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

QHY367C/128C vs QHY11

  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 BillD17

BillD17

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 357
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2017
  • Loc: Los Altos Hills, CA

Posted 13 March 2018 - 03:18 PM

I have decided to upgrade my imaging camera from 4/3" (ZWO ASI 1600 Mono) to a full-frame camera.  I've narrowed the choice to either a CMOS OSC camera (QHY367C or 128C) or to a full-frame mono CCD (QHY-11).    I wish I could get a full-frame CMOS mono sensor.   The lower read noise and higher sensitivity of the CMOS sensor partially offsets the loss of light that comes from an Bayered sensor.  I also like the higher resolution - 5um pixels on the 367C and 6um on the 128C vs 9um on the 11.

 

I'm looking at the QHY version of the OSC cameras (rather than the ZWO version) because QHY has anti-reflective coatings on their windows.  My ZWO ASI 1600 doesn't and it leads to halos around bright objects.

 

Does anyone have an opinion on these cameras?  



#2 psandelle

psandelle

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1998
  • Joined: 18 Jun 2008
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 13 March 2018 - 03:51 PM

I’ve used all three (and have a 128C and 367M, a debayered prototype, at the moment). Best all-around is the 128C, I think. It’s just a little quicker and more forgiving than the 367C, and both are light years ahead of the 11. That old tech was great, but slooooooow on the download, and plenty noisy. Wonderful images are taken with them, but I’ve moved on. I’ve always had good luck with QHYs (had a couple 10s and a 12, too), and think they’re great bang for the buck.

 

Paul



#3 pyrasanth

pyrasanth

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 786
  • Joined: 08 Jan 2016

Posted 13 March 2018 - 03:53 PM

I use the 168C which is nearly the little brother of the 367C. I find it a great camera and surprising more sensitive than I expected. I even managed to capture the faint Holmberg Galaxy near M81 even from my light skies. I echo your want in a large sensor mono CCD camera which I would buy if such a model was available. I'm looking at the SX-46 to fill the mono need until a full frame CMOS mono camera appears.



#4 buckeyestargazer

buckeyestargazer

    Vendor - Buckeyestargazer.net

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 4008
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2008
  • Loc: IN, USA

Posted 13 March 2018 - 06:17 PM

I have used the QHY128C and while it is a fantastic camera, I still don't believe that an OSC is on the same level as a quality mono CCD.  Having used both a QHY128C and 16200m sensor, I still favor the 16200 CCD.  But I am eagerly awaiting a full frame mono CMOS sensor...

 

Just my penny.gif penny.gif



#5 BillD17

BillD17

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 357
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2017
  • Loc: Los Altos Hills, CA

Posted 19 March 2018 - 12:53 PM

I don't understand why they don't make large-format sensors with an RCCB Bayer pattern - using a clear filter instead of Green.  You recover green by subtracting R and B from the C.  Some of the cameras we use at work for our self-driving cars use this pattern.  This is nearly as good as LRGB with a filter wheel.  It would be great for astrophotography.


  • dvalid and mAnKiNd like this

#6 BillD17

BillD17

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 357
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2017
  • Loc: Los Altos Hills, CA

Posted 19 March 2018 - 12:57 PM

I’ve used all three (and have a 128C and 367M, a debayered prototype, at the moment). Best all-around is the 128C, I think. It’s just a little quicker and more forgiving than the 367C, and both are light years ahead of the 11. That old tech was great, but slooooooow on the download, and plenty noisy. Wonderful images are taken with them, but I’ve moved on. I’ve always had good luck with QHYs (had a couple 10s and a 12, too), and think they’re great bang for the buck.

 

Paul

The 367M sounds interesting.  Do you know when QHY will make that available for us mere mortals to buy?



#7 psandelle

psandelle

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1998
  • Joined: 18 Jun 2008
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 19 March 2018 - 02:19 PM

Not sure when/if they’ll release it. Weathers been so bad I haven’t had a chance to test it yet. But things are looko

 up. Knock on wood. You should contact QHY directly, though...you never know.

 

Paul



#8 BillD17

BillD17

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 357
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2017
  • Loc: Los Altos Hills, CA

Posted 19 March 2018 - 02:46 PM

Not sure when/if they’ll release it. Weathers been so bad I haven’t had a chance to test it yet. But things are looko

 up. Knock on wood. You should contact QHY directly, though...you never know.

 

Paul

What, weather in LA worse than up here in the Bay Area?  I managed to get out this weekend and get first light with my new QHY128C.  Overall I'm very pleased, but still would rather have a Cooled, Full-Frame, Mono CMOS camera.



#9 psandelle

psandelle

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1998
  • Joined: 18 Jun 2008
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 19 March 2018 - 07:01 PM

I can only get out once a month, regardless, then couple that with weather.

 

Paul



#10 Konihlav

Konihlav

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1518
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2009
  • Loc: Czech Republic

Posted 20 March 2018 - 04:31 AM

BillD17: I think you are wrong in one assumption (or two). I do not know what kind of window QHY has, but ZWO has AR (anti-reflective) coatings on their windows. This has nothing to do with the "issue" ASI1600 (or any QHY163) or any PANASONIC16000 mintron MN34whatever issue is, because that is sensor specific - even Atik Horizon has the same chip as QHY163 or ASI1600... On the other hand, the window of the OSC cameras shall have an IR cut filter, and from my perspective (some 9 years imaging experience) also the UV cut off filter... therefore I am using my preferred baader UV IR cut filter in front of my ZWO ASI094... see my blog posts for more information.

 

BTW I'd recommend, when buying an OSC color camera, to go with smallest pixel size as possible in order to not loose too much from the resolution point of view :D



#11 RickHull

RickHull

    Sputnik

  • *****
  • Posts: 35
  • Joined: 31 Mar 2013
  • Loc: Orange County, CA

Posted 15 April 2018 - 07:19 PM

Bill, have you come to any decision yet?

Please keep this thread going, as I am very interested.

I am keeping my eyes and ears open about CMOS full frame and APSC cameras. (there is the QHY247)

Particularly once is use, how are they performing?

 

Konihlav; the key to getting very good OSC images is yes you must properly oversample as you hinted, not necessarily the smallest pixels,

but pixel size that yields an image scale which properly gives enough sampling.

If your seeing dominates the spot size, as it should in a well designed system, then if your seeing is 2 arcsec, image scale should be 0.8 arcsec/px or smaller (but too much smaller does not improve deep sky imaging, only planetary, in which case you need better than 0.2 arcsec/px), however if there are times where you have 1.5 arcsec seeing, and want to take advantage of it, then you need an image scale of 0.6 arcsec/px or a bit smaller.


  • Gene3 likes this

#12 Alfredo Beltran

Alfredo Beltran

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • Joined: 01 Aug 2010
  • Loc: Bogota, Colombia

Posted 15 April 2018 - 08:20 PM

BillD17: I think you are wrong in one assumption (or two). I do not know what kind of window QHY has, but ZWO has AR (anti-reflective) coatings on their windows. This has nothing to do with the "issue" ASI1600 (or any QHY163) or any PANASONIC16000 mintron MN34whatever issue is, because that is sensor specific - even Atik Horizon has the same chip as QHY163 or ASI1600... On the other hand, the window of the OSC cameras shall have an IR cut filter, and from my perspective (some 9 years imaging experience) also the UV cut off filter... therefore I am using my preferred baader UV IR cut filter in front of my ZWO ASI094... see my blog posts for more information.

 

BTW I'd recommend, when buying an OSC color camera, to go with smallest pixel size as possible in order to not loose too much from the resolution point of view laugh.gif

Interesting, Pavel.

 

What are your thoughts on Bayer drizzle to recover resolution?

 

Regards,

 

Alfredo



#13 BillD17

BillD17

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 357
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2017
  • Loc: Los Altos Hills, CA

Posted 15 April 2018 - 11:32 PM



Bill, have you come to any decision yet?

Please keep this thread going, as I am very interested.

I am keeping my eyes and ears open about CMOS full frame and APSC cameras. (there is the QHY247)

Particularly once is use, how are they performing?

 

Konihlav; the key to getting very good OSC images is yes you must properly oversample as you hinted, not necessarily the smallest pixels,

but pixel size that yields an image scale which properly gives enough sampling.

If your seeing dominates the spot size, as it should in a well designed system, then if your seeing is 2 arcsec, image scale should be 0.8 arcsec/px or smaller (but too much smaller does not improve deep sky imaging, only planetary, in which case you need better than 0.2 arcsec/px), however if there are times where you have 1.5 arcsec seeing, and want to take advantage of it, then you need an image scale of 0.6 arcsec/px or a bit smaller.

I wound up getting a QHY128C.  I'm reasonably pleased with the camera.  The pixels are small enough at the focal lengths I use.  For some representative images see:

 

HH_Q-X2.jpg

 

LT-X2.jpg

 

M63STS-X2.jpg


  • psandelle, skywatcher3000 and Gene3 like this

#14 RickHull

RickHull

    Sputnik

  • *****
  • Posts: 35
  • Joined: 31 Mar 2013
  • Loc: Orange County, CA

Posted 16 April 2018 - 11:48 AM

Bill, nicely done.

Where do you image?

having been in high tech, I know the bay quite well



#15 BillD17

BillD17

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 357
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2017
  • Loc: Los Altos Hills, CA

Posted 16 April 2018 - 11:59 AM

Bill, nicely done.

Where do you image?

having been in high tech, I know the bay quite well

I do almost all my imaging from my back yard in Los Altos Hills, CA.  Near the intersection of Page Mill Road and Arastradero Road.

 

I took two hours of data last weekend from near my cabin in Truckee, CA (near Lake Tahoe) and its an amazing difference.



#16 Dan G

Dan G

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2342
  • Joined: 27 Jun 2006
  • Loc: Minisink, NY and Maine!

Posted 16 April 2018 - 12:44 PM

I do almost all my imaging from my back yard in Los Altos Hills, CA.  Near the intersection of Page Mill Road and Arastradero Road.

 

I took two hours of data last weekend from near my cabin in Truckee, CA (near Lake Tahoe) and its an amazing difference.

Bill - were the above images taken with dark skies or with LP??  I'm thinking of getting an OSC CMOS but concerned about the LP impact.

 

Dan in NY



#17 BillD17

BillD17

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 357
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2017
  • Loc: Los Altos Hills, CA

Posted 16 April 2018 - 12:49 PM

Bill - were the above images taken with dark skies or with LP??  I'm thinking of getting an OSC CMOS but concerned about the LP impact.

 

Dan in NY

All of these images were taken with LP - in a red zone.  Only my M51 image in this thread (https://www.cloudyni...om-a-dark-site/) was shot from a dark zone.

 

There is a theory that an OSC performs as well as a mono camera with LRGB filters under LP because L tends to be more affected by LP than R,G,a nd B.   The R, G, and B filters or Bayer mask cut the light pollution.  

 

The one downside to the OSC is that you can't image narrowband with it.  And for emission nebula, narrowband is awesome from a red or white zone.



#18 RickHull

RickHull

    Sputnik

  • *****
  • Posts: 35
  • Joined: 31 Mar 2013
  • Loc: Orange County, CA

Posted 16 April 2018 - 06:34 PM

Bill;

"can't" is a pretty strong word, actually you could do narrowband with a OSC, you just lose some transmission thru the Bayer layer, perhaps 15-25% depending on sensor and which bandpass we are talking, now that is likely to be 2 color narrowband, Ha and Oiii, Sii is the problematic one since either the bayer layer or UV/IR window may severely attenuate 672nm, just need to due due diligence and check the transmission curves.

 

You may lose resolution, but if you are properly oversampled, loss is minimal. Granted, OSC is not ideal for narrowband, just saying one could get their feet wet.

 

So from your red zone backyard, with the OSC, do you use a LPS filter, such as one from IDAS or Astronomik?

If not, you may want to give one a try, will help improve you SNR.



#19 BillD17

BillD17

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 357
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2017
  • Loc: Los Altos Hills, CA

Posted 16 April 2018 - 07:03 PM

Bill;

"can't" is a pretty strong word, actually you could do narrowband with a OSC, you just lose some transmission thru the Bayer layer, perhaps 15-25% depending on sensor and which bandpass we are talking, now that is likely to be 2 color narrowband, Ha and Oiii, Sii is the problematic one since either the bayer layer or UV/IR window may severely attenuate 672nm, just need to due due diligence and check the transmission curves.

 

You may lose resolution, but if you are properly oversampled, loss is minimal. Granted, OSC is not ideal for narrowband, just saying one could get their feet wet.

 

So from your red zone backyard, with the OSC, do you use a LPS filter, such as one from IDAS or Astronomik?

If not, you may want to give one a try, will help improve you SNR.

I agree.  Narrowband is possible, just not optimal.  

 

I am using the IR/UV cut filter that came with the camera.  I may give an LPS filter a try.


  • Gene3 likes this

#20 Gene3

Gene3

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 390
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2016
  • Loc: Del Mar, CA

Posted 16 April 2018 - 10:54 PM

I think for nebula imaging the TRIAD filter from OPT does a reasonable job at pseudo-narrowband



#21 Gene3

Gene3

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 390
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2016
  • Loc: Del Mar, CA

Posted 16 April 2018 - 10:59 PM

I wound up getting a QHY128C.  I'm reasonably pleased with the camera.  The pixels are small enough at the focal lengths I use.  For some representative images see:

 

HH_Q-X2.jpg

 

LT-X2.jpg

 

M63STS-X2.jpg

 

Great images

What is the FL you used the 128C with for these images. The image scale is really good. Thus far I have been using the 128C with my sv102 at 714mm F/7 (1.55"/px) and i cant get this level of detail.



#22 BillD17

BillD17

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 357
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2017
  • Loc: Los Altos Hills, CA

Posted 16 April 2018 - 11:41 PM

Great images

What is the FL you used the 128C with for these images. The image scale is really good. Thus far I have been using the 128C with my sv102 at 714mm F/7 (1.55"/px) and i cant get this level of detail.

These are all shot with an Astro-Tech 130mm f/7 refractor, 910mm focal length for 1.35" pixels - which is a bit large.

 

I have on order a 152mm f/8 refractor, 1216mm FL for 1" pixels which is about right.

 

I also have a C11 EdgeHD that with the reducer is 1960mm for 0.63" pixels - which is a little small, and without the reducer is 2800mm - 0.44" which is very small.

 

The QHY367C would have made sense only with the 130.



#23 BillD17

BillD17

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 357
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2017
  • Loc: Los Altos Hills, CA

Posted 16 April 2018 - 11:43 PM

Bill;

"can't" is a pretty strong word, actually you could do narrowband with a OSC, you just lose some transmission thru the Bayer layer, perhaps 15-25% depending on sensor and which bandpass we are talking, now that is likely to be 2 color narrowband, Ha and Oiii, Sii is the problematic one since either the bayer layer or UV/IR window may severely attenuate 672nm, just need to due due diligence and check the transmission curves.

 

You may lose resolution, but if you are properly oversampled, loss is minimal. Granted, OSC is not ideal for narrowband, just saying one could get their feet wet.

 

So from your red zone backyard, with the OSC, do you use a LPS filter, such as one from IDAS or Astronomik?

If not, you may want to give one a try, will help improve you SNR.

Rick,  What LPS filter do you recommend.  There seem to be a lot of options.  At one extreme are things that only let a few emission lines through - effectively narrowband imaging.  At the other extreme are the CLS filters.  The UHC filters are somewhere in the middle.



#24 RickHull

RickHull

    Sputnik

  • *****
  • Posts: 35
  • Joined: 31 Mar 2013
  • Loc: Orange County, CA

Posted 17 April 2018 - 01:41 AM

Bill;

wrt to LPS filter, I use the IDAS LPS-D1 and there is now a D2 which notches out more of the blue from LED lighting if that is getting problematic in your area

you can get these from Astro-Hutech who is the US dealer for Borg refractors

these designs are multi-layer thin film which only notch out wavelengths of man-made sources, the Astronomik CLS is similar and have heard good things, but not used it

even with these, your sky background will take on more of a blue hue, so you will be weighting color channels differently to achieve neutral

 

other filters like a UHC, are bandpass, instead of notch, and effectively block what is not in the bandpass, so for example a UHC will only pass Ha and Oiii,

for RGB color it would be near impossible to get a proper color balance, and then narrowband is just that, very narrow bandpass of specific emission lines,

but that is why all images from these are called False Color, no way to achieve a human RGB response

 

A couple comments about pixel scale. In general you can be either seeing limited (if you have good guiding and a good corrector/flattener) or you can be pixel sample limited, this is all in terms of resolution of detail, or the ability to separate stars, if you want to draw parallels to Dawes limit. The necessary oversampling to resolve detail is about 2.5x, some will say more, depends on the SNR. So in your use cases: for the 130mm if the seeing is better than 3.4arcsec, you are sample limited and losing potential resolution, for the 152mm that limit is 2.5arcsec, and for the C11 that limit is 1.6arcsec which would be considered very good seeing and this certainly is a good pairing of optics to camera. The 152mm and this camera are a fair pairing if you only ever have fair seeing. With the 130mm of course you get a wider field of view, which can produce very pleasing images, eg your HH and Flame nebula, but there is also resolution left behind except in rather poor seeing.




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