130 replies to this topic

[Robrj]

For what it's worth, my Samsung S8+ phone has a USB-C connection.  I love it.  I't much better than the older micro USB connection.  The plug is more substantial and since it's reversible, there is no fiddling around with direction.  It plugs in much easier, especially in the dark.  There are small adapters that will convert a micro USB to a C connector (one came with my phone). 

[ChrisWhite]

So the only differences between this and a standard 290MM are size and a USB 2.0 connection?  

 

Basically... yes. 

[Stelios]

The only interesting question now is--should one get the 174 (or the Lodestar X2) over this? Would it be worth the extra $? 

 

BTW, the difference between this and a standard 290mm is also $100. The standard MM is $399. This is (per Sam via Chris) is going to be $299. 

 

I also wonder about the longevity of the cameras--the Lodestars are proven performers that take a licking and keep on ticking  OTOH, for $650 one can buy two of the 290's and have dinner money left.

[Robrj]

The only interesting question now is--should one get the 174 (or the Lodestar X2) over this? Would it be worth the extra $? 

 

BTW, the difference between this and a standard 290mm is also $100. The standard MM is $399. This is (per Sam via Chris) is going to be $299. 

 

I also wonder about the longevity of the cameras--the Lodestars are proven performers that take a licking and keep on ticking  OTOH, for $650 one can buy two of the 290's and have dinner money left.

Adorama has Lodestar X2 cameras for $555.  It seems like it's their normal price.  They always seem to be cheaper on Starlight Xpress items.  I bought my Lodestar there.  They're not always in stock but they will deliver on back order.  I recently bought an extra Starlight Xpress carousel for my filter wheel.  It was $20 cheaper than everywhere else.  It was on back order for about 2 weeks.

Edited by Robrj, 29 August 2017 - 11:26 AM.

[GoldSpider]

So the only differences between this and a standard 290MM are size and a USB 2.0 connection?

Basically... yes.

I might have missed that in-thread, but is it confirmed USB2 and not 3?

[kingjamez]

 

 

So the only differences between this and a standard 290MM are size and a USB 2.0 connection?

Basically... yes.

I might have missed that in-thread, but is it confirmed USB2 and not 3?

 

Yes, that is straight from Sam on the ZWO yahoo group.

 

-Jim

[Stelios]

 

 

So the only differences between this and a standard 290MM are size and a USB 2.0 connection?

Basically... yes.

I might have missed that in-thread, but is it confirmed USB2 and not 3?

 

It makes sense--they want it to be compatible with their ASI1600 hub. And I applaud that decision--one less cable. 

[ChrisWhite]

 

 

 

So the only differences between this and a standard 290MM are size and a USB 2.0 connection?

Basically... yes.

I might have missed that in-thread, but is it confirmed USB2 and not 3?

 

It makes sense--they want it to be compatible with their ASI1600 hub. And I applaud that decision--one less cable. 

 

 

I can verify that it works perfectly through the 1600 hub.  I imaged three full nights and never had a problem with data transfer.  (On my compute stick)

[mikefulb]

I think I know what I'll be picking up the next time ASI has a nice sale. 

[ChrisWhite]

I think I know what I'll be picking up the next time ASI has a nice sale. 

 

I'll be putting my money where my mouth is too....  

 

I've been wanting to replace my SSAG Pro from almost a year, but after hearing a rumor last winter that ASI would be making this I held off and suffered.  (first world problem....)

Edited by ChrisWhite, 29 August 2017 - 06:59 PM.

[rockstarbill]

Yeah just tried imaging with my C8 at f7 with my ASI120mm-S camera and while it could get some stars, not really enough to do good guiding. Might have to consider this upgrade at some point.

[ChrisWhite]

Sam thinks they will have availability starting mid september.  I'm not sure if that is for pre-order or actual shipping... and as we all know these things can change some.

 

But... looks like it is just around the corner. 

[Stelios]

I think I'll give it a shot. At this price, I should be able to sell it at a small loss if it turns out I can't find stars and need a Lodestar after all. 

 

As I am mainly imaging from a dark site, I expect finding stars will be even easier. 

[freestar8n]

If the camera is available either with 290 or 174 then for OAG I would choose 174 over 290 because the sensor is so much larger due to the larger pixels.  I use oag with the qhy 174 sensor and it is close to the prism of the oag and is nearly fully illuminated - which means it has a wide field for guidestars.  Other oag setups may not yield as much benefit if the field is constricted - but it still wouldn't hurt to have that extra sensor size.

 

But the 290 would be a better choice if you also intend to use it with a guidescope - because of the smaller pixels.

 

The larger pixels may also give an impression of greater sensitivity - but that's just because the pixels are larger - just like with a binned lodestar.  When it comes to getting high snr from a faint guidestar and calculating an accurate centroid - it's the total light collected that matters as long as the read noise is small - which it is.

 

Frank

[rockstarbill]

Circling back on this as the camera seems to be going live soon.

 

Any changes made in the beta?

[ChrisWhite]

Circling back on this as the camera seems to be going live soon.

 

Any changes made in the beta?

 

Not that I know of.  I'm still using the original ASCOM beta driver and have not touched the camera since day one with it.  I have over a dozen sessions with it and it has never skipped a beat. 

[rockstarbill]

Thanks.

 

Does it use the normal T threads or the C thread like the Lodestar?

[Stargazer3236]

Would the Mini 290 and the mini 174 still be good cameras for DSO imaging by themselves?

 

I am in the market for a 174mc over the 1600mc for wide field imaging with an Astro-Tech 60mmED refractor.

 

I would also like the 290MM for planetary imaging for next years oppositions.

 

Can either camera hold up on their own as imaging cameras or just for OAG?

[ChrisWhite]

The mini versions of these are really best suited for guiding. They are usb2 so the slower frame rate is not great for planetary.

Neither are cooled, so while you can do DSO imaging, it is not ideal.

The sensors are great, and they are certainly excellent cameras but if imaging is your main focus there are better choices.

[rockstarbill]

The mini versions of these are really best suited for guiding. They are usb2 so the slower frame rate is not great for planetary.

Neither are cooled, so while you can do DSO imaging, it is not ideal.

The sensors are great, and they are certainly excellent cameras but if imaging is your main focus there are better choices.

 

Chris, you missed my question -- T threads, or C? 

[ChrisWhite]

Sorry Bill.

It's a 1.25" body with female threads at the business end. Thread size would accept a threaded 1.25" filter.

[dvalid]

The mini versions of these are really best suited for guiding. They are usb2 so the slower frame rate is not great for planetary.
 

Chris,

 

Are you sure they are usb2? This cameras have usb-c connectors, thus could support usb3 without a problem..

 

Cheers,

 

David

[ChrisWhite]

 

The mini versions of these are really best suited for guiding. They are usb2 so the slower frame rate is not great for planetary.
 

Chris,

 

Are you sure they are usb2? This cameras have usb-c connectors, thus could support usb3 without a problem..

 

Cheers,

 

David

 

 

Sam has previously confirmed that they are USB 2.0 (despite having a USB 3 capable connector).  Other than body style, this is the only thing that is different, which gets the price down to $100 cheaper than the USB 3.0 counterpart. 

 

Since we have not seen a production run yet, anything is possible, but at this time it looks like USB 2.0.

[alphatripleplus]

 

So the only differences between this and a standard 290MM are size and a USB 2.0 connection?  

 

Basically... yes. 

 

So I assume the 290MM mini does not have an anti-amp glow circuit ? Is that correct?

 

(Sam confirmed to me a while ago that the standard 290MM does not have amp glow suppression (unlike the QHY290))

[ChrisWhite]

Looks like they are available. https://astronomy-im...tegory/usb-2-0/

Saw this link on another thread and thought I'd share it here.