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

#51 Goofi

Goofi

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • In Memoriam
  • Posts: 8,137
  • Joined: 03 May 2013
  • Loc: Coastal Southern California

Posted 03 May 2016 - 06:30 PM

@Tolga .. I was happy to see you weighed in on this - thanks!
 

 

@Bob .. oh great, now we're going to confuse these threads by listening to the OP?   ;)


  • tolgagumus likes this

#52 Jon Rista

Jon Rista

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 24,482
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2014
  • Loc: Colorado

Posted 03 May 2016 - 07:53 PM

 

 

I was heartened that Tolga said the construction was acceptable.

 

Just to clarify: I don't expect miraculous fit and finish but do want better than cheap plastic joined by double-sided tape with crooked ink-jet stickers.

 

Aye. It did not look like the camera bodies were plastic, but it helps to know for sure. That would just leave the innards to question. Hopefully they will last...guess time will tell. 

 

Oh, one other question. Jerry actually asked this...but does anyone know the situation with the sensor cavity? Is it sealed with inert gas? Is a rechargable desiccant used? Is a non-rechargable desiccant used? 

 

 

In the Q&A for the 1600MM mono cooled Sam says,

 

"Yes, it’s sealed and replaceable dessicant
you can have a look at our other cooled cameras description"

 

 

Thanks!



#53 fetoma

fetoma

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,055
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2006
  • Loc: Southern NJ

Posted 03 May 2016 - 09:16 PM

Are we going to change this forum to CCD and CMOS Imaging & Processing?


  • keithlt and tolgagumus like this

#54 Thirteen

Thirteen

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,183
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2013
  • Loc: Milford, Michigan

Posted 03 May 2016 - 11:06 PM

Maybe then I could post an image here!

#55 Joe G

Joe G

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,865
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2007
  • Loc: Southern California

Posted 03 May 2016 - 11:21 PM

Are we going to change this forum to CCD and CMOS Imaging & Processing?

 I love that.  It is very appropriate!

 

Maybe give it a month.  Or what about a new forum?



#56 Shawnxc

Shawnxc

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 55
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2009
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 04 May 2016 - 01:19 AM

This QHY cmos camera, if it ever comes out, may turn out to be even more disruptive

http://www.qhyccd.com/QHY42.html

Attached Thumbnails

  • image.png

Edited by Shawnxc, 04 May 2016 - 02:55 AM.


#57 Jon Rista

Jon Rista

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 24,482
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2014
  • Loc: Colorado

Posted 04 May 2016 - 01:44 AM

Wow...70-90% Q.E. with the BSI version? Crazy...



#58 schmeah

schmeah

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,964
  • Joined: 26 Jul 2005
  • Loc: Morristown, NJ

Posted 04 May 2016 - 08:07 AM

^^^ I got fired up about the QHY42 as well when I first heard about it. I sent emails to QHY inquiring about it, and never got a reply. But 11 micron pixels?

 

Derek



#59 WesC

WesC

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,322
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2013
  • Loc: La Crescenta, CA

Posted 04 May 2016 - 10:14 AM

Might be great for those really long focal length scopes chasing faint PNs and galaxies. 



#60 tolgagumus

tolgagumus

    Vendor

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 3,690
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2014
  • Loc: NJ

Posted 04 May 2016 - 10:19 AM

That's going to be expensive Tucsen already makes a camera with the 4 and the 9 mp chips.  They cost $7000 and $17000.

 

https://alliedscient...mp-usb3-0-21205



#61 schmeah

schmeah

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,964
  • Joined: 26 Jul 2005
  • Loc: Morristown, NJ

Posted 04 May 2016 - 10:46 AM

Might be great for those really long focal length scopes chasing faint PNs and galaxies. 

 

Yes, with the peak QE in the blue/green and large pixels, probably a great CCD for PNs and their faint halos. Not as good for emmission nebulae since QE drops below 70% in the red/Ha.



#62 nmoushon

nmoushon

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 1,534
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2011
  • Loc: Wenatchee Valley, WA

Posted 04 May 2016 - 11:58 AM

That's going to be expensive Tucsen already makes a camera with the 4 and the 9 mp chips.  They cost $7000 and $17000.

 

https://alliedscient...mp-usb3-0-21205

HOLY ****!!! How does a cmos chip cost that much!? I'm sorry but no cmos chip at $7k can beat a ccd chip at $7k and especially at $17k. If QHY can bring the price down to about $2k or so they will hit a gold mine. 

 

Edit: I was not implying QHY can control the chip price just that I can't believe a cmos chip costs that much and that I think Tucsen must have a huge profit margin. So whith QHY entering the market with this chip they could surely cut the price at least in half. Hopefully more.



#63 tolgagumus

tolgagumus

    Vendor

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 3,690
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2014
  • Loc: NJ

Posted 04 May 2016 - 12:00 PM


That's going to be expensive Tucsen already makes a camera with the 4 and the 9 mp chips. They cost $7000 and $17000.

https://alliedscient...mp-usb3-0-21205

HOLY ****!!! How does a cmos chip cost that much!? I'm sorry but no cmos chip at $7k can beat a ccd chip at $7k and especially at $17k. If QHY can bring the price down to about $2k or so they will hit a gold mine.

Qhy has nothing to do with the price of the chip.

#64 nmoushon

nmoushon

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 1,534
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2011
  • Loc: Wenatchee Valley, WA

Posted 04 May 2016 - 12:03 PM

 

Might be great for those really long focal length scopes chasing faint PNs and galaxies. 

 

Yes, with the peak QE in the blue/green and large pixels, probably a great CCD for PNs and their faint halos. Not as good for emmission nebulae since QE drops below 70% in the red/Ha.

 

Exactly my thoughts too. Too bad it drops so much by the time it gets into the red/Ha but even at 70% thats still at par or above most ccd chips out now so I personally wouldn't use that as decision maker. 

Though I did note on their spec sheet that they state a 1ms-10sec exposure limit. Now I'm not sure of thats the software limit or hardware limit. Would be interesting to see how/if specs change if you increase the exposure times to normal AP imaging times.



#65 nmoushon

nmoushon

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 1,534
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2011
  • Loc: Wenatchee Valley, WA

Posted 04 May 2016 - 12:07 PM

 

 

That's going to be expensive Tucsen already makes a camera with the 4 and the 9 mp chips. They cost $7000 and $17000.

https://alliedscient...mp-usb3-0-21205

HOLY ****!!! How does a cmos chip cost that much!? I'm sorry but no cmos chip at $7k can beat a ccd chip at $7k and especially at $17k. If QHY can bring the price down to about $2k or so they will hit a gold mine.

Qhy has nothing to do with the price of the chip.

 

I know that. I don't know the price of the chip but I'm sure Tucsen has a huge profit margin on it though. Thats what I was getting at...well at least hoping for. I'm not trying to say QHY should have a minimal profit margin either. Just putting that out there. I just dont think a cmos chip is in that kind of price range. Its not THAT good of a chip. 

 

Btw I've edited my previous post to make it more clear. Sorry for any confusing or applying anything unintended. 



#66 Jon Rista

Jon Rista

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 24,482
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2014
  • Loc: Colorado

Posted 04 May 2016 - 12:21 PM

 

That's going to be expensive Tucsen already makes a camera with the 4 and the 9 mp chips.  They cost $7000 and $17000.

 

https://alliedscient...mp-usb3-0-21205

HOLY ****!!! How does a cmos chip cost that much!? I'm sorry but no cmos chip at $7k can beat a ccd chip at $7k and especially at $17k. If QHY can bring the price down to about $2k or so they will hit a gold mine. 

 

 

It's sCMOS. Scientific CMOS. It can DEFINITELY do better than CCD. It's about as cutting edge as CMOS tech gets, with read noise in the 1-2e- range, yet FWC's in the 60,000 to 150,000 range. That gives them immense dynamic range. The BSI versions can get very close to individual photon counting. It's really the BSI that drives up cost. Much more difficult to do as it requires a thinned substrate, yields are low, which rapidly drives up cost, especially for a sensor of this size. 

 

It would be pretty awesome to use one of these sensors for astrophotography...but they are indeed prohibitively expensive. 


  • bobzeq25 likes this

#67 nmoushon

nmoushon

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 1,534
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2011
  • Loc: Wenatchee Valley, WA

Posted 04 May 2016 - 12:26 PM

 

 

That's going to be expensive Tucsen already makes a camera with the 4 and the 9 mp chips.  They cost $7000 and $17000.

 

https://alliedscient...mp-usb3-0-21205

HOLY ****!!! How does a cmos chip cost that much!? I'm sorry but no cmos chip at $7k can beat a ccd chip at $7k and especially at $17k. If QHY can bring the price down to about $2k or so they will hit a gold mine. 

 

 

It's sCMOS. Scientific CMOS. It can DEFINITELY do better than CCD. It's about as cutting edge as CMOS tech gets, with read noise in the 1-2e- range, yet FWC's in the 60,000 to 150,000 range. That gives them immense dynamic range. The BSI versions can get very close to individual photon counting. It's really the BSI that drives up cost. Much more difficult to do as it requires a thinned substrate, yields are low, which rapidly drives up cost, especially for a sensor of this size. 

 

It would be pretty awesome to use one of these sensors for astrophotography...but they are indeed prohibitively expensive. 

 

AHHHH....I didnt know there was a difference. I just thought they added to the name for marketing purposes. Glad I learned something new. I guess you can all disregard my last post as I have no idea about the price on these. 

With that said though do you think cameras in that price range would even do well in the AP market? Thats a steep price even if QHY can cut it down some. 



#68 Jon Rista

Jon Rista

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 24,482
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2014
  • Loc: Colorado

Posted 04 May 2016 - 12:38 PM

Well, people do buy the $10k+ large format KAF/KAI CCD cameras. Depending on the grade, some of those can top $30,000. :p I know some people on these forums have SEVERAL such cameras. So, while it wouldn't be a large market, I'm sure there would be buyers. 

 

I am hoping sCMOS gets cheaper in future years. BSI (backside illuminated, in contrast with the more common FSI, frontside illuminated) sensors used to be ludicrously expensive, and were only viable for the kinds of ultra tiny sensors you find in smartphones. However the technology has improved over the last decade, and the issues with fragility are being solved, so it is becoming possible to make those kinds of sensors in larger formats. The fact that it only costs $17,000 for a BSI sCMOS camera is actually a testament to how "cheap" these things have actually become. In a few more years, those cameras, maybe thanks to manufacturers like QHY and ZWO, may drop into the sub-10k zone, which I think would make them a lot more viable for astrophotography in a more general sense. 


  • nmoushon and StarDust1 like this

#69 tolgagumus

tolgagumus

    Vendor

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 3,690
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2014
  • Loc: NJ

Posted 04 May 2016 - 12:53 PM

I think what we need is another 8300 sensor. Meaning a sensor that has or had a large market other than scientific such as the chip in the Sony A7S. I'm hoping Sony makes this sensor available to other manufacturers. It's not as ludicrous as it sounds since the sensor and camera division of Sony are two separate companies. While sony still holds control of the sensor division. The sensor division still has to be profitable on it's own. Right now they are loosing their shirt, taking a loss at last few quarters.
  • bilgebay, StarDust1 and Jon Rista like this

#70 Goofi

Goofi

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • In Memoriam
  • Posts: 8,137
  • Joined: 03 May 2013
  • Loc: Coastal Southern California

Posted 04 May 2016 - 01:47 PM

 

Might be great for those really long focal length scopes chasing faint PNs and galaxies. 

 

Yes, with the peak QE in the blue/green and large pixels, probably a great CCD for PNs and their faint halos. Not as good for emmission nebulae since QE drops below 70% in the red/Ha.

 

 

 

This is not a criticism of Derek's post, just an observation ...

We've gotten spoiled lately. The QE of a 16803 in Ha is around 45%; Oiii it's about 55%. My wonderful little Sony 694's Ha QE is around 65% and Oiii is about 77%.  

 

I'm more than willing to settle for the terrible 70% QE of any sensor   :lol:


  • schmeah, StarDust1, Jon Rista and 1 other like this

#71 rgsalinger

rgsalinger

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 7,398
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2007
  • Loc: Carlsbad Ca

Posted 04 May 2016 - 01:56 PM

I think that you need to separate the company from the technology.

 

It's not about ZWO versus SBIG or QSI, rather it's about CMOS versus CCD. It appears that the majority of development money is going into CMOS. I think that will mean that (particularly back illuminated ones) will sell at a price point that will allow all of the existing manufacturers to offer cameras with this specific chip or the next one down the line that's even bigger! Look at the QE and the read noise on it. Given the non issue of 12 bits - the well depth of this chip seems equal to the venerable KAF8300. I think that the chip is the winner not necessarily ZWO.

 

As far as ZWO specifically is concerned, once it becomes common knowledge about what needs to be done to adapt the camera to filter wheels and OAG's on the market, I think that they have a good chance of selling quite a few of these. However, you can buy a cooled 8300 chipped camera for a couple of hundred bucks more, the pricing isn't really that dramatically different. I mean if you knew how to configure this camera and it's 300 bucks cheaper than an 8300 and has much lower read noise, why would you recommend anything else at this price point?

 

There may be a spanner in the works somewhere. I can tell you that recent conversations a colleague had with a very high end manufacturer of cameras seemed to indicate that we are about to get much lower read noise choices in astro-imaging cameras. I thought that it might be the E2V sensor line, maybe it's actually these Matsushita sensors. 


  • StarDust1 and Jon Rista like this

#72 rkayakr

rkayakr

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,504
  • Joined: 27 Oct 2010
  • Loc: Northeast Ohio

Posted 05 May 2016 - 06:40 AM

With respect to ZWO being a repackager. Twice they have surprised me by producing cameras with sensors that were not known to exist. While color IMX178 sensor specs are posted on the Sony web site, there was a no mention of a mono chip and much speculation after announcement until the ASI178mm actually appeared. The same is true for the ASI1600. There was no mention of a mono sensor until the ASI1600mm was announced. It looks like ZWO can take a step past off the shelf components and use sensors that have some customization for astro photography.



#73 josh smith

josh smith

    Fly Me to the Moon

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

Posted 05 May 2016 - 07:50 AM

I think that you need to separate the company from the technology.

It's not about ZWO versus SBIG or QSI, rather it's about CMOS versus CCD. It appears that the majority of development money is going into CMOS. I think that will mean that (particularly back illuminated ones) will sell at a price point that will allow all of the existing manufacturers to offer cameras with this specific chip or the next one down the line that's even bigger! Look at the QE and the read noise on it. Given the non issue of 12 bits - the well depth of this chip seems equal to the venerable KAF8300. I think that the chip is the winner not necessarily ZWO.

As far as ZWO specifically is concerned, once it becomes common knowledge about what needs to be done to adapt the camera to filter wheels and OAG's on the market, I think that they have a good chance of selling quite a few of these. However, you can buy a cooled 8300 chipped camera for a couple of hundred bucks more, the pricing isn't really that dramatically different. I mean if you knew how to configure this camera and it's 300 bucks cheaper than an 8300 and has much lower read noise, why would you recommend anything else at this price point?
.


Depends on results. That's what we are all waiting for. How well does the amp glow calibrate out. Is there left over noise that is troubling? What is the actual noise like? Is it Gaussian and smooth or fixed pattern and or clumpy? How well do all of the filter wheels and oags interact? Is tilt or spacing an issue? Does the camera frost over in high humidity places? How long will the camera last? What software does it work with and is it reliable?

It may be that none of these are an issue. The problem is recommending unproven entities to people and spending their $2k+. It's not responsible or ethical to recommend products and people to spend money on them until there are real world results and proof of good service and reliability. It may need another generation to get there. It may never match the quality and engineering many of us want and expect in our products. Then again, it might be there already and be the best value by far in astronomy. I just know that if there ends up being some nagging issues and I told someone to spend $2k+ on something, I'd feel awfully bad. With the specs not killing other cameras and it being unproven it's a lot easier to recommend known quantities with known manufacturers. Hopefully we'll hear very quickly how great this camera is and it will get enough testers to show its awesome and handles all situations well.
  • mikeyL, rainycityastro, WesC and 1 other like this

#74 bobzeq25

bobzeq25

    ISS

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 22,041
  • Joined: 27 Oct 2014

Posted 05 May 2016 - 10:06 AM

 

I think that you need to separate the company from the technology.

It's not about ZWO versus SBIG or QSI, rather it's about CMOS versus CCD. It appears that the majority of development money is going into CMOS. I think that will mean that (particularly back illuminated ones) will sell at a price point that will allow all of the existing manufacturers to offer cameras with this specific chip or the next one down the line that's even bigger! Look at the QE and the read noise on it. Given the non issue of 12 bits - the well depth of this chip seems equal to the venerable KAF8300. I think that the chip is the winner not necessarily ZWO.

As far as ZWO specifically is concerned, once it becomes common knowledge about what needs to be done to adapt the camera to filter wheels and OAG's on the market, I think that they have a good chance of selling quite a few of these. However, you can buy a cooled 8300 chipped camera for a couple of hundred bucks more, the pricing isn't really that dramatically different. I mean if you knew how to configure this camera and it's 300 bucks cheaper than an 8300 and has much lower read noise, why would you recommend anything else at this price point?
.


Depends on results. That's what we are all waiting for. How well does the amp glow calibrate out. Is there left over noise that is troubling? What is the actual noise like? Is it Gaussian and smooth or fixed pattern and or clumpy? How well do all of the filter wheels and oags interact? Is tilt or spacing an issue? Does the camera frost over in high humidity places? How long will the camera last? What software does it work with and is it reliable?

It may be that none of these are an issue. The problem is recommending unproven entities to people and spending their $2k+. It's not responsible or ethical to recommend products and people to spend money on them until there are real world results and proof of good service and reliability. It may need another generation to get there. It may never match the quality and engineering many of us want and expect in our products. Then again, it might be there already and be the best value by far in astronomy. I just know that if there ends up being some nagging issues and I told someone to spend $2k+ on something, I'd feel awfully bad. With the specs not killing other cameras and it being unproven it's a lot easier to recommend known quantities with known manufacturers. Hopefully we'll hear very quickly how great this camera is and it will get enough testers to show its awesome and handles all situations well.

 

All true.  But the flip side is I can't recommend a person new to DSO cameras spend twice the price or more on their first camera, that may or may not produce better images.  Or to drop a whole lot of money on old technology.   The world may (and may not) be going to CMOS.

 

In 3 months I believe we'll have a good idea whether amp glow is a killer.  Whether it has fixed pattern noise (or, rather, how much).  Whether it works with common filter wheels and OAGs (what could the issue there be?  the camera has more standard attachments and lower backfocus than many).   I'm less concerned with longevity.  How many of us replace a camera because it's worn out, even now?   Reliability is a difficult issue, with any manufacturer.  Don't see many complaints with their other cameras.  The chip is a proven commodity.

 

Two key points.  The speed of change may be accelerating, and tying yourself to an integrated system seems less attractive to me.   This isn't marketed as a replacement for $expensive cameras.  I understand the best imagers may not be interested.  Yet.  <smile>

 

So, my current recommendation is for any new imagers with a standard new imager budget to wait 3 months.  That will reduce FUD considerably.  <grin>


Edited by bobzeq25, 05 May 2016 - 10:31 AM.


#75 andysea

andysea

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,201
  • Joined: 03 Sep 2010
  • Loc: Seattle, WA

Posted 05 May 2016 - 10:36 AM

So far I have not seen a camera that makes me want to dump my QSI532. The Kaf3200-me is an old sensor but still a great one once you learn how to deal with the blooms.


  • rainycityastro likes this


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