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

which camera?

  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#1 xumaxer

xumaxer

    Messenger

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 415
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2006
  • Loc: 39º 45' N, 8º 48' W

Posted 16 December 2018 - 04:34 PM

Hi

 

getting back to planetary imaging after a few years out ...

Still have my C11, barlows (1.5x, 2x, 3x), LRGB filters & FW) and a DMK21 (icx618) but would lixe to get a new camera that suits best my gear.

any help will be much appreciated.

 



#2 PiotrM

PiotrM

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3842
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2010
  • Loc: Poland

Posted 17 December 2018 - 01:46 AM

There is a large collection of ZWO and QHY cameras. Most of them have very similar performance and just differ with pixel size, pixel count and price. With ASI/QHY 178 you could even not use a Barlow with a SCT (or 1,5x for very good conditions).

#3 Ed D

Ed D

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4743
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2010
  • Loc: Sunny South Florida

Posted 18 December 2018 - 08:47 AM

I like my ASI290MC.  Since you have filters you may want the mono version, the ASI290MM.  The ASI224MC and ASI224MM also get very good reviews.

 

Ed D



#4 kevinbreen

kevinbreen

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1648
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2017
  • Loc: Wexford, Ireland

Posted 18 December 2018 - 07:12 PM

ASI 224 Mc is great.

#5 TareqPhoto

TareqPhoto

    Skylab

  • -----
  • Posts: 4324
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2017
  • Loc: Ajman - UAE

Posted 24 December 2018 - 12:56 PM

There is no ASI224MM, unless they released it and i don't know.

 

Don't forget also ASI385MC, i have that and happy with results for the moon.

 

I bought ASI290MM and just got ASI174MM, only to have many options for planetary, i may add one more as last camera an not sure which, but i know that this ASI385/290/174 will serve me forever.



#6 George Bailey

George Bailey

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 862
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2008
  • Loc: Iowa

Posted 24 December 2018 - 02:31 PM

max f for telescope system should be ~ 5 * pixel size (in um).

 

Choose your camera based on the pixel size that fits your system.



#7 TareqPhoto

TareqPhoto

    Skylab

  • -----
  • Posts: 4324
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2017
  • Loc: Ajman - UAE

Posted 25 December 2018 - 04:11 AM

You gave the equation for Max F, so what about F25 up to F60?



#8 George Bailey

George Bailey

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 862
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2008
  • Loc: Iowa

Posted 25 December 2018 - 09:22 AM

Algebra (from Arabic "al-jabr", literally meaning "reunion of broken parts") and theory (https://www.cloudyni...w/#entry5317455) gives the answer.

 

Finding the camera is another story!

 

There are, at least, several cams in the 5 um range for f/25:  http://agenaastro.co...guide-agena.pdf


Edited by George Bailey, 25 December 2018 - 10:16 AM.


#9 TareqPhoto

TareqPhoto

    Skylab

  • -----
  • Posts: 4324
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2017
  • Loc: Ajman - UAE

Posted 25 December 2018 - 10:19 AM

Algebra (from Arabic "al-jabr", literally meaning "reunion of broken parts") and theory (https://www.cloudyni...w/#entry5317455) gives the answer.

 

Finding the camera is another story!

 

There are, at least, several cams in the 5 um range for f/25:  http://agenaastro.co...guide-agena.pdf

???



#10 PiotrM

PiotrM

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3842
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2010
  • Loc: Poland

Posted 26 December 2018 - 05:47 AM

You gave the equation for Max F, so what about F25 up to F60?

You gain nothing by using f/60 and alike and there are currently no planetary cameras of such big pixels nor there are big planetary telescopes of such slow f/ratio available. But if you really want to you can get this ancient camera: http://www.company7....tmls/ST9XEI.htm and do planetary imaging at f/70 - f/100 smile.gif

#11 TareqPhoto

TareqPhoto

    Skylab

  • -----
  • Posts: 4324
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2017
  • Loc: Ajman - UAE

Posted 26 December 2018 - 06:15 AM

You gain nothing by using f/60 and alike and there are currently no planetary cameras of such big pixels nor there are big planetary telescopes of such slow f/ratio available. But if you really want to you can get this ancient camera: http://www.company7....tmls/ST9XEI.htm and do planetary imaging at f/70 - f/100 smile.gif

I won't shoot or image at F60 or even F45, but i asked as i thought this site has everything like impossible, so i said why not dream little bit, so if there is such a camera and it is affordable to resolve for F45 or F60 then why not, but if it is really impossible or not logic at all then simply i will just forget about it and keep going, just will shoot at F10 up to F30 maximum.



#12 PiotrM

PiotrM

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3842
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2010
  • Loc: Poland

Posted 26 December 2018 - 08:30 AM

so if there is such a camera and it is affordable to resolve for F45 or F60 then why not

If you put a camera with small pixels at it optimal f/ratio into a telescope and then a camera with very big pixels at it optimal f/ratio the image resolution or planet apparent size will be the same. There will be no difference on image between f/10 and f/100 for corresponding pixel sizes.

just will shoot at F10 up to F30 maximum.

f/ratio is not a random number you can pick. 10-30 is rather large range. f/30 will be way to much for small pixels.
  • gregj888 likes this

#13 TareqPhoto

TareqPhoto

    Skylab

  • -----
  • Posts: 4324
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2017
  • Loc: Ajman - UAE

Posted 26 December 2018 - 08:53 AM

If you put a camera with small pixels at it optimal f/ratio into a telescope and then a camera with very big pixels at it optimal f/ratio the image resolution or planet apparent size will be the same. There will be no difference on image between f/10 and f/100 for corresponding pixel sizes.

f/ratio is not a random number you can pick. 10-30 is rather large range. f/30 will be way to much for small pixels.

My Mak is F15, i just place TV Powermate 2x only, not 2.5x, not 4x not 5x, not even TV 3x, and i am at F30 or maybe slightly more with extension or tubes, so i just gave you how to have F30 easily, what you will do in this case? I didn't find Tele Vue neither Powermate not standard with 1.2x to 1.5x, i didn't want to bring this but you forced me to, so that i was thinking about another scope that i can even place 5X and not reaching F30 yet [i will use maybe 4x or 3x], but i feel like i ask and then i get lost with answers after all and then members showing me that i am doing all things wrong.



#14 PiotrM

PiotrM

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3842
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2010
  • Loc: Poland

Posted 26 December 2018 - 05:29 PM

My Mak is F15, i just place TV Powermate 2x only, not 2.5x, not 4x not 5x, not even TV 3x, and i am at F30 or maybe slightly more with extension or tubes, so i just gave you how to have F30 easily, what you will do in this case? I didn't find Tele Vue neither Powermate not standard with 1.2x to 1.5x, i didn't want to bring this but you forced me to, so that i was thinking about another scope that i can even place 5X and not reaching F30 yet [i will use maybe 4x or 3x], but i feel like i ask and then i get lost with answers after all and then members showing me that i am doing all things wrong.

There are other brands than TeleVue. For ASI290MM with 2,9 um pixels optimal f/ratio will be around f/14,5 so you should not use any Barlow with f/15 Mak. You should get a good planetary imaging book or Damian Peach tutorials DVD. It's not magic, just basic rules how imaging and astronomy works.

#15 TareqPhoto

TareqPhoto

    Skylab

  • -----
  • Posts: 4324
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2017
  • Loc: Ajman - UAE

Posted 26 December 2018 - 07:07 PM

There are other brands than TeleVue. For ASI290MM with 2,9 um pixels optimal f/ratio will be around f/14,5 so you should not use any Barlow with f/15 Mak. You should get a good planetary imaging book or Damian Peach tutorials DVD. It's not magic, just basic rules how imaging and astronomy works.

So it means another camera after all, and if i want Barlow to magnify it? i mean i even saw shooters with C14 using 2X Barlow and that put it at F22 anyway.



#16 PiotrM

PiotrM

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3842
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2010
  • Loc: Poland

Posted 26 December 2018 - 08:25 PM

and if i want Barlow to magnify it?

You don't have to. You don't gain ANYTHING if you use a bigger pixels with bigger f/ratio when compared to smaller pixels and smaller f/ratio. The planet size, resolution and detail will be the same.

#17 RedLionNJ

RedLionNJ

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3475
  • Joined: 29 Dec 2009
  • Loc: Red Lion, NJ, USA

Posted 26 December 2018 - 08:54 PM

You don't have to. You don't gain ANYTHING if you use a bigger pixels with bigger f/ratio when compared to smaller pixels and smaller f/ratio. The planet size, resolution and detail will be the same.

Except you'd be throwing away frame rate and light-per-pixel.  Nobody in their right mind would do this.

 

TareqPhoto - ss stated continually, there is absolutely no (intelligent) reason for the f-ratio to go above about five times the pixel pitch (in microns).

 

This has literally been stated hundreds of times.



#18 PiotrM

PiotrM

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3842
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2010
  • Loc: Poland

Posted 27 December 2018 - 02:06 AM

Except you'd be throwing away frame rate and light-per-pixel.  Nobody in their right mind would do this.

If you would pick 4 um pixels instead 2 um just to put a Barlow in a f/10 telescope then nothing would change (aside of adding a Barlow to the chain). f/20 with 2 um pixels would be overscaling and imaging at much worse framerate and longer exposure.

#19 TareqPhoto

TareqPhoto

    Skylab

  • -----
  • Posts: 4324
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2017
  • Loc: Ajman - UAE

Posted 27 December 2018 - 06:52 AM

Ok, so Barlow idea is all bad at all, so Barlow isn't good at all, wondering why they made it if it will always be not good idea to use it with any scope or camera, i hope i can get the answer for that.



#20 PiotrM

PiotrM

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3842
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2010
  • Loc: Poland

Posted 27 December 2018 - 07:01 AM

Ok, so Barlow idea is all bad at all, so Barlow isn't good at all, wondering why they made it if it will always be not good idea to use it with any scope or camera, i hope i can get the answer for that.

Follow some basic logic. You use a Barlow of specific multiplier when needed. Many old cameras had big pixels and every telescope needed a Barlow, even more than 5x in some cased. Current cameras have much smaller pixels and can avoid using a Barlow with some telescopes. And the pixels are so small that on extrem cases like a mak or DK they can be to small for telescope native f/ratio.

#21 TareqPhoto

TareqPhoto

    Skylab

  • -----
  • Posts: 4324
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2017
  • Loc: Ajman - UAE

Posted 27 December 2018 - 07:09 AM

Follow some basic logic. You use a Barlow of specific multiplier when needed. Many old cameras had big pixels and every telescope needed a Barlow, even more than 5x in some cased. Current cameras have much smaller pixels and can avoid using a Barlow with some telescopes. And the pixels are so small that on extrem cases like a mak or DK they can be to small for telescope native f/ratio.

Not talking about only a Mak or DK, but SCT and Newtonian and Refractors and such



#22 PiotrM

PiotrM

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3842
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2010
  • Loc: Poland

Posted 27 December 2018 - 07:14 AM

Not talking about only a Mak or DK, but SCT and Newtonian and Refractors and such

For those you still will use a Barlow without aby side effects. Like for f/5 newtonian and asi290 you will need 3x. For f/7 refractor 2x and so on

#23 TareqPhoto

TareqPhoto

    Skylab

  • -----
  • Posts: 4324
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2017
  • Loc: Ajman - UAE

Posted 27 December 2018 - 07:23 AM

For those you still will use a Barlow without aby side effects. Like for f/5 newtonian and asi290 you will need 3x. For f/7 refractor 2x and so on

That is exactly what i am talking about, i mean using Barlow from 2x up to 5X according to native focal ratio, even if it is f2 for example then 5X will give F10 or 4X will be F8 and so on, i won't use 5X with F10 or F15 at all, in fact even with my Mak F15 i feel 2X is too much, but i have Newtonian F5, so i can use 3x for example or even 4X for test if needed.

 

Also, we are not talking about one camera here, i do have 290 which gives 2.9um, but i also have 385, and i also have 174mm which give above 5um anyway, what about those then?



#24 PiotrM

PiotrM

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3842
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2010
  • Loc: Poland

Posted 27 December 2018 - 07:33 AM

Pick one camera and skip the hassle of handling multiple pixel sizes. Imx174 is bit worse than imx290.

#25 TareqPhoto

TareqPhoto

    Skylab

  • -----
  • Posts: 4324
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2017
  • Loc: Ajman - UAE

Posted 27 December 2018 - 07:45 AM

Pick one camera and skip the hassle of handling multiple pixel sizes. Imx174 is bit worse than imx290.

Worse how? give me examples as images not calculations please.




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