:29 AM

it can work like an 8300 if you want, is a nearly perfect planet cam and an ideal wide angle solar cam. Plus it can do narrowband or image deep broadband with very short subs (20 seconds maybe at f4) - something that nothing else can do at any cost. That can mean that no guiding is needed and a cheapo mount will do - and you still get perfect stars. And it does it all for waaay less than the big guys charge. "No brainer" and "disruptive technology" come to mind. Not just for beginners, but for everyone.

These are the comments that are causing such turmoil. I hope no one spending their money takes your comment at face value. It's also why reasonable and intelligent debates are so tough to have here sometimes.

#307 happylimpet

happylimpet

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,814
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2013
  • Loc: Southampton, UK

Posted 25 May 2016 - 07:41 AM

it can work like an 8300 if you want, is a nearly perfect planet cam and an ideal wide angle solar cam. Plus it can do narrowband or image deep broadband with very short subs (20 seconds maybe at f4) - something that nothing else can do at any cost. That can mean that no guiding is needed and a cheapo mount will do -  and you still get perfect stars. And it does it all for waaay less than the big guys charge. "No brainer" and "disruptive technology" come to mind. Not just for beginners, but for everyone.

 

Spot on. Ive done enough imaging with CMOS and CCD cameras to wholeheartedly agree with this.



#308 Shiraz

Shiraz

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 617
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2010
  • Loc: South Australia

Posted 25 May 2016 - 08:10 AM

 

it can work like an 8300 if you want, is a nearly perfect planet cam and an ideal wide angle solar cam. Plus it can do narrowband or image deep broadband with very short subs (20 seconds maybe at f4) - something that nothing else can do at any cost. That can mean that no guiding is needed and a cheapo mount will do - and you still get perfect stars. And it does it all for waaay less than the big guys charge. "No brainer" and "disruptive technology" come to mind. Not just for beginners, but for everyone.

These are the comments that are causing such turmoil. I hope no one spending their money takes your comment at face value. It's also why reasonable and intelligent debates are so tough to have here sometimes.

 

well I have just bought one Josh - these are not idle comments from an armchair expert.

 

I want to get stuck in and exploit this wonderful new technology to the full - we will be able to do things that have not been possible up till now and the biggest change of all will be the ability to produce good images using lesser quality mounts and no guiding. This isn't only about a camera, it is the beginnings of a new way of doing almost every aspect of our hobby - that is a really exciting prospect, but turmoil will be part of the process. 


Edited by Shiraz, 25 May 2016 - 08:27 AM.


#309 schmeah

schmeah

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,836
  • Joined: 26 Jul 2005
  • Loc: Morristown, NJ

Posted 25 May 2016 - 08:29 AM

 

 

it can work like an 8300 if you want, is a nearly perfect planet cam and an ideal wide angle solar cam. Plus it can do narrowband or image deep broadband with very short subs (20 seconds maybe at f4) - something that nothing else can do at any cost. That can mean that no guiding is needed and a cheapo mount will do - and you still get perfect stars. And it does it all for waaay less than the big guys charge. "No brainer" and "disruptive technology" come to mind. Not just for beginners, but for everyone.

These are the comments that are causing such turmoil. I hope no one spending their money takes your comment at face value. It's also why reasonable and intelligent debates are so tough to have here sometimes.

 

well I have just bought one Josh - these are not idle comments from an armchair expert.

 

I want to get stuck in and exploit this wonderful new technology to the full - we will be able to do things that have not been possible up till now and the biggest change of all will be the ability to produce good images using lesser quality mounts and no guiding. This isn't only about a camera, it is the beginnings of a new way of doing almost every aspect of our hobby - that is a really exciting prospect. 

 

 

I agree that it is an exciting prospect. But "prospect" is the operative word. You "just bought" one. So please post all of the images that you have taken to support your suppositions above. I may get one eventually to compliment my QSI, but not based on unbridled enthusiasm from new excited buyers.

 

derek



#310 josh smith

josh smith

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,366
  • Joined: 13 Oct 2013
  • Loc: St Petersburg, Florida

Posted 25 May 2016 - 08:37 AM

 

 

it can work like an 8300 if you want, is a nearly perfect planet cam and an ideal wide angle solar cam. Plus it can do narrowband or image deep broadband with very short subs (20 seconds maybe at f4) - something that nothing else can do at any cost. That can mean that no guiding is needed and a cheapo mount will do - and you still get perfect stars. And it does it all for waaay less than the big guys charge. "No brainer" and "disruptive technology" come to mind. Not just for beginners, but for everyone.

These are the comments that are causing such turmoil. I hope no one spending their money takes your comment at face value. It's also why reasonable and intelligent debates are so tough to have here sometimes.
well I have just bought one Josh - these are not idle comments from an armchair expert.

I want to get stuck in and exploit this wonderful new technology to the full - we will be able to do things that have not been possible up till now and the biggest change of all will be the ability to produce good images using lesser quality mounts and no guiding. This isn't only about a camera, it is the beginnings of a new way of doing almost every aspect of our hobby - that is a really exciting prospect and turmoil will be part of the process.

There are cameras available with similar specs of low read noise and higher qe. An el cheapo mount will not produce perfect stars for 20 second exposures on bigger gear. There are some calibration issues and noise patterns. There is data storage and processing issues. There are no integrated complete solutions. There are no very well engineered solutions. There are no local manufacturers. It is a great step forward in having more options. Calling it a no brainier and saying nothing else can do this and that there is nothing comparable in price is not only factually wrong, it is the type of brash over generalization that makes having an intelligent and reasoned debate difficult. I am as excited as anyone about the new cmos sensors. It is awesome and I can't wait for it to continue to evolve. Calling me an armchair quarterback is an unfair statement. I've been very involved in all of the investigation of how best to use these, have processed every set of publicly available data, have helped deal with calibration issues, and more. The data does not look better than all data on other sensors I've used and the sensor specs is not all to consider when choosing a camera. Why on earth do these conversations continue down the path of completely one sided absolute terms. There are trade offs with this as with everything else involved. I suppose the best thing to do is just keep your mouth shut if you aren't willing to blindly say that it's the best thing available in the market and there's no reason to get anything else?

You can sure believe that I would sell my camera and mount and buy this if it was a no brainer. I would net quite a profit. I could have 5 of these cameras. :)


Edited by josh smith, 25 May 2016 - 08:44 AM.

  • pbunn and WesC like this

#311 Shiraz

Shiraz

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 617
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2010
  • Loc: South Australia

Posted 25 May 2016 - 10:07 AM

 

 

 

it can work like an 8300 if you want, is a nearly perfect planet cam and an ideal wide angle solar cam. Plus it can do narrowband or image deep broadband with very short subs (20 seconds maybe at f4) - something that nothing else can do at any cost. That can mean that no guiding is needed and a cheapo mount will do - and you still get perfect stars. And it does it all for waaay less than the big guys charge. "No brainer" and "disruptive technology" come to mind. Not just for beginners, but for everyone.

These are the comments that are causing such turmoil. I hope no one spending their money takes your comment at face value. It's also why reasonable and intelligent debates are so tough to have here sometimes.
well I have just bought one Josh - these are not idle comments from an armchair expert.

I want to get stuck in and exploit this wonderful new technology to the full - we will be able to do things that have not been possible up till now and the biggest change of all will be the ability to produce good images using lesser quality mounts and no guiding. This isn't only about a camera, it is the beginnings of a new way of doing almost every aspect of our hobby - that is a really exciting prospect and turmoil will be part of the process.

There are cameras available with similar specs of low read noise and higher qe. An el cheapo mount will not produce perfect stars for 20 second exposures on bigger gear. There are some calibration issues and noise patterns. There is data storage and processing issues. There are no integrated complete solutions. There are no very well engineered solutions. There are no local manufacturers. It is a great step forward in having more options. Calling it a no brainier and saying nothing else can do this and that there is nothing comparable in price is not only factually wrong, it is the type of brash over generalization that makes having an intelligent and reasoned debate difficult. I am as excited as anyone about the new cmos sensors. It is awesome and I can't wait for it to continue to evolve. Calling me an armchair quarterback is an unfair statement. I've been very involved in all of the investigation of how best to use these, have processed every set of publicly available data, have helped deal with calibration issues, and more. The data does not look better than all data on other sensors I've used and the sensor specs is not all to consider when choosing a camera. Why on earth do these conversations continue down the path of completely one sided absolute terms. There are trade offs with this as with everything else involved. I suppose the best thing to do is just keep your mouth shut if you aren't willing to blindly say that it's the best thing available in the market and there's no reason to get anything else?

You can sure believe that I would sell my camera and mount and buy this if it was a no brainer. I would net quite a profit. I could have 5 of these cameras. :)

 

The armchair expert comment was about me - an assurance that I am not one and have put my money where my mouth is - it was not in any way aimed at you and I am sorry that you thought that it was.

 

The technical stuff:

This camera is the only one of anything like this size that is cooled and can get down to ~1.2 electrons read noise - at any price. Agreed, ZWO makes related cameras with much smaller Sony CMOS chips, but no other cooled camera that I am aware of even comes close to specs of the 1600.

I agree that there are likely to be some teething issues, but nothing serious has shown up in any reported testing so far and some of the early images have been impressive. ZWO is a new player in DSO imaging, but they have effectively taken over the planetary imaging scene in this country, so they clearly know how to build reliable and cost-effective cameras.

Data storage and processing will be a problem, but it won't be insurmountable - 1000 subs from a 1600 should take about 5 hours to process and there is always the possibility of reducing the time by subframe selection if the target warrants. 

Agreed, the data doesn't look better than that from other cameras - with 5 minute subs. The big difference is that this camera does not force you to use long subs to get good results. It has already been demonstrated to operate with subs as short as 1 second without too much noise. The system benefits that flow from short subs are far less reliance on high quality mounts and reduced or no need for guiding (high res DSO imaging with an unguided Dob on an equatorial platform has already been demonstrated) 

The camera can operate at full resolution at 23 frames per second. With subframe selection, the frame rate can be above 100 fps. Along with the very low read noise, this puts it at the top of the class for planetary and solar imaging. No CCD DSO camera can come anywhere remotely near to this level of performance. 

The 1600 has small pixels, which will mean that it cannot be used efficiently without binning at long focal lengths. Most refractors will be suitable, but Fast Newtonians up to about 12 inches will be best for maximum sensitivity - a 12 inch f4 with this chip will produce images with larger features than a 12 inch f8 with 9 micron pixels. The older 9 micron CCD designs will still rule the roost at apertures above 12 inches (apart from hyperstar systems).


Edited by Shiraz, 25 May 2016 - 12:07 PM.


#312 FirstC8

FirstC8

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,118
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2016

Posted 25 May 2016 - 11:04 AM

Don't know when high end CCD manufactures will jump on the bigger CMOS chips bandwagon and offer integrated and proven solutions.

Maybe when that happens, we can settle the debate. Or bring the proven integrated CCDs down market and stop or slow down CMOS encroachment.

Either way would be fine.

#313 josh smith

josh smith

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,366
  • Joined: 13 Oct 2013
  • Loc: St Petersburg, Florida

Posted 25 May 2016 - 11:19 AM


it can work like an 8300 if you want, is a nearly perfect planet cam and an ideal wide angle solar cam. Plus it can do narrowband or image deep broadband with very short subs (20 seconds maybe at f4) - something that nothing else can do at any cost. That can mean that no guiding is needed and a cheapo mount will do - and you still get perfect stars. And it does it all for waaay less than the big guys charge. "No brainer" and "disruptive technology" come to mind. Not just for beginners, but for everyone.

These are the comments that are causing such turmoil. I hope no one spending their money takes your comment at face value. It's also why reasonable and intelligent debates are so tough to have here sometimes.
well I have just bought one Josh - these are not idle comments from an armchair expert.

I want to get stuck in and exploit this wonderful new technology to the full - we will be able to do things that have not been possible up till now and the biggest change of all will be the ability to produce good images using lesser quality mounts and no guiding. This isn't only about a camera, it is the beginnings of a new way of doing almost every aspect of our hobby - that is a really exciting prospect and turmoil will be part of the process.
There are cameras available with similar specs of low read noise and higher qe. An el cheapo mount will not produce perfect stars for 20 second exposures on bigger gear. There are some calibration issues and noise patterns. There is data storage and processing issues. There are no integrated complete solutions. There are no very well engineered solutions. There are no local manufacturers. It is a great step forward in having more options. Calling it a no brainier and saying nothing else can do this and that there is nothing comparable in price is not only factually wrong, it is the type of brash over generalization that makes having an intelligent and reasoned debate difficult. I am as excited as anyone about the new cmos sensors. It is awesome and I can't wait for it to continue to evolve. Calling me an armchair quarterback is an unfair statement. I've been very involved in all of the investigation of how best to use these, have processed every set of publicly available data, have helped deal with calibration issues, and more. The data does not look better than all data on other sensors I've used and the sensor specs is not all to consider when choosing a camera. Why on earth do these conversations continue down the path of completely one sided absolute terms. There are trade offs with this as with everything else involved. I suppose the best thing to do is just keep your mouth shut if you aren't willing to blindly say that it's the best thing available in the market and there's no reason to get anything else?

You can sure believe that I would sell my camera and mount and buy this if it was a no brainer. I would net quite a profit. I could have 5 of these cameras. :)
The armchair expert comment was about me - an assurance that I am not one and have put my money where my mouth is - it was not in any way aimed at you and I am sorry that you thought that it was.

The technical stuff:
This camera is the only one of anything like this size that is cooled and can get down to ~1.2 electrons read noise - at any price. Nothing else even comes close.
I agree that there are likely to be some teething issues, but nothing serious has shown up in any reported testing so far and some of the early images have been impressive. ZWO is a new player in DSO imaging, but they have effectively taken over the planetary imaging scene in this country, so they clearly know how to build reliable and cost-effective cameras.
Data storage and processing will be a problem, but it won't be insurmountable - as a test, I just stacked 50 subs from my current 6mp system - it took about a minute. cal and alignment operations take about the same, so let's assume that I can do 50 frames in about 5 minutes. With the 1600, the subs will be 3x larger, so 50 of those subs would take roughly 15 minutes. Assuming that I will need maybe 1000 short subs with the 1600, the processing time could be 300 minutes. Admittedly that is a crude analysis, but it doesn't throw up any show stoppers - 5 hours is OK and there is always the possibility of reducing the time by subframe selection if the target warrants.
Agreed, the data doesn't look better than that from other cameras - with 5 minute subs. The big difference is that this cameras does not force you to use long subs to get good results. It has already been demonstrated to operate with subs as short as 1 second without too much noise. The system benefits that flow from short subs are far less reliance on high quality mounts and reduced or no need for guiding (high res imaging with an unguided Dob on an equatorial platform has already been demonstrated)
The camera can operate at full resolution at 23 frames per second. With subframe selection, the frame rate can be above 100 fps. Along with the very low read noise, this puts it at the top of the class for planetary imaging. No CCD DSO camera can come anywhere remotely near to this level of performance.
The 1600 has small pixels, which will mean that it cannot be used without binning at long focal lengths. Most refractors will be suitable, but Fast Newtonians up to about 12 inches will be best for maximum sensitivity - a 12 inch f4 with this chip will have larger pixel scale (detail) than a 12 inch f8 with 9 micron pixels. The older 9 micron CCD designs will still rule the roost at apertures above 12 inches (apart from hyperstar systems).

I'll respond because it's only fair since you took the time to comment and then I'll quietly bow out once and for all on this conversation. Even though the same points have been made repeatedly and proven, it still gets ignored or ignored over and over.

1.2 e- read noise only happens at high gain where there are definitive trade offs which still exist even at unity gain.

There are cameras with lower read noise in the EMCCD market.

Shooting from heavy LP takes many hours if not dozens of hours of subs for many targets even with other extremely low read noise and highly efficient cameras which would make 1 second subs unreasonable even for the largest of storage devices and processors.

You've ignored the integrated package trade off, the patterns in noise, the quality of engineering, the location of manufacturer, and many other points.

It's a technology we are all very excited about. I'm still considering getting one. It's still a matter of trade offs and not a clear cut decision or a no brainer. To get the benefits you've mentioned there are trade offs, period. It is still very exciting.
  • pbunn likes this

#314 Mickey_C

Mickey_C

    Viking 1

  • ****-
  • Posts: 504
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2005
  • Loc: AZ

Posted 25 May 2016 - 12:01 PM

So did I screw the pooch, or what? Reading the comments above, it sounds like the 8300 is a dinosaur at any price.



#315 schmeah

schmeah

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,836
  • Joined: 26 Jul 2005
  • Loc: Morristown, NJ

Posted 25 May 2016 - 12:07 PM

^^^^  Sigh .....


  • jdupton, WesC, josh smith and 1 other like this

#316 FirstC8

FirstC8

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,118
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2016

Posted 25 May 2016 - 12:45 PM

So did I screw the pooch, or what? Reading the comments above, it sounds like the 8300 is a dinosaur at any price.


It can not be dinosaur when it is still the benchmark where the new animal is measured. If there is a price point at this time, I think a proven and fully hardware/software integrated 8300 camera (5 filter wheel and oag) at $3,000 would be a good way to cool the 1600 off.

Edited by FirstC8, 25 May 2016 - 12:47 PM.


#317 josh smith

josh smith

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,366
  • Joined: 13 Oct 2013
  • Loc: St Petersburg, Florida

Posted 25 May 2016 - 12:50 PM

So did I screw the pooch, or what? Reading the comments above, it sounds like the 8300 is a dinosaur at any price.


Hahaha. This is too funny. Are you reading this thread?
  • AstroGabe, pbunn, WesC and 1 other like this

#318 tolgagumus

tolgagumus

    Vendor

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 3,687
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2014
  • Loc: NJ

Posted 25 May 2016 - 01:07 PM

So did I screw the pooch, or what? Reading the comments above, it sounds like the 8300 is a dinosaur at any price.

Are you reading the same thread I am reading? It sounds like you feel you made a mistake. Why don't you return it. 



#319 JJK

JJK

    Gemini

  • -----
  • Posts: 3,466
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2008

Posted 25 May 2016 - 01:57 PM

So did I screw the pooch, or what? Reading the comments above, it sounds like the 8300 is a dinosaur at any price.

I don't think so.  I sold an FLI ML8300 only because the CFO at home wants the astro hobby to be cost neutral.  I wanted an FLI ML16200, so a few things had to go.  I really miss my ML8300.  It's an excellent camera.


  • WesC likes this

#320 Mickey_C

Mickey_C

    Viking 1

  • ****-
  • Posts: 504
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2005
  • Loc: AZ

Posted 25 May 2016 - 03:00 PM

 

 

 

 

it can work like an 8300 if you want, is a nearly perfect planet cam and an ideal wide angle solar cam. Plus it can do narrowband or image deep broadband with very short subs (20 seconds maybe at f4) - something that nothing else can do at any cost. That can mean that no guiding is needed and a cheapo mount will do - and you still get perfect stars. And it does it all for waaay less than the big guys charge. "No brainer" and "disruptive technology" come to mind. Not just for beginners, but for everyone.

These are the comments that are causing such turmoil. I hope no one spending their money takes your comment at face value. It's also why reasonable and intelligent debates are so tough to have here sometimes.
well I have just bought one Josh - these are not idle comments from an armchair expert.

I want to get stuck in and exploit this wonderful new technology to the full - we will be able to do things that have not been possible up till now and the biggest change of all will be the ability to produce good images using lesser quality mounts and no guiding. This isn't only about a camera, it is the beginnings of a new way of doing almost every aspect of our hobby - that is a really exciting prospect and turmoil will be part of the process.

There are cameras available with similar specs of low read noise and higher qe. An el cheapo mount will not produce perfect stars for 20 second exposures on bigger gear. There are some calibration issues and noise patterns. There is data storage and processing issues. There are no integrated complete solutions. There are no very well engineered solutions. There are no local manufacturers. It is a great step forward in having more options. Calling it a no brainier and saying nothing else can do this and that there is nothing comparable in price is not only factually wrong, it is the type of brash over generalization that makes having an intelligent and reasoned debate difficult. I am as excited as anyone about the new cmos sensors. It is awesome and I can't wait for it to continue to evolve. Calling me an armchair quarterback is an unfair statement. I've been very involved in all of the investigation of how best to use these, have processed every set of publicly available data, have helped deal with calibration issues, and more. The data does not look better than all data on other sensors I've used and the sensor specs is not all to consider when choosing a camera. Why on earth do these conversations continue down the path of completely one sided absolute terms. There are trade offs with this as with everything else involved. I suppose the best thing to do is just keep your mouth shut if you aren't willing to blindly say that it's the best thing available in the market and there's no reason to get anything else?

You can sure believe that I would sell my camera and mount and buy this if it was a no brainer. I would net quite a profit. I could have 5 of these cameras. :)

 

The armchair expert comment was about me - an assurance that I am not one and have put my money where my mouth is - it was not in any way aimed at you and I am sorry that you thought that it was.

 

The technical stuff:

This camera is the only one of anything like this size that is cooled and can get down to ~1.2 electrons read noise - at any price. Agreed, ZWO makes related cameras with much smaller Sony CMOS chips, but no other cooled camera that I am aware of even comes close to specs of the 1600.

I agree that there are likely to be some teething issues, but nothing serious has shown up in any reported testing so far and some of the early images have been impressive. ZWO is a new player in DSO imaging, but they have effectively taken over the planetary imaging scene in this country, so they clearly know how to build reliable and cost-effective cameras.

Data storage and processing will be a problem, but it won't be insurmountable - 1000 subs from a 1600 should take about 5 hours to process and there is always the possibility of reducing the time by subframe selection if the target warrants. 

Agreed, the data doesn't look better than that from other cameras - with 5 minute subs. The big difference is that this camera does not force you to use long subs to get good results. It has already been demonstrated to operate with subs as short as 1 second without too much noise. The system benefits that flow from short subs are far less reliance on high quality mounts and reduced or no need for guiding (high res DSO imaging with an unguided Dob on an equatorial platform has already been demonstrated) 

The camera can operate at full resolution at 23 frames per second. With subframe selection, the frame rate can be above 100 fps. Along with the very low read noise, this puts it at the top of the class for planetary and solar imaging. No CCD DSO camera can come anywhere remotely near to this level of performance. 

The 1600 has small pixels, which will mean that it cannot be used efficiently without binning at long focal lengths. Most refractors will be suitable, but Fast Newtonians up to about 12 inches will be best for maximum sensitivity - a 12 inch f4 with this chip will produce images with larger features than a 12 inch f8 with 9 micron pixels. The older 9 micron CCD designs will still rule the roost at apertures above 12 inches (apart from hyperstar systems).

 

 

 

^^^^  Sigh .....

 

 

 

So did I screw the pooch, or what? Reading the comments above, it sounds like the 8300 is a dinosaur at any price.


Hahaha. This is too funny. Are you reading this thread?

 

 

 

 

So did I screw the pooch, or what? Reading the comments above, it sounds like the 8300 is a dinosaur at any price.

I don't think so.  I sold an FLI ML8300 only because the CFO at home wants the astro hobby to be cost neutral.  I wanted an FLI ML16200, so a few things had to go.  I really miss my ML8300.  It's an excellent camera.

 

 

..

 

I can read it all day long. Does that mean I really understand it? Probably not. Or maybe just enough to dig myself into a ditch (and cover it with me inside, one of my great character traits).

 

From what I read it sounds like...

 

The STF 8300C has the advantage of being a widely supported integrated package of hardware and software from a top manufacturer, with support and user knowledge coming out of it's pix-elated follicles, boasting hardware add-ons and a full spectrum of software drivers/native support;  It works today.

 

The ASI 1600mm Color Cooled has the ability to do both decent DSO in medium frames AND planetary imaging too. Support is questionable, but everything that supports windows WDM cameras should support it through ASCOM interfaces. CMOS is the future, and this the most usable entry level CMOS camera step up from a DSLR, with one of the biggest CMOS sensors to date (21.9mm diagonal, very close to the 22mm diagonal size of the 8300C). In 1-2 years it could be all the rage.

 

The other stuff I read, well I can read the specs and see which one is lower and all, but that doesn't mean I really understand how that impacts (or dictates) the camera use. Just being honest... there is a lot to this.

 

.......

 

I am loathe to admit this... but here goes:

 

I bought both cameras. I figured I'd try both, whichever was easier and provided the more immediate decent results, I could keep. The 8300C I could probably sell for what I paid for it. The ASI 1600 I can return for 30 days, and after that... well, I'd probably take a loss unless it's so amazing and so in demand that they can't keep it in stock and I can sell it without much loss.

 

WANTED:

 

Imaging expert in Southern Arizona. PM me if you have time.

 

Extra Credit:

 

"A _ _ _ _ and his _ _ _ _ _ are easily _ _ _ _ _ _."


Edited by Mickey_C, 25 May 2016 - 03:01 PM.


#321 A. Viegas

A. Viegas

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,036
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2012
  • Loc: New York City/ CT

Posted 25 May 2016 - 03:17 PM

Good luck Mickey_C....   do your evaluation quick before there is an avalanche of  8300s on the used market!!    :D

 

Al



#322 schmeah

schmeah

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,836
  • Joined: 26 Jul 2005
  • Loc: Morristown, NJ

Posted 25 May 2016 - 05:39 PM

@Mickey C. Fool...money...parted. Good luck, and we look forward to hearing your comparative review. 

 

Derek



#323 bobzeq25

bobzeq25

    ISS

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 20,394
  • Joined: 27 Oct 2014

Posted 25 May 2016 - 10:39 PM

 

So did I screw the pooch, or what? Reading the comments above, it sounds like the 8300 is a dinosaur at any price.


It can not be dinosaur when it is still the benchmark where the new animal is measured. If there is a price point at this time, I think a proven and fully hardware/software integrated 8300 camera (5 filter wheel and oag) at $3,000 would be a good way to cool the 1600 off.

 

I think the 8300 is far from a dinosaur.  I also think buying an integrated setup _at this time_, and so locking yourself into a chip, is not the best move.  Chip technology is moving fast.


Edited by bobzeq25, 25 May 2016 - 10:39 PM.


#324 akulapanam

akulapanam

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,706
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2012

Posted 25 May 2016 - 11:17 PM

 

 

So did I screw the pooch, or what? Reading the comments above, it sounds like the 8300 is a dinosaur at any price.


It can not be dinosaur when it is still the benchmark where the new animal is measured. If there is a price point at this time, I think a proven and fully hardware/software integrated 8300 camera (5 filter wheel and oag) at $3,000 would be a good way to cool the 1600 off.

 

I think the 8300 is far from a dinosaur.  I also think buying an integrated setup _at this time_, and so locking yourself into a chip, is not the best move.  Chip technology is moving fast.

 

I don't know I think that the 8300 is a dinosaur and frankly has been one since the Sony ICX694 came on the market. The 8300 is well behind in QE, dark noise, and read noise. The only advantage it has versus the Sony CCDs is physical chip size and that advantage just disappeared.  The KAF-16200 is also a dinosaur as well having similar specs and being designed at the end of the Kodiak era.  The only redeeming feature it has is chip size.



#325 akulapanam

akulapanam

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,706
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2012

Posted 25 May 2016 - 11:17 PM

 

 

So did I screw the pooch, or what? Reading the comments above, it sounds like the 8300 is a dinosaur at any price.


It can not be dinosaur when it is still the benchmark where the new animal is measured. If there is a price point at this time, I think a proven and fully hardware/software integrated 8300 camera (5 filter wheel and oag) at $3,000 would be a good way to cool the 1600 off.

 

I think the 8300 is far from a dinosaur.  I also think buying an integrated setup _at this time_, and so locking yourself into a chip, is not the best move.  Chip technology is moving fast.

 

I don't know I think that the 8300 is a dinosaur and frankly has been one since the Sony ICX694 came on the market. The 8300 is well behind in QE, dark noise, and read noise. The only advantage it has versus the Sony CCDs is physical chip size and that advantage just disappeared.  The KAF-16200 is also a dinosaur as well having similar specs and being designed at the end of the Kodiak era.  The only redeeming feature it has is chip size.




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