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

#351 Konihlav

Konihlav

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,734
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2009
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 03 October 2019 - 07:59 AM

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

I have used the 11000 mono camera for some 7 years. Since I like small and compact things I got a version with integrated filter wheel (also to have the filters close to the chip as possible). I had Moravian G3-11000 (now ManuelJ has it). I used 50mm unmounted round Astrodon filters and F/4.3 system of Borg77EDII and F/3.6 Wynne 0.95x 3" ASA systems.

 

My conclusion - to really avoid vignetting - a nice would be to use 50mm square filters!!! with a FW mounted as close to the chip as possible :-)

Otherwise I was getting (overall in the system) about 25% of vignetting, but in extreme corners (few 10-50 pixels the vignetting was already 50% due to limits on Borg optics and/or due to fastness F/3.6 of the ASA).

 

that is my experience.

 

I'd normally get 5pos FW for square 50mm filters like what Moravian sells for G4 cameras, but with a G3 camera :D (or C3 that stands for new series of CMOS from Moravian).

 

about IMX455 - I plan to get the mono version (from ZWO). Initially I will use it just with a solo Ha filter (2"). I have currently OSC IMX094 camera and I have to use UV/IR cut 2" filter in front of it:

http://blog.astrofot...velpech/?p=1451


  • psandelle and ezwheels like this

#352 rms40

rms40

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Joined: 15 Apr 2016
  • Loc: NW of Harper, TX

Posted 03 October 2019 - 09:26 AM

Kohnilav, you have provided some great real world information. Vignetting will be a concern especially with 54mm openings and fast optics. It also looks like 50mm round filters will only work well if they are very close to the sensor. The other thing that I am concerned with is even larger mono chips that certainly will be coming before too long. I would rather buy the 50mm square filters now than buy 50mm round and then need 50mm square (or larger - ouch!) later when a larger sensor is released.

 

Tim, you really simplified the geometry for the sensor to opening spacing. That looks good. I was trying to calculate the total light path of my scopes. Your method is easier to understand. Using just the f ratio slope makes sense.

 

Hey QHY....your large CFW and OAG may be what I would want but do you have a 50mm square wheel for the CFW3?

 

If QHY made the AP 2.7" and Tak 72mm OAG adapters, this would make the system work for many scopes. 72mm is larger than 2.7". My vote is for 72mm adapters. After all, many of us have 3" and 4" focusers these days. The less the light path is restricted the better.

 

Randall

 

Edit: QHY shows their CFW3 XL with a 50mm square carousel. It is a big and heavy EFW.


Edited by rms40, 03 October 2019 - 10:11 AM.


#353 pyrasanth

pyrasanth

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,880
  • Joined: 08 Jan 2016

Posted 03 October 2019 - 01:45 PM

I took a conscious decision to buy only 50 mm square filters for a level of future proofing. I had a feeling a couple of years back that big CMOS Sensors would eventually arrive. I can now focus on investing in the camera and less in the accessories which can nearly be as much as the initial camera.smile.gif


  • psandelle and leviathan like this

#354 pyrasanth

pyrasanth

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,880
  • Joined: 08 Jan 2016

Posted 03 October 2019 - 01:58 PM

Would there be any compelling reason to keep the Moravian 16200 over the QHY600?- apart from the luxury of having 2 large format cameras- it's always a tough call to sell one of your inventory.



#355 chadrian84

chadrian84

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 554
  • Joined: 03 Jun 2018
  • Loc: Wisconsin

Posted 03 October 2019 - 02:43 PM

I think these are the first astro images we've seen with the QHY600 - taken by Matt Dahl, not by me.

 

https://www.astrobin.com/e716ok/0/

https://www.astrobin.com/5uf7w7/0/


Edited by chadrian84, 04 October 2019 - 11:11 AM.

  • buckeyestargazer, leviathan, ezwheels and 1 other like this

#356 buckeyestargazer

buckeyestargazer

    Vendor - Buckeyestargazer.net

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 5,140
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2008
  • Loc: IN, USA

Posted 03 October 2019 - 02:46 PM

Would there be any compelling reason to keep the Moravian 16200 over the QHY600?- apart from the luxury of having 2 large format cameras- it's always a tough call to sell one of your inventory.


As you know I have a Moravian G3-16200 that I love. Of course I'm keeping my eye on these new cameras as well, but in this case I'm not sure I want to be an early adopter. I'd want to use both for a good long while before I let go of the 16200. The 16200 is a great clean performer.

#357 ezwheels

ezwheels

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,044
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2017
  • Loc: Oakland, CA.

Posted 03 October 2019 - 03:00 PM

I think these are the first astro images we've seen with the QHY600:

 

https://www.astrobin.com/e716ok/0/

https://www.astrobin.com/5uf7w7/0/

Aside from some tilt in the imaging train where the bottom of the frame looks to be a little close and thus the elongated stars, and some vignetting in the first image in the lower right corner, these look really great! Hanging off the back of a 130gtx sure doesn't hurt either. grin.gif



#358 nathmath

nathmath

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 68
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2015
  • Loc: Wisconsin

Posted 04 October 2019 - 08:16 AM

Great first light shots, and I don't see any sign of microlens artifacts around the brighter starts!

#359 rms40

rms40

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Joined: 15 Apr 2016
  • Loc: NW of Harper, TX

Posted 04 October 2019 - 08:58 AM

Chad, Wow...nice work and great images. Thank you for showing what the QHY600 can do.

 

Pyrasanth, I recently purchased a 16200 sensor camera. I have 2 nice scopes (WO & Stellarvue) that won't be able to illuminate the IMX455 sensor fully. There are also many targets to image that don't need such a wide field of view. There are many applications for the 16200. I will get the IMX455 eventually for my scopes that have large image circles. I will be keeping both...unless I sell the WO and Stellarvue.

 

Another reason I like my 16200 is because it is smaller and lighter than an IMX455 sensor camera with a large EFW and OAG. That would put a lot of stress on my wide field, WO Star71-II. It is a small scope. It only has a 48mm connection.

 

If I used only one setup (I have two permanent ones now), I would probably just have the larger sensor if my scope could take advantage of the sensor size. In any case, there should be a good market for the 16200 for a long time - imo - if you do want to sell it. People give the 16200 great reviews. That is why I bought it. Well, that and the fact that the fov is much larger than my mono ASI1600mm.

 

Randall


Edited by rms40, 04 October 2019 - 09:54 AM.


#360 buckeyestargazer

buckeyestargazer

    Vendor - Buckeyestargazer.net

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 5,140
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2008
  • Loc: IN, USA

Posted 04 October 2019 - 10:56 AM

I think these are the first astro images we've seen with the QHY600:

 

https://www.astrobin.com/e716ok/0/

https://www.astrobin.com/5uf7w7/0/

The first thing I looked for in those images is that the stars are not blown out.  The transitions from dark to bright look very good and the star cores and M31 core are not blown out.  Then again, these were only 3min subs.  I'd like to see some 10-15min subs.  



#361 chadrian84

chadrian84

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 554
  • Joined: 03 Jun 2018
  • Loc: Wisconsin

Posted 04 October 2019 - 11:11 AM

@Randall... those images are from someone named Matt Dahl - they're not mine.  I just posted the links so others could take a look.



#362 cfosterstars

cfosterstars

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,788
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2014
  • Loc: Austin, Texas

Posted 04 October 2019 - 02:10 PM

The first thing I looked for in those images is that the stars are not blown out.  The transitions from dark to bright look very good and the star cores and M31 core are not blown out.  Then again, these were only 3min subs.  I'd like to see some 10-15min subs.  

This is a CMOS camera with low read noise. Why would we even want to take 15 minute subs? I just don't understand. I have taken 10 minute subs with my CMOS and get no better result than with stacked 4 minute subs. I know that this potentially has a deep well capacity, but again you should simply not need long subs to totally swamp the read noise. I guess that if you were at bortle class 1, such sub exposures would be need for Nb, but that would be the exception.



#363 buckeyestargazer

buckeyestargazer

    Vendor - Buckeyestargazer.net

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 5,140
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2008
  • Loc: IN, USA

Posted 04 October 2019 - 02:39 PM

This is a CMOS camera with low read noise. Why would we even want to take 15 minute subs? I just don't understand. I have taken 10 minute subs with my CMOS and get no better result than with stacked 4 minute subs. I know that this potentially has a deep well capacity, but again you should simply not need long subs to totally swamp the read noise. I guess that if you were at bortle class 1, such sub exposures would be need for Nb, but that would be the exception.

Because I don't like 200 subs and huge data sets.  You actually made my point since you said you don't see a difference between 10min vs 4min stacked subs.  I would rather have 40x10min than 100x4min and this camera, with much greater full well, allows that.

 

Even besides that, about 2 months ago I started using 10min exposures with my QHY163M instead of 2-3min exposures I was using before and I see no difference and am enjoying smaller data sets.  I now take 10min subs at low gain for LRGB and 10min subs at 200 gain for narrowband and I'm planing to stick with that.  


  • rgsalinger, leviathan and rockstarbill like this

#364 cfosterstars

cfosterstars

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,788
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2014
  • Loc: Austin, Texas

Posted 04 October 2019 - 04:07 PM

Because I don't like 200 subs and huge data sets.  You actually made my point since you said you don't see a difference between 10min vs 4min stacked subs.  I would rather have 40x10min than 100x4min and this camera, with much greater full well, allows that.

 

Even besides that, about 2 months ago I started using 10min exposures with my QHY163M instead of 2-3min exposures I was using before and I see no difference and am enjoying smaller data sets.  I now take 10min subs at low gain for LRGB and 10min subs at 200 gain for narrowband and I'm planing to stick with that.  

Thats a decent reason. For me and my mount, this is not a good choice, but I see your point. I also think that most imagers how could even afford this camera would also likely have premium mounts. I dont at this point and I doubt I will be in the market for this camera anytime soon.


  • psandelle and Miguelo like this

#365 rms40

rms40

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 843
  • Joined: 15 Apr 2016
  • Loc: NW of Harper, TX

Posted 04 October 2019 - 04:22 PM

Chad, well then thanks go to Matt and you for posting them. I sometimes read posts too quickly...ha.

 

Randall



#366 ezwheels

ezwheels

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,044
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2017
  • Loc: Oakland, CA.

Posted 04 October 2019 - 04:48 PM

The first thing I looked for in those images is that the stars are not blown out.  The transitions from dark to bright look very good and the star cores and M31 core are not blown out.  Then again, these were only 3min subs.  I'd like to see some 10-15min subs.  

I am no expert, but I wonder if this could also mean that the ultra high QE of this camera fills the substantially deeper well, faster and you thus may not need a ton of short subs to equal single long ones? This chip may create a new paradigm in how we look at data collection for CMOS... or else I may still need 400x 20s Lum subs at 120mb per filegrin.gif shocked.gif


Edited by ezwheels, 04 October 2019 - 05:15 PM.


#367 rockstarbill

rockstarbill

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,994
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2013
  • Loc: Snohomish, WA

Posted 04 October 2019 - 06:32 PM

@Randall... those images are from someone named Matt Dahl - they're not mine.  I just posted the links so others could take a look.

Matt from Cloud Break Optics.



#368 buckeyestargazer

buckeyestargazer

    Vendor - Buckeyestargazer.net

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 5,140
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2008
  • Loc: IN, USA

Posted 04 October 2019 - 08:36 PM

I am no expert, but I wonder if this could also mean that the ultra high QE of this camera fills the substantially deeper well, faster and you thus may not need a ton of short subs to equal single long ones? This chip may create a new paradigm in how we look at data collection for CMOS... or else I may still need 400x 20s Lum subs at 120mb per filegrin.gif shocked.gif

Quite possibly, yes.  I don't know enough about the relationship between QE and full well.  But I'm guessing that the full well capacity is much, much greater while the QE is only moderately higher than the other popular CMOS cameras.  



#369 Jii

Jii

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 106
  • Joined: 27 Sep 2013
  • Loc: Pirkkala, Finland

Posted 06 October 2019 - 06:06 AM

There is one thing I have been wondering with QHY600 (and ASI6200) and that's how to connect it to OTA having 2" SCT thread. Both cameras (and suitable EFWs & OAGs) use M54, but so far I haven't found any M54 <-> 2" SCT adapter (especially those sold in Europe) even though I have been googling back and worth. M54 to T2 adapters exist, but that's not good enough here. Does anybody have any knowledge about this?



#370 cfosterstars

cfosterstars

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,788
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2014
  • Loc: Austin, Texas

Posted 06 October 2019 - 08:10 AM

There is one thing I have been wondering with QHY600 (and ASI6200) and that's how to connect it to OTA having 2" SCT thread. Both cameras (and suitable EFWs & OAGs) use M54, but so far I haven't found any M54 <-> 2" SCT adapter (especially those sold in Europe) even though I have been googling back and worth. M54 to T2 adapters exist, but that's not good enough here. Does anybody have any knowledge about this?

Have one made by PrecisionParts:

 

https://www.precisep...ain//index.html



#371 cccha

cccha

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 116
  • Joined: 03 May 2018

Posted 08 October 2019 - 01:03 AM

Yes, QHY has 7 position 50mm*50mm square QHYCFW3-XL

Kohnilav, you have provided some great real world information. Vignetting will be a concern especially with 54mm openings and fast optics. It also looks like 50mm round filters will only work well if they are very close to the sensor. The other thing that I am concerned with is even larger mono chips that certainly will be coming before too long. I would rather buy the 50mm square filters now than buy 50mm round and then need 50mm square (or larger - ouch!) later when a larger sensor is released.

 

Tim, you really simplified the geometry for the sensor to opening spacing. That looks good. I was trying to calculate the total light path of my scopes. Your method is easier to understand. Using just the f ratio slope makes sense.

 

Hey QHY....your large CFW and OAG may be what I would want but do you have a 50mm square wheel for the CFW3?

 

If QHY made the AP 2.7" and Tak 72mm OAG adapters, this would make the system work for many scopes. 72mm is larger than 2.7". My vote is for 72mm adapters. After all, many of us have 3" and 4" focusers these days. The less the light path is restricted the better.

 

Randall

 

Edit: QHY shows their CFW3 XL with a 50mm square carousel. It is a big and heavy EFW.



#372 Jpberger

Jpberger

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 29
  • Joined: 06 Dec 2017
  • Loc: Quebec, 🇨🇦

Posted 08 October 2019 - 09:30 PM

Hi there, I’m not sure if this was answered in the previous pages. I’m wandering if it is better to get the QHY600 with the option of only 6.7mm of backfocus than the ASI6200 (17.5 mm). My concern is about using my Atik EFW with 5 filters 2 inches mounted. With the Atik 11000, the backfocus is 15mm and I suppose to work fine (presently, I use the Atik Horizon). I want to upgrade for a full frame camera and I do not need a OAG since I bought a 10Micron mount. I use the 0.6x reducer with my FSQ-106EDX4 (318mm focal lenght) and without (530mm of focal lenght).

 

C.S.

 

J-P


Edited by Jpberger, 08 October 2019 - 09:49 PM.


#373 kingjamez

kingjamez

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,310
  • Joined: 03 Oct 2006
  • Loc: Fairfax, VA

Posted 08 October 2019 - 09:51 PM

Hi there, I’m not sure if this was answered in the previous pages. I’m wandering if it is better to get the QHY600 with the option of only 6.7mm of backfocus than the ASI6200 (17.5 mm). My concern is about using my Atik EFW with 5 filters 2 inches mounted. With the Atik 11000, the backfocus is 15mm and I suppose to work fine (presently, I use the Atik Horizon). I want to upgrade for a full frame camera and I do not need a OAG since I bought a 10Micron mount. I use the 0.6x reducer with my FSQ-106EDX4 (318mm focal lenght) and without (530mm of focal lenght).

 

C.S.

 

J-P

Where did you find 6.7mm of backfocus for the QHY600? I see 17.5mm on their website.



#374 Jpberger

Jpberger

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 29
  • Joined: 06 Dec 2017
  • Loc: Quebec, 🇨🇦

Posted 08 October 2019 - 10:03 PM

On the spec page on QHY website. It says: 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.


Edited by Jpberger, 08 October 2019 - 11:14 PM.

  • kingjamez likes this

#375 deepanshu29

deepanshu29

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 264
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2017

Posted 09 October 2019 - 06:34 PM

How well the binning will work on this camera? It is still not true hardware binning like CCDs. If I understand correctly software is going to add values for R, G, G, B pixels based on their positions in OSC camera. QHY states that it is similar for monochrome but does not say if it is going to be same map as OSC or immediate neighbor pixels for mono. 

 

Does anyone have any idea?




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