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

RisingTech 287M Test Results

  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 Dragon Man

Dragon Man

    Gemini

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3376
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2006
  • Loc: Snake Valley, Australia

Posted 13 January 2018 - 01:21 AM

Paul (lollywater) sent down his Rising Tech 287M for me to test out for him in my dark skies, and because I have more time than Paul. He's a busy boy.

 

Rather than just take screenshots of the 287M view alone I also took identical screen shots of the same objects using the same settings with a 224 colour so there was something to compare the 287M to.

 

I didn't use an IR/UV filter with the 287 in these images as there is no need to. It's Mono.
But I did take screenshots with and without the IR/UV filter for my own interest. (without the IR/UV filter is better)

 

To make sure the test was pretty hard on the camera I used an ED80 instead of the big 6 inch refractor or the SN10 Astrograph.
All images are single frame, no stacking.

Here's the results:

 

First a simple bright object - M42

 

M42.jpg

 

 

Then a medium bright object - Carina Nebula

 

Carina-Nebula.jpg

 

continued . . . 


  • Ptarmigan, CharlesC, A. Viegas and 5 others like this

#2 Dragon Man

Dragon Man

    Gemini

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3376
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2006
  • Loc: Snake Valley, Australia

Posted 13 January 2018 - 01:24 AM

Then a slightly fainter object - NGC 253

(note the introduction of Amp Glow at 20 seconds in the 224, and none in the 287M)

NGC-253.jpg

 

 

and then a bunch of Screenshots with just the 287M:

 

OMEGA CENTAURI

 

Omega-Centauri.jpg

 

 

CENTAURUS 'A' GALAXY

 

Centaurus-A.jpg

 

 

SOMBRERO GALAXY

 

Sombrero.jpg

 

 

continued . . . 


  • Ptarmigan, roelb, bdyer22 and 2 others like this

#3 Dragon Man

Dragon Man

    Gemini

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3376
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2006
  • Loc: Snake Valley, Australia

Posted 13 January 2018 - 01:27 AM

M1 CRAB NEBULA

 

M1.jpg

 

 

M83 SOUTHERN PINWHEEL GALAXY

 

M83.jpg

 

 

And some people have said they are having trouble stacking in the RisingSky software.

Here is a stacked image of NGC 253 to show it works:

 

NGC-253-stacked-version.jpg

 

 

and the settings I used:

 

Stacking-settings.jpg


  • Ptarmigan, roelb, bdyer22 and 1 other like this

#4 Dragon Man

Dragon Man

    Gemini

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3376
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2006
  • Loc: Snake Valley, Australia

Posted 13 January 2018 - 03:59 AM

This is the camera being tested:

 

The Mono Version G3M287M: https://es.aliexpres...2834964898.html



#5 DSO_Viewer

DSO_Viewer

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 483
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2016

Posted 13 January 2018 - 12:18 PM

This is the camera being tested:

 

The Mono Version G3M287M: https://es.aliexpres...2834964898.html

Great comparison tests Ken. I am noticing more detail in the 224 camera model even though it is color. Why do you not prefer the UV/IR blocking filter since you can clearly see tighter stars in the 224 images than the 287m images? It would have been nice to see an image using the UV/IR filter with your 287m camera to see how much the star bloat would have been reduced.

 

Steve



#6 Dragon Man

Dragon Man

    Gemini

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3376
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2006
  • Loc: Snake Valley, Australia

Posted 14 January 2018 - 06:23 AM

 

This is the camera being tested:

 

The Mono Version G3M287M: https://es.aliexpres...2834964898.html

Great comparison tests Ken. I am noticing more detail in the 224 camera model even though it is color. Why do you not prefer the UV/IR blocking filter since you can clearly see tighter stars in the 224 images than the 287m images? It would have been nice to see an image using the UV/IR filter with your 287m camera to see how much the star bloat would have been reduced.

 

Steve

 

You are correct Steve, the stars are slightly bloated in the 287 pics because I didn't use the IR/UV filter, but when I used the filter some of the fainter nebula/Galaxy arms disappear.

 

I prefer to see more Nebula or galaxy Arms at the expense of slightly bloated stars.

I'm not doing Astrophotography so absolute pinpoint stars don't matter too much.

 

I could solve both problems by using the filter and doing longer exposures, but that defeats the whole idea of 'Near-Live'.

That is getting back to Astrophotography again. 

I want to see an object as fast as possible.

 

Here's two comparisons between with and without the IR/UV filter on the 287:

 

Carina Nebula

IMX287M IR filter comparison.gif

 

Continued in next post . . . 


  • mclewis1, will w, A. Viegas and 4 others like this

#7 Dragon Man

Dragon Man

    Gemini

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3376
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2006
  • Loc: Snake Valley, Australia

Posted 14 January 2018 - 06:24 AM

and 

 

NGC 253

 

IMX287M IR filter comparison2.gif


  • roelb, Art_NW AZ and elpajare like this

#8 mclewis1

mclewis1

    Thread Killer

  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2006
  • Loc: New Brunswick, Canada

Posted 14 January 2018 - 09:51 AM

Ken, Wonderful comparison.



#9 Astrojedi

Astrojedi

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2954
  • Joined: 27 May 2015
  • Loc: SoCal

Posted 14 January 2018 - 11:12 AM

Ken,

Nicely done. For galaxies I would not use an IR cut filter with the 224 as you are cutting off a substantial part of the sensor’s response.

I use an Astronomik CLS filter (not CLS-CCD) with the 224 and 385 and works very well for all objects including star clusters and galaxies. (See my ASI385 thread)

(Also why does your color balance with 224 seem off. Reminds me of the magenta my LX2C used to produce before SLL was updated.)

Hiten

Edited by Astrojedi, 14 January 2018 - 11:24 AM.


#10 Dragon Man

Dragon Man

    Gemini

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3376
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2006
  • Loc: Snake Valley, Australia

Posted 14 January 2018 - 11:26 AM

Ken,

Nicely done. For galaxies I would not use an IR cut filter with the 224 as you are cutting off a substantial part of the sensor’s response.

I use an Astronomik CLS filter (not CLS-CCD) with the 224 and 385 and works very well for all objects including star clusters. (See my ASI385 thread)

Hiten

I don't use an IR cut filter on Galaxies with the 224.

I even suggest that to others in another thread in here somewhere.

 

The only reason I used one on the 224 in this test is because I forgot to take it off for the Galaxy pics.

But I like it on for Globs and some Nebs, or wherever I want to concentrate on the stars in the view.

Otherwise it comes off.

 

https://www.cloudyni...hout/?p=8300140



#11 Astrojedi

Astrojedi

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2954
  • Joined: 27 May 2015
  • Loc: SoCal

Posted 14 January 2018 - 03:13 PM

 

Ken,

Nicely done. For galaxies I would not use an IR cut filter with the 224 as you are cutting off a substantial part of the sensor’s response.

I use an Astronomik CLS filter (not CLS-CCD) with the 224 and 385 and works very well for all objects including star clusters. (See my ASI385 thread)

Hiten

I don't use an IR cut filter on Galaxies with the 224.

I even suggest that to others in another thread in here somewhere.

 

The only reason I used one on the 224 in this test is because I forgot to take it off for the Galaxy pics.

But I like it on for Globs and some Nebs, or wherever I want to concentrate on the stars in the view.

Otherwise it comes off.

 

https://www.cloudyni...hout/?p=8300140

 

waytogo.gif



#12 A. Viegas

A. Viegas

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2772
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2012
  • Loc: New York City/ CT

Posted 14 January 2018 - 03:51 PM

Hey Ken

Does not really seem like the 287M is really that big a deal over the 224...   Of course you have really dark skies, so someone in heavy LP could probably get better results withthe 287...  your dark skies bias the test greatly!!! grin.gif

 

Al


  • Dragon Man likes this

#13 CharlesC

CharlesC

    Mercury-Atlas

  • ****-
  • Posts: 2666
  • Joined: 04 Jun 2008
  • Loc: Dallas, TX

Posted 14 January 2018 - 04:52 PM

Ken, really appreciate the side by side comparison.  The 287 is surprisingly insensitive. 

The sensitivity spec of 287 is more than twice that of 224, but real world use implies its actually worse than the 224.

Very disappointing.  Glad I got to see your results.



#14 lollywater

lollywater

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 17
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2013
  • Loc: Bendigo Victoria Australia

Posted 15 January 2018 - 07:12 AM

I was very disappointed with the 287 so I sent it over to Ken for an experienced assessment. Nice of you to say I am busy person Ken. 

 I am busy on holidays at the moment and no time for observing despite  beautiful clear skies in Adelaide

I suspect no one will be rushing out to buy a 287. Who knows, I may be the only one in the world with a 287... a collector's item.

Paul


  • Dragon Man and CharlesC like this

#15 roelb

roelb

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 719
  • Joined: 21 Dec 2013
  • Loc: Belgium, Antwerp

Posted 15 January 2018 - 03:25 PM

Paul, can you please sent me a bit of clear skies to Antwerp?


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.







Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics