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
385 replies to this topic

#26 t_image

t_image

    Gemini

  • -----
  • Posts: 3222
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2015

Posted 30 March 2019 - 11:05 PM

What's with the '80s-style kidnapper ransom note (cutout letters from magazines) for the chart??hmm.gif

Why are there bits and missing letters?

For the speculated prices thrown around,

seems a little sketch to do such a crap job in presentation.

I feel like we need to get Matlock on the case or call the A-team to get someone rescued from an evil villain......



#27 chadrian84

chadrian84

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 339
  • Joined: 03 Jun 2018
  • Loc: Wisconsin

Posted 31 March 2019 - 01:18 AM

The person who originally posted that chart removed watermarks... hence the reason some parts are missing. Hopefully Matlock and the A-team can now focus their attention on bigger issues like phony moon landings and a supposedly round earth.
  • psandelle, leviathan and eekeek77 like this

#28 motab

motab

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 110
  • Joined: 01 Aug 2018
  • Loc: Copenhagen, Denmark

Posted 31 March 2019 - 03:39 AM

Since QHY haven’t published final pricing, I don’t want to misquote them but double the 367C wasn’t an estimate. I guess whoever is lucky enough to attend NEAF can ask in person. IMHO APS-C is the sweet spot when filters and optics are factored in with these smaller pixel CMOS sensors so it’s a shame no one has announced anything for 2019.
  • chadrian84 likes this

#29 ezwheels

ezwheels

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 475
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2017
  • Loc: Oakland, CA.

Posted 31 March 2019 - 10:40 AM

Sensor size depends a lot on the flat usable imaging circle of your optics. I am looking to maximize this dimension on my Esprit and my TEC140, as I am sure a lot of others in this hobby are. Here is a quick 2d drawing of the various sensor sizes and filter sizes that I was looking into for my Esprit 100. We are obviously working in 3d (at least grin.gif ) with the imaging train and the distance from the filter to the sensor matters... a lot. To make my 36mm AD filters work with a APS-C size chip I would probably need to be as close to the sensor as I could get. So backspacing of the camera body itself will come into play. Typically QHY has a much longer BS dimension than ZWO, which is 6.5mm for a lot of the mono cameras. Depending on this dimension I will still more than likely need to size up to 50mm filters anyway. And 50mm filters are well known to cover most 16200 APS-H size chips and based on the drawing would probably work for many full frame (36x24mm) sensors as well. 

 

As much as I would love to have one now, an APS-C mono camera is really kind of the odd ball in this drawing as well. The nice jump up from my 1600mm really is up to the APS-H, and a full frame is gravy with a side of cranberries that would transfer nicely to the TEC140 (and any other future scope that has a large flat imaging circle).... 50mm filters are going to be a punch in gut after the meal.

 

sensor and filter sizes Export.JPG


  • h2ologg, psandelle, leviathan and 2 others like this

#30 andysea

andysea

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3536
  • Joined: 03 Sep 2010
  • Loc: Seattle, WA

Posted 31 March 2019 - 11:44 AM

A full frame mono Cmos would be amazing. I will get the ZWO version  if they do it.

It  could potentially be a significant upgrade from my 16200 camera, especially for NB.


  • lucutes likes this

#31 Jon Rista

Jon Rista

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 23726
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2014
  • Loc: Colorado

Posted 31 March 2019 - 12:08 PM

Its a little funny that people are complaining about cost. A mono full frame CCD costs $10k, easy. A mono CMOS for $8k would be a pretty good deal, especially if it had a third the read noise and another stop or two dynamic range than full frame CCDs. 


  • mikefulb, psandelle, Konihlav and 8 others like this

#32 Konihlav

Konihlav

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1660
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2009
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 31 March 2019 - 12:42 PM

exactly, people always complain about something... I'd be super-happy if there is a hi-tech brand new SONY low noise large mono full frame (36x24mm) chip out there and the cost is "reasonable", I mean, 10 grand instead of 100 :)

 

finally, after 10 years, a "revolution" may come... I am eager for a IMX455 camera


  • psandelle likes this

#33 Konihlav

Konihlav

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1660
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2009
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 31 March 2019 - 12:45 PM

especially due to narrow band capabilities of a low readout noise and mono camera. The OSC full frame out there (ASI094 or QHY367C, QHY128C) are great, really, but I am missing the narrow band capabilities.

And with costly, old, obsolete, KAF-16803 or so, you get 9e- readout noise. This is KILLING the narrow band capabilities. Compared to a 2e- RN camera, the 9e- RN camera on the same scope and same skies and same everything else than cameras is 20 times worse(!) for narrow band imaging... and these KAF-16803 cameras are also in the 10 grand price level...


Edited by Konihlav, 31 March 2019 - 12:46 PM.

  • Gene3 likes this

#34 wargrafix

wargrafix

    Skylab

  • -----
  • Posts: 4066
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2013
  • Loc: Trinidad

Posted 31 March 2019 - 12:54 PM

exactly, people always complain about something... I'd be super-happy if there is a hi-tech brand new SONY low noise large mono full frame (36x24mm) chip out there and the cost is "reasonable", I mean, 10 grand instead of 100 :)

finally, after 10 years, a "revolution" may come... I am eager for a IMX455 camera


Not everyone can afford it. Cmos at the price of ccd is getting crazy. This is not a revolution if few can afford.
  • LaughingBeagles likes this

#35 Jon Rista

Jon Rista

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 23726
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2014
  • Loc: Colorado

Posted 31 March 2019 - 01:37 PM

Not everyone can afford it. Cmos at the price of ccd is getting crazy. This is not a revolution if few can afford.

CMOS is not inherently cheaper. First and foremost, sensor SIZE (and therefor, ultimately, yield) is the primary driver of cost. A full frame DSLR (OSC) clocks in at about four grand. A full frame MONO (much lower demand) DSLR would easily clock in at 6-8k (just look at the Leica M...$7995).

 

CMOS is not just cheap...so far, most CMOS sensors have been smaller. Further, most of the CMOS sensors that have been put into astro cameras are much older as well, from generations past DSLRs and MILCs. The IMX455 is brand spankin new...it hasn't even made its way into a DSLR or MILC yet. So the price is going to be at a further premium.


Edited by Jon Rista, 31 March 2019 - 01:39 PM.


#36 chadrian84

chadrian84

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 339
  • Joined: 03 Jun 2018
  • Loc: Wisconsin

Posted 31 March 2019 - 02:01 PM

Considering qhy/zwo are currently trying to estimate the market and set pricing, the more people who let them know they’re priced out the better. Potential buyers doing the opposite aren’t doing us any favors.

#37 Jon Rista

Jon Rista

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 23726
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2014
  • Loc: Colorado

Posted 31 March 2019 - 02:09 PM

Considering qhy/zwo are currently trying to estimate the market and set pricing, the more people who let them know they’re priced out the better. Potential buyers doing the opposite aren’t doing us any favors.

Again, primary driver is sensor size/yield. It won't do anyone any favors if everyone says they cannot afford a mono version at prices dictated by the sensor size either. We may never GET a mono CMOS at all in that case. There are lower limits on viable price here. I don't foresee a mono CMOS clocking in at the same price as OSC CMOS. If that is what people are expecting, around $4500, and that is all anyone will spend, then it is very possible we won't ever see mono CMOS. 

 

Regarding the Leica M. That is around the upper bound I'd consider for a mono CMOS. With a Leica, a part of the cost is name prestige. Its LEICA! An astro cam from ZWO or QHY should probably come in at around $6k. Atik/QSI might push it to $7-8k. FLI would easily be $8k or so. 


Edited by Jon Rista, 31 March 2019 - 02:14 PM.

  • psandelle likes this

#38 chadrian84

chadrian84

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 339
  • Joined: 03 Jun 2018
  • Loc: Wisconsin

Posted 31 March 2019 - 02:21 PM

No should be expecting $4,500, but some downward pressure from $8,800 would be helpful.  Let's not let them think we're willing to write blank checks.  They've already declared the sensors are coming.  Remember, they are probably reading these forums and their goal is to take every last dollar from us they can.


  • motab likes this

#39 ezwheels

ezwheels

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 475
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2017
  • Loc: Oakland, CA.

Posted 31 March 2019 - 02:54 PM

Its a little funny that people are complaining about cost. A mono full frame CCD costs $10k, easy. A mono CMOS for $8k would be a pretty good deal, especially if it had a third the read noise and another stop or two dynamic range than full frame CCDs. 

I guess this may come from the fact that most of us CMOS users got into this because the cheaper CMOS cameras gave us a way to test the waters without huge cash outlays. Now the consensus seems to be that the two major players in the CMOS market, ZWO and QHY, are bound to the low-price end of the spectrum. We start to expect that they will only offer affordable options so perhaps we hope they can deliver what may not be possible yet.

 

I for one am all for the move to full frame CMOS as the advantages of the technology are quite quantifiable. I suspect the market for larger CCD's will dry up really fast if these new offerings pan out. This will force FLI, ATIK and others to adopt the CMOS chips and may help drive the costs down. Just imagine filling a full frame or medium format sensor with 3-5 min subs, through 3nm NB filters with incredibly low noise! Can you say unguided NB? 


Edited by ezwheels, 31 March 2019 - 07:25 PM.

  • ceteris_paribus and motab like this

#40 motab

motab

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 110
  • Joined: 01 Aug 2018
  • Loc: Copenhagen, Denmark

Posted 31 March 2019 - 03:20 PM

I guess this may come from the fact that most of us CMOS users got into this because the cheaper CMOS cameras gave us a way to test the waters without huge cash outlays. Now the consensus seems to be that the two major players in the CMOS market, ZWO and QHY, are bound to the low-price end of the spectrum. We start to expect that they will only offer affordable options so perhaps we hope they can deliver what may not be possible yet.

 

I for one am all for the move to full frame CMOS as the advantages of the technology are quite quantifiable. I suspect the market for larger CCD's will dry up really fast if these new offerings pan out. This will force FLI, ATIK and others to adopt the CMOS chips and may help drive the costs down. Just imagine filling a full frame and medium format 3-5 min sub through 3nm NB filters with incredibly low noise! Can you say unguided NB? 

 

Totally agree. If you had KAF-16803 money, none of this pricing will bother you. If you were enticed by the MN34230PL or IMX183 and hoped for similarly accessible mono big brothers with 2-3 years worth of sensor tech improvements, the current price points being suggested will be quite disappointing. 


  • psandelle likes this

#41 Francois

Francois

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 111
  • Joined: 09 Jun 2007
  • Loc: Montreal

Posted 31 March 2019 - 04:15 PM

Rumor has it the 150MP IMX411 sensor (just the sensor) will cost 9k, and the 100MP IMX461 will cost 7k.  A reasonable estimate would be 5k for the IMX455 sensor.  Figure another 1-2k for the cost of the camera and it should be well under 10k.

I don't know about those sensor cost rumors, but the IMX411 has been available in cameras (eg. the Phase One IQ4, but also industrial cameras) since last fall, with prices starting at 50000$. These are not inexpensive sensors.

 

For what it's worth, the QHY cameras are listed in their product grid... under the scientific cameras section (see https://www.qhyccd.c...catid=138&id=49 ). That's the target demographic, observatories.

 

Edit: just noticed the QHY600 appeared on their site as well: https://www.qhyccd.c...&catid=94&id=55 .


Edited by Francois, 31 March 2019 - 04:22 PM.

  • psandelle likes this

#42 rms40

rms40

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 646
  • Joined: 15 Apr 2016
  • Loc: NW of Harper, TX

Posted 31 March 2019 - 04:56 PM

I think the QHY42 will work with 36mm filters. I calculate a 31mm diagonal. It has the dual channel (high gain/low gain) 12 bit ADC. I don't completely understand how that works but it is supposed to give higher dynamic range. It also has 11um pixels which would be good for long focal length imaging.

 

The BSI sensor version has great QE and low read noise. It is about $9100 for a class 2 BSI model. At least I could use my expensive 36mm Astrodon narrow band filters with it. That is still less than a 16803 with the huge EFW and large, expensive filters.

 

I bet there are many of us that have already invested in 36mm filters or would rather buy those than 50mm+ sizes. I use different focal length scopes to get various fields of view. An APS-C size is fine and saves a lot in Filters/EFW/Weight costs.

 

I will probably wait to see if we get a better APS-C size sensor with 14 or 16 bits for less. But maybe.....

 

Randall



#43 Konihlav

Konihlav

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1660
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2009
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 31 March 2019 - 05:18 PM

it is a revolution, because until now, what you can get is a very noisy CCD (9e- RN) which is a real deal breaker for narrow band imaging for lot of money and this new CMOS is the same lot of money, but it's a completely different level, uncomparable leap forward in all aspects!

 

This is something I've been waiting for last 10 years and I am really annoyed by the "wait" time. So, in the meantime, rather than waiting for a miracle, I've used a KAI-11002ME CCD camera (made great LRGB images with it) and am currently using the OSC CMOS that gives magnificent results.

 

So we, eager ones, can get it if it becomes available and the rest of the team may wait one or two years more until the prices drop a bit...

 

For sure, I'd like to have it for $7.000,- that would be my preferred price :D but of course, the cheaper the better :)


  • psandelle, Jon Rista and AIP like this

#44 Francois

Francois

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 111
  • Joined: 09 Jun 2007
  • Loc: Montreal

Posted 31 March 2019 - 05:34 PM

I think the QHY42 will work with 36mm filters. I calculate a 31mm diagonal. It has the dual channel (high gain/low gain) 12 bit ADC. I don't completely understand how that works but it is supposed to give higher dynamic range. It also has 11um pixels which would be good for long focal length imaging.

 

The BSI sensor version has great QE and low read noise. It is about $9100 for a class 2 BSI model. At least I could use my expensive 36mm Astrodon narrow band filters with it. That is still less than a 16803 with the huge EFW and large, expensive filters.

 

I bet there are many of us that have already invested in 36mm filters or would rather buy those than 50mm+ sizes. I use different focal length scopes to get various fields of view. An APS-C size is fine and saves a lot in Filters/EFW/Weight costs.

 

I will probably wait to see if we get a better APS-C size sensor with 14 or 16 bits for less. But maybe.....

 

Randall

The devil is in the dark noise with those GPixel sensors. The same sensor has been available from FLI for a while and the typical dark noise for the GSense 400 BI is 0.4 e/pix*s (according to the website, 0.6 according to the spec sheet). Those sensors are more for imaging in high background or with high signal than anything else.

 

The good news being that the QHY seems quite a bit less expensive.


  • Konihlav likes this

#45 Jon Rista

Jon Rista

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 23726
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2014
  • Loc: Colorado

Posted 31 March 2019 - 07:21 PM

The devil is in the dark noise with those GPixel sensors. The same sensor has been available from FLI for a while and the typical dark noise for the GSense 400 BI is 0.4 e/pix*s (according to the website, 0.6 according to the spec sheet). Those sensors are more for imaging in high background or with high signal than anything else.

 

The good news being that the QHY seems quite a bit less expensive.

Yeah, global shutters in particular increase dark noise. There are effectively two sets of pixels with a global shutter...the light sensitive and the backing memories. So you have dark current leakage through both.

 

Rolling shutters don't have that problem, which is why their dark current can be so low. With high speed readout, you don't need a shutter either. 



#46 austin.grant

austin.grant

    Vendor - Modified DSLR Cameras

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 1435
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2010
  • Loc: Albuquerque, New Mexico

Posted 31 March 2019 - 07:33 PM

Sensors cost what they cost. My biggest issues with these companies are the shoddy drivers and the fact that they simply cannot seem to get the sensors square to the focal plane. In a $1200 camera, it's frustrating to see these issues. In a $7500+ camera, it would be INFURIATING to have to deal with that nonsense. 


  • sparkyht, premk19 and motab like this

#47 wargrafix

wargrafix

    Skylab

  • -----
  • Posts: 4066
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2013
  • Loc: Trinidad

Posted 31 March 2019 - 07:58 PM

The pricing out of new imagers is something we should all be concerned.

If you have deep pockets, then fine. Not all of us are that fortunate
  • bmhjr likes this

#48 austin.grant

austin.grant

    Vendor - Modified DSLR Cameras

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 1435
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2010
  • Loc: Albuquerque, New Mexico

Posted 31 March 2019 - 08:10 PM

The pricing out of new imagers is something we should all be concerned.

If you have deep pockets, then fine. Not all of us are that fortunate


What are you talking about?? They aren’t offering less options, they are offering MORE. Nobody is being priced out. Quite the contrary, if it weren’t for these companies offering the CMOS offerings at half the price of similarly-sized CCD setups, many people would still be shooting modified DSLR’s.

Nobody should complain about premium offerings. You want maximum sensor real estate, you’ll have to pay up. That stands for wanting max performance in any consumer product. Options are good!
  • sparkyht, psandelle, pbunn and 1 other like this

#49 Francois

Francois

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 111
  • Joined: 09 Jun 2007
  • Loc: Montreal

Posted 31 March 2019 - 08:25 PM

What are you talking about?? They aren’t offering less options, they are offering MORE. Nobody is being priced out. Quite the contrary, if it weren’t for these companies offering the CMOS offerings at half the price of similarly-sized CCD setups, many people would still be shooting modified DSLR’s.

Nobody should complain about premium offerings. You want maximum sensor real estate, you’ll have to pay up. That stands for wanting max performance in any consumer product. Options are good!

This. But also it is worth noting that the IMX411, IMX461 and IMX455 based cameras are in a territory that just was not being offered previously in cooled astro cameras. It's not like the IMX211 was being offered anywhere.

 

If a Panasonic MN34230 killer in this particular sensor family is what you were looking for, I'm afraid that's not coming as the IMX571 is color only. In the end astronomy sensors are a real niche market, and the cheap mono sensors are really meant for industrial purposes. There are manufacturers catering to astronomy (like say GPixel, Teledyne-e2v), but be prepared to mortgage your home.



#50 Jon Rista

Jon Rista

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 23726
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2014
  • Loc: Colorado

Posted 31 March 2019 - 09:18 PM

In the end, this little thread on one internet forum isn't going to influence the pricing of these cameras much. They are going to be priced according to the market being targeted, based on what these manufacturers believe those markets can bear...and so long as those prices are sufficient to cover costs+profit margin. The prices will be whatever they will be, and I don't think there is a whole lot we can do in this thread to really influence those prices in the end. This isn't exactly a high margin market, it is a niche market with low volume and high costs. No one selling anything in the AP world makes the big bucks...there just arn't big bucks to be had here, really.

 

The cost of these cameras will primarily be dictated by parts cost, R&D costs & manufacturing labor costs vs. competitive pricing forces and market demand. It is a good thing there are at least two players making cameras with these sensors...they will fight with each other to make sales, which is only good for us. The more players enter the arena with these sensors, the better prices will be. THOSE are the things that will influence price. There will be a lower threshold determined by costs...and it'll probably be somewhere between $5-6k.


  • RedLionNJ 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