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

Full Frame Mono Camera Coming Soon - QHY600 (IMX455)

  • Please log in to reply
689 replies to this topic

#326 smccully

smccully

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 133
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2018
  • Loc: Florida

Posted 22 September 2019 - 04:01 PM

I found this tidbit on the QHYCCD Forums, i think there were some questions about what it will talk to enable the Pro firmware once it becomes available for the early bird customers. For most amateurs, the use of a single fiber channel would be enough. I think trying to use a bonded fiber channel (x2) unless you have permanent setup with a Tower/Server  (not a laptop) probably wont be practical. Though if you have a newer laptop with enough USB 3/Thunderbolt ports, you could use Two thunderbolt fiber ports. But it does sound like it shouldn't cost much (if anything) to have the fiber ports enabled.

 

 

The QHY600U3 has only USB3.0 interface.  The QHY600U3G20 has both USB3.0 interface and the high speed filber interface.  And also QHY600U3G20 has rich external io which can used for advanced functions. The most important thing is that the QHY600U3G20's internal FPGA can be customized as the specially request by user (have extra cost or no cost, depend on how complex the project it is) . Which is very flexible for the research work.

The early bird price USD5000. using the QHY600U3G20 hardware design. So in future it accept to upgrade to the QHY600U3G20 version by patch the cost.


  • Xingyuetian likes this

#327 Coconuts

Coconuts

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 539
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2012

Posted 22 September 2019 - 07:16 PM

I have had my eyes on the new triad of Sony BSI CMOS sensors (IMX 455, IMX 461, and IMX 411) for several years, since they first appeared on the Sony roadmap.  They felt like game-changers for astrophotography then, and with QHY's recent QE efforts and initial results, they really seem like game-changers now.  Other BSI CMOS sensors from Fairchild (Andor/PCO), Hamamatsu, and Gpixel have already demonstrated that QE peaks around 540 nm of 94+% are possible.  But they lack the large market for consumer MILC cameras that Sony will dominate, which means that cooled astrocameras based on the industrial (no PDAF pixels or questionable firmware) versions will be, relatively speaking, affordable.  To put this in context, the FLI Kepler 6060, based on the Gpixel 6060 sensor, will set you back $367,500 for a BSI Grade 0. 

https://www.tolgaast...epler-6060.html

So this is all very exciting, but I have to say, Sony's publishing only a relative QE curve is absurd.  QHY should under no circumstances have to work so hard to calculate a few indirect points of absolute QE.  Much as I have been awaiting the arrival of the new Sony sensors, I waited three years for the Fairchild/Andor/PCO "Scientific" CMOS sensor to finally arrive in 2014 (it was late by a year and a half) for some cutting-edge DNA sequencers that I was designing.  All of the vendors serving the scientific sensor market publish absolute QE curves.  I have never seen one provide a relative QE curve; they would be laughed out of the market.  Absolute QE versus wavelength is one of the major specs on which we make our sensor choices.  Sony is an embarrassing outlier here, and if they hope to capture share in scientific or industrial applications, they really need to publish an absolute QE curve.  It's a minimum expectation in this space.

 

All that said, this indirect but very encouraging QE news confirms my original expectations, so I just put in an order for the QHY600U3C (OSC version) once that starts shipping in a couple of months.

 

All the best,

 

Kevin


Edited by Coconuts, 22 September 2019 - 08:18 PM.

  • psandelle, ezwheels, deepanshu29 and 1 other like this

#328 bortle2

bortle2

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 204
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2019

Posted 26 September 2019 - 04:29 AM

Seems like there was an addition to the article since it was published:

 

Elsewhere Christian Buil states a lower value of the IMX694 QE at 486nm to be 62% at H-alpha to be 54% (http://www.astrosurf...sCCD/index.html).  If we substitute these figures as the reference QE, the results for the IMX455 would be 87.4% at OIII and 68.6% at H-alpha.  We therefore conservatively estimate the peak QE of the IMX455 to be greater than 87%.

 



#329 Coconuts

Coconuts

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 539
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2012

Posted 26 September 2019 - 05:46 AM

Judging from the attached QE versus wavelength plot for Andor front and back side illuminated CMOS sensors, if the IMX455 QE is 87.4% at O III, peak QE (around 540 nm based on the relative QE curve) should still be well over 90%.  Why Sony doesn't publish a normal (absolute) QE plot is a bit strange.

 

Andor QE curve.jpg

 

On another note, now that ZWO has revealed the price for their upcoming ASI6200 ($3999), I pulled out of the wait list on the QHY600U3C and will watch closely as more info piles up on each camera.

 

All the best,

 

Kevin


Edited by Coconuts, 26 September 2019 - 05:53 AM.


#330 Xingyuetian

Xingyuetian

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2019

Posted 30 September 2019 - 10:01 PM

smccully, on 23 Sept 2019 - 05:01 AM, said:

I found this tidbit on the QHYCCD Forums, i think there were some questions about what it will talk to enable the Pro firmware once it becomes available for the early bird customers. For most amateurs, the use of a single fiber channel would be enough. I think trying to use a bonded fiber channel (x2) unless you have permanent setup with a Tower/Server (not a laptop) probably wont be practical. Though if you have a newer laptop with enough USB 3/Thunderbolt ports, you could use Two thunderbolt fiber ports. But it does sound like it shouldn't cost much (if anything) to have the fiber ports enabled.

 

 

Yes, in the case of non-professional field, the 2×10G port of optical fiber is not required, but it is very necessary in the field of professional research. The price of QHYCCD and photographic version has not been announced, wait

 

I found this tidbit on the QHYCCD Forums, i think there were some questions about what it will talk to enable the Pro firmware once it becomes available for the early bird customers. For most amateurs, the use of a single fiber channel would be enough. I think trying to use a bonded fiber channel (x2) unless you have permanent setup with a Tower/Server  (not a laptop) probably wont be practical. Though if you have a newer laptop with enough USB 3/Thunderbolt ports, you could use Two thunderbolt fiber ports. But it does sound like it shouldn't cost much (if anything) to have the fiber ports enabled.

Yes, in the case of non-professional field, the 2×10G port of optical fiber is not required, but it is very necessary in the field of professional research. The price of QHYCCD and photographic version has not been announced, waiting

ing



#331 cccha

cccha

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 114
  • Joined: 03 May 2018

Posted 30 September 2019 - 11:19 PM

Anyone have an idea of how the QHY600, CFW3 - large, and OAG attach? Are they bolted or threaded together? Would you use the medium or large QHY OAG?

 

One thing I really like about the current CMOS sensor offerings is the fast readout and download times. That sure makes focusing easier and allows more frames in a night. Can anyone tell me how long it takes between exposures (readout and download) on the 16803? will the QHY600 be much faster?

 

Thanks, Randall

Attach a QHY600+QHYCFW3-L+QHYOAG connection sample
007X8olVly1g7ikutxq0dj31900u0jvj.jpg


  • OldManSky likes this

#332 cccha

cccha

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 114
  • Joined: 03 May 2018

Posted 01 October 2019 - 10:22 PM

Just recently QHY made a comparison of chips of the same size. Comparing the IMX455 and KAI11002 35mm Format Monochrome Sensors.

https://www.qhyccd.c...catid=23&id=262


  • Coconuts, Jon Rista and ezwheels like this

#333 rms40

rms40

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 842
  • Joined: 15 Apr 2016
  • Loc: NW of Harper, TX

Posted 01 October 2019 - 11:00 PM

cccha, Thank you for the picture of the QHY600, CFW3 and OAG. That looks like your medium OAG with the 54mm opening. Is that right? Will an f5 scope work without vignetting with the 54mm OAG?

 

My scopes have large image circles so they will illuminate beyond even the 54mm. I just want to be sure that the light cone isn't clipped by the OAG where it doesn't illuminate the 36x24 area completely on something like my TAK FSQ-106EDX4 at f5. The other scopes I would use are around f7. I think they will be ok. I am just not sure about f5 and below.

 

Randall



#334 spokeshave

spokeshave

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,281
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2015

Posted 02 October 2019 - 06:45 AM

cccha, Thank you for the picture of the QHY600, CFW3 and OAG. That looks like your medium OAG with the 54mm opening. Is that right? Will an f5 scope work without vignetting with the 54mm OAG?
 
My scopes have large image circles so they will illuminate beyond even the 54mm. I just want to be sure that the light cone isn't clipped by the OAG where it doesn't illuminate the 36x24 area completely on something like my TAK FSQ-106EDX4 at f5. The other scopes I would use are around f7. I think they will be ok. I am just not sure about f5 and below.
 
Randall


If I'm doing the math right, a 54mm aperture will not vignette a 43.25mm circle if it is closer than 50mm to the sensor. So the 54mm OAG should work fine.

Tim
  • psandelle likes this

#335 vehnae

vehnae

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 151
  • Joined: 17 May 2013
  • Loc: Finland

Posted 02 October 2019 - 07:30 AM

If I'm doing the math right, a 54mm aperture will not vignette a 43.25mm circle if it is closer than 50mm to the sensor. So the 54mm OAG should work fine.

Tim

Note that the free aperture of a M54 threaded connection is somewhat less. I did similar calculations for 55mm distance and it looked like that you'd need f/8 or slower to avoid all vignetting through a 50mm (guesstimated) free aperture. Of course the exact optical design is an unknown variable that will affect this.

 

  ++ Jari



#336 rms40

rms40

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 842
  • Joined: 15 Apr 2016
  • Loc: NW of Harper, TX

Posted 02 October 2019 - 11:34 AM

Tim and Jari, Thank you both. I have tried to find a good description of the math for the diameter of a horizontal slice through a cone at different positions. Can you point me to a good description of this so I can do the calculations?

 

One other thing I realized while trying to work out the geometry was that the focus point is not a point but an illuminated circle with the diameter determined by the optics. On my FSQ, this is something like 70mm. That really through me off trying to work this out.

 

I would like to understand the math. Been a long time since a geometry class! Any help will be appreciated.

 

Randall



#337 spokeshave

spokeshave

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,281
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2015

Posted 02 October 2019 - 12:09 PM

I tossed this drawing together in Visio (not to scale). Maybe it will help:

drawing.PNG


Tim
  • rgsalinger, psandelle, Jon Rista and 1 other like this

#338 rms40

rms40

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 842
  • Joined: 15 Apr 2016
  • Loc: NW of Harper, TX

Posted 02 October 2019 - 12:52 PM

Tim, that was quick! Thanks for doing this. I am working now but will digest this later today. Looks like a perfect description.

 

Randall



#339 vehnae

vehnae

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 151
  • Joined: 17 May 2013
  • Loc: Finland

Posted 02 October 2019 - 03:32 PM

For the record, I measured my M54 male adapter and its free aperture is 50.5mm. That'll make the result somewhat worse.

 

  ++ Jari



#340 psandelle

psandelle

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,383
  • Joined: 18 Jun 2008
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 02 October 2019 - 03:36 PM

I've used the QHY128C/QHY367C&M (all full-frame chips) with the QHY Gen 3 filter wheel and there's some vignetting...but nothing to write home about (and I got about the same amount with a filter slide as well). I've used fast scopes all my astro imaging "career" and there's always some vignetting...which flats deal with. It's not that much, nor anything to give a second thought to. If/when I get the 600, I figure it'll be exactly the same.

 

Paul


Edited by psandelle, 02 October 2019 - 03:41 PM.


#341 chadrian84

chadrian84

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 548
  • Joined: 03 Jun 2018
  • Loc: Wisconsin

Posted 02 October 2019 - 03:43 PM

For the record, I measured my M54 male adapter and its free aperture is 50.5mm. That'll make the result somewhat worse.

 

  ++ Jari

I just measured the same thing with an M54 QHYOAG-M.  That makes a BIG difference.  When the OAG to sensor distance is 55mm (as is the case with ASI6200/EFW/OAG), vignetting begins at f/7.5 if the OAG opening is 50.5mm, rather than f/5.1 if the opening were 54mm. 

 

Using Tim's formula/s of 3.625 / (1 / (f number *2))     and      5.375 / (1 / (f number *2))

 

 

 

Attached Thumbnails

  • m54 vigentting 2.JPG

Edited by chadrian84, 02 October 2019 - 06:03 PM.


#342 ezwheels

ezwheels

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,023
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2017
  • Loc: Oakland, CA.

Posted 02 October 2019 - 04:35 PM

This will be something to look out for if it is so. Seems a m68 OAG would have been a better size for the OAG and FW...and perhaps 50mm square filters? I would like to be able to use this on maybe an FSQ106 and those can be configured to f3. I guess the math wizards here can figure out the diameter for an "un-vignetted" imaging circle at various f stops. I certainly won't be imaging at f10 for the foreseeable future. F7 will most likely the slowest refractor configuration I will be using.



#343 chadrian84

chadrian84

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 548
  • Joined: 03 Jun 2018
  • Loc: Wisconsin

Posted 02 October 2019 - 04:37 PM

I've used fast scopes all my astro imaging "career" and there's always some vignetting...which flats deal with. It's not that much, nor anything to give a second thought to.

We're trying to collect as much light as possible.  I assume the amount of light lost for fast systems is significant with an M54 OAG.  That's not acceptable in my opinion, especially since it's mostly avoidable by using a larger OAG opening.



#344 ezwheels

ezwheels

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,023
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2017
  • Loc: Oakland, CA.

Posted 02 October 2019 - 04:50 PM

We're trying to collect as much light as possible.  I assume the amount of light lost for fast systems is significant with an M54 OAG.  That's not acceptable in my opinion, especially since it's mostly avoidable by using a larger OAG opening.

Correct. Having to crop a large portion of the frame makes having a full frame camera kind of pointless. Fixing it with flats may get you only so far. I look forward to seeing some results and will be making my FW, OAG and filter purchases based on this.

 

What size filters and OAG's are folks using with the 11000 camera?



#345 psandelle

psandelle

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,383
  • Joined: 18 Jun 2008
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 02 October 2019 - 04:51 PM

We're trying to collect as much light as possible.  I assume the amount of light lost for fast systems is significant with an M54 OAG.  That's not acceptable in my opinion, especially since it's mostly avoidable by using a larger OAG opening.

Then go with the L's, I guess and the larger filters. Seems pretty simple. QHY recommends both.

 

Paul


Edited by psandelle, 02 October 2019 - 04:54 PM.


#346 chadrian84

chadrian84

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 548
  • Joined: 03 Jun 2018
  • Loc: Wisconsin

Posted 02 October 2019 - 05:52 PM

Paul, it's not so simple due to tight backfocus constraints.  It looks like I'll need to use an all ZWO system to fit my FSQ106 + 645 reducer + Nitecrawler.  Currently ZWO is only offering an M54 OAG which is a deal-breaker.  The QHYOAG-L would require backfocus eating adapters to connect to the ZWO EFW.  

 

I just noticed this on the QHY600 product page.  Maybe a QHY600 will work after-all except there won't be a tilt-adjuster on this version.  I also prefer the price and USB hub of the ASI6200.

 

*QHYCCD has an ultra short back focus front part as optional selection. It is about 6.7mm B.F.L Contact QHYCCD if you need this version.



#347 APshooter

APshooter

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,052
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2013
  • Loc: Camby, In.

Posted 02 October 2019 - 07:24 PM

Does anyone have an idea of how stable the camera software will be?  Searching this thread I found one other person who brought up the topic.  I'm still smarting from my first QHY camera which has never worked and is sitting in a  drawer.  The camera looks cool but I'm leery of the software interface.


Edited by APshooter, 02 October 2019 - 07:25 PM.


#348 psandelle

psandelle

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,383
  • Joined: 18 Jun 2008
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 02 October 2019 - 10:26 PM

Paul, it's not so simple due to tight backfocus constraints.  It looks like I'll need to use an all ZWO system to fit my FSQ106 + 645 reducer + Nitecrawler.  Currently ZWO is only offering an M54 OAG which is a deal-breaker.  The QHYOAG-L would require backfocus eating adapters to connect to the ZWO EFW.  

 

I just noticed this on the QHY600 product page.  Maybe a QHY600 will work after-all except there won't be a tilt-adjuster on this version.  I also prefer the price and USB hub of the ASI6200.

 

*QHYCCD has an ultra short back focus front part as optional selection. It is about 6.7mm B.F.L Contact QHYCCD if you need this version.

Ah, didn’t realize the mitigating factors.

 

Paul



#349 AIP

AIP

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 184
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2019
  • Loc: Madrid, Spain

Posted 03 October 2019 - 02:45 AM

I have a KAF16200. I use 50.8mm unmounted filters. My filter wheel has an M56 female adapter and its free aperture is 54mm.

 

I think that for the IMX455 this would be the minimum configuration: 50.8mm unmounted filters and M56 adapter to avoid vignetting

 

PD: this is the M56 female adapter. But the camera is a 460ex and 1.25 "filters

 

88c22ee2f216c27cfee230308f8e960bo.jpg


Edited by AIP, 03 October 2019 - 02:48 AM.

  • leviathan likes this

#350 rms40

rms40

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 842
  • Joined: 15 Apr 2016
  • Loc: NW of Harper, TX

Posted 03 October 2019 - 06:44 AM

I see people saying the M68 size connector would be good. Why M68? Who uses that? Is that the AP size?

 

I would much rather see an OAG and maybe the EFW opening at M72. That is a Tak size. Or, any large enough size with common adapters.

 

The EFW will be closer to the sensor. It is the OAG that I am concerned about.

 

Randall

 

BTW - Adapter sizes need to be standardized. Now that M48 (and T2 - M42) is no longer longer big enough for new sensors, it would be a good time for scope/gear makers to standardize this.


Edited by rms40, 03 October 2019 - 06:57 AM.

  • ezwheels 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