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

290MM vs. 290MC

  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 Stargazer3236

Stargazer3236

    Gemini

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3426
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2010
  • Loc: Waltham, MA

Posted 11 February 2019 - 02:42 PM

Is the 290MC camera as sensitive as the 290MM camera?

 

I want a small sensor camera for planetary imaging and DSO imaging with good sensitivity. Other than the 224MC camera and the 385MC camera, can the 290MC deliver?



#2 petert913

petert913

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2583
  • Joined: 27 May 2013
  • Loc: Portland, OR

Posted 11 February 2019 - 02:58 PM

Mono sensors are always more sensitive.  But the planets have great colors.   Even the entry level color CMOS cameras give great results.  I would recommend a color CMOS if you are mainly focusing on planetary imaging.  


  • OleCuss and DSO_Viewer like this

#3 neaptide

neaptide

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 876
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2015
  • Loc: NY

Posted 11 February 2019 - 04:28 PM

Why are you eliminating the 224 and the 385? It seems to me that many very accomplished planetary imagers are using both with great results. 



#4 Adun

Adun

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2514
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2016

Posted 11 February 2019 - 05:00 PM

Good question.

 

I don't quite recall why people were going for the 224 instead of the 290MC back when I started doing EAA imaging two years ago, but it may have been just the lower read noise of the 224 for DSO EAA. Sensitivity / QE is plenty with both cameras, although I don't know if the lower read noise of the 224 will even matter for planetary imaging.

 

For exclusive planetary use, the slightly smaller pixels of the 290 (2.9um vs 3.75 um) might be an advantage for planetary imaging.

 

I myself use a 224 for color EAA and planets, and a 290MM for mono EAA.



#5 OleCuss

OleCuss

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2156
  • Joined: 22 Nov 2010

Posted 11 February 2019 - 08:23 PM

I think the OP has a NexStar 8SE.  Both his IMX224 and IMX290 cameras will be significantly over-sampling for what is our typical skies and it seems unlikely that the smaller pixels of the IMX290 will convey additional benefit in terms of detail.

 

The ASI290MC costs a bit more than does the ASI224 and one can argue that the ASI290's larger sensor with more pixels is adding more data to process without more detail for planetary imaging if you are using something like an F/10 SCT.

 

But I don't do planetary so there may be something I'm missing about all this.

 

However, if I were using an 8" SCT for planetary imaging and choosing a dedicated planetary and I could handle the bandwidth I do think I'd probably choose the ASI290MC over the ASI224.  The faster possible frame rate means potentially better images and the slightly larger sensor might provide some marginal benefit for the use of a Barlow combined with iffy tracking.

 

But again, I don't do planetary.



#6 wargrafix

wargrafix

    Soyuz

  • -----
  • Posts: 3642
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2013
  • Loc: Trinidad

Posted 12 February 2019 - 05:03 AM

Would the smaller pixels benefit if you are at..say f30 or higher?




Why the 224?

For planetary it's a beast in terms of sensitivity and low read noise. For EAA, it's got all the nice tricks.

#7 Adun

Adun

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2514
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2016

Posted 12 February 2019 - 11:16 AM

The ASI290MC costs a bit more than does the ASI224 and one can argue that the ASI290's larger sensor 

 

But I don't do planetary so there may be something I'm missing about all this.

 

The faster possible frame rate means potentially better images and the slightly larger sensor 

 

The 290 is not a "slightly larger" sensor than the 224. They are both type 1/3", with the 290 being a little wider and the 224 being a little taller.
 

...IMX224 and IMX290 cameras will be significantly over-sampling for what is our typical skies...

 

 

 

Yes, but according to my understanding, "significant oversampling" is that is what we want when doing planetary imaging. The OP already has a nice ASI294 OSC that has "region of interest" feature, but he's still looking for a planetary camera, probably because the 294's large 4.63um pixels don't cut it.

 

To the OP I'd recommend to do the math and choose between the 224 and 290 based on pixel size for image scale with his scope. Otherwise I'd go for the 224 if only because it's the more proven, battletested planetay camera.

 

I once used my 224 with my tiny C90 to see what it could do:

 

[Edit: I didn't notice this question was on the EAA forum, since these are planetary images I'm replacing the images with links]

 

Dusty Mars with C90+RT224

 

 

Edited by Adun, 13 February 2019 - 09:41 AM.

  • wargrafix and roelb like this

#8 DSO_Viewer

DSO_Viewer

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 813
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2016

Posted 12 February 2019 - 12:14 PM

Those are some boss images Adun.

 

Extremely nice images and you must have had amazing seeing conditions the night you captured these.

 

Steve


  • wargrafix likes this

#9 DSO_Viewer

DSO_Viewer

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 813
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2016

Posted 12 February 2019 - 12:20 PM

Is the 290MC camera as sensitive as the 290MM camera?

 

I want a small sensor camera for planetary imaging and DSO imaging with good sensitivity. Other than the 224MC camera and the 385MC camera, can the 290MC deliver?

The 290MM should do very well for planetary imaging but if you want color why don't you just use your 294MC and just crop it. There is no way that you would be under-sampling the image when using your C8 at f/20 or 30 providing you 0.2 arcsec/pixel at f/20 & 0.14 arcsec/pixel at f/30.

 

Steve   


  • OleCuss likes this

#10 OleCuss

OleCuss

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2156
  • Joined: 22 Nov 2010

Posted 12 February 2019 - 01:28 PM

The 290 is not a "slightly larger" sensor than the 224. They are both type 1/3", with the 290 being a little wider and the 224 being a little taller.
 

 

Yes, but according to my understanding, "significant oversampling" is that is what we want when doing planetary imaging. The OP already has a nice ASI294 OSC that has "region of interest" feature, but he's still looking for a planetary camera, probably because the 294's large 4.63um pixels don't cut it.

 

To the OP I'd recommend to do the math and choose between the 224 and 290 based on pixel size for image scale with his scope. Otherwise I'd go for the 224 if only because it's the more proven, battletested planetay camera.

 

I once used my 224 with my tiny C90 to see what it could do:

 

I'm really not disrespecting over-sampling.  I'm perfectly fine with it - especially if we're talking planetary and with low-noise sensors.

 

But he already owns an IMX294 camera to use with the 8SE.  He'll also be over-sampling with the ASI294 even if he doesn't use a Barlow or Powermate.  If a Barlow or Powermate is used he'd have to use something like that Canon sensor with the 19 micron pixels to avoid over-sampling?

 

So personally, if wanted to do planetary work and I already had the NexStar 8SE and the ASI294 I'd certainly be trying that out before I chose to buy another camera.

 

But that's just me. . .


  • DSO_Viewer likes this

#11 Adun

Adun

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2514
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2016

Posted 12 February 2019 - 01:52 PM

But he already owns an IMX294 camera to use with the 8SE.  He'll also be over-sampling with the ASI294 even if he doesn't use a Barlow or Powermate. 

 

Let's see, an 8SE with 4.6um pixels would provide... 0.47" per pixel. I'd say that's nowhere enough for planetary imaging.

 

But you made a good point about the barlow. With a 2x barlow his 8SE+ASI294 would do 0.23" which is much better. He could go further, since the 294 has a very flexible ROI feature (to minimize "wasted pixels"), so instead of getting yet-another camera, the OP could get a barlow (not a telecentric powermate nor ES extender) instead, and use it to tune the pixel scale with his ASI294 to the extent the aperture and seeing allows.


  • Stargazer3236 likes this

#12 wargrafix

wargrafix

    Soyuz

  • -----
  • Posts: 3642
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2013
  • Loc: Trinidad

Posted 12 February 2019 - 01:55 PM

Amazing seeing...but clarity play a big role. Also collimation

#13 OleCuss

OleCuss

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2156
  • Joined: 22 Nov 2010

Posted 13 February 2019 - 12:42 PM

I suppose someone ought to mention that the sort of ultimate planetary imaging is a monochrome camera and filters.

 

Christopher Go is one of the best amateurs (arguably verging into pro territory) and is actually using the ASI290 monochrome camera along with the various filters.

 

But for just doing OAP planetary in color I'd certainly be trying the ASI294 which the OP has, and if I wanted to go very high-quality conventional imaging I'd consider using the ASI290 which he already has and get the filters and filter wheel.


  • Adun 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