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

QHY128C Or QHY367C

  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 AtmosFearIC

AtmosFearIC

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 967
  • Joined: 10 Dec 2015
  • Loc: Melbourne

Posted 14 August 2019 - 02:33 AM

I'm hoping that there is a couple of people out there that have used both of these cameras that may be able to give their thoughts on the two of them.

I currently have an ASI094 which is the ZWO version of the QHY367C but I have recently been thinking about moving to the 24MP camera for its 6 micron pixels; 50% increase in surface area per pixel.

 

For anyone using the QHY128C, have the driver issues been fixed? I've read that there were some people that had issues with the drivers but there hasn't been anything really mentioned on that since late 2017,



#2 vdb

vdb

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1445
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2009

Posted 14 August 2019 - 02:48 AM

I have both ... to early to tell but I would have a slight preference for the 128C, easier to work with and indeed the larger pixel is "faster" ...

Recent 16 panel was done with the 128C.

My flickr page:

https://www.flickr.c.../130138181@N02/

 

/Yves



#3 psandelle

psandelle

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2672
  • Joined: 18 Jun 2008
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 14 August 2019 - 09:53 AM

I've used them both, and, of course, I have the opposite experience as Yves grin.gif , preferring the 367C (and the M version, which was a one-off) to the 128C, but I still have the 128C, but not the 367s (am going to get a 600 for mono), so it wasn't a big difference. I just liked the resolution of the 367C and it seemed to just grab photons slightly better (I don't know why). As far as the drivers, right now I'm dealing with a cooler that stays on 100%, but don't know if it's software yet, or not. QHY and I are going to remote and try to get to the bottom of it, but everything else software-wise works great.

 

Both are very good cameras; price may be the differentiation.

 

Paul


  • Gene3 likes this

#4 Konihlav

Konihlav

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1643
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2009
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 14 August 2019 - 10:07 AM

I went with the higher resolution camera for one reason - it helps to better sample the image and "hide" the big stars that starts to pop up when you stretch the data. Making stars smaller in the final image is what I find important and desirable. Hence a higher resolution is better, because, in the end, with a Bayer mask, I myself count the pixel size to be actually ~9um (twice the size)... in the end I almost always show my final image in 50% scale and that helps not only in making stars smaller but also in "lowering" the noise smile.gif

 

here are my images taken with IMX094 camera:

Pavel Pech, ZWO ASI094 MC Pro

 


  • psandelle likes this

#5 vdb

vdb

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1445
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2009

Posted 14 August 2019 - 11:53 AM

I went with the higher resolution camera for one reason - it helps to better sample the image and "hide" the big stars that starts to pop up when you stretch the data. Making stars smaller in the final image is what I find important and desirable. Hence a higher resolution is better, because, in the end, with a Bayer mask, I myself count the pixel size to be actually ~9um (twice the size)... in the end I almost always show my final image in 50% scale and that helps not only in making stars smaller but also in "lowering" the noise smile.gif

 

here are my images taken with IMX094 camera:

Pavel Pech, ZWO ASI094 MC Pro

Hmmm bigger pixels give smaller stars at full resolution, the difference at screen resolution of a portable is negligible ...

 

Besides that, working on big mosaics, the 24 mega pixel is a big improvement on processing time and required memory, APP would need 32 GB of real memory to treat the QHY 367C files, now I can get by just with 16GB for the 128C, still need to downsample 0.9 ... Disk space requirement is still big, but my 1 TB remote was sometimes completely swamped when doing the mosaics using the 367C ...  granted it's a specific edge case.

 

Quality wise when viewed on screen I find the 128C results cleaner, but that is hard to compare ... and in print a single pane 367C would win ...

 

/Yves



#6 AtmosFearIC

AtmosFearIC

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 967
  • Joined: 10 Dec 2015
  • Loc: Melbourne

Posted 15 August 2019 - 01:56 AM

Sounds like staying with the ASI094 is on the cards until a 24ish MP mono CMOS comes onto the market.

#7 Gene3

Gene3

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 541
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2016
  • Loc: Del Mar, CA

Posted Yesterday, 01:35 PM

I've used them both, and, of course, I have the opposite experience as Yves grin.gif , preferring the 367C (and the M version, which was a one-off) to the 128C, but I still have the 128C, but not the 367s (am going to get a 600 for mono), so it wasn't a big difference. I just liked the resolution of the 367C and it seemed to just grab photons slightly better (I don't know why). As far as the drivers, right now I'm dealing with a cooler that stays on 100%, but don't know if it's software yet, or not. QHY and I are going to remote and try to get to the bottom of it, but everything else software-wise works great.

 

Both are very good cameras; price may be the differentiation.

 

Paul

Hi Paul,

I am finally testing out my 367C and I am trying to get it to -18. Its pulling 100% from my powerwerx 30 amp PS and only gets to -12.

By contrast my QHY16200a gets to -18 then the power drops to like 40% and it hold the -18 with no problem. Any insight? did you learn anything from the QHY remote session? You can message me so we don't derail this thread

BTW: I am about to plunk down $$ for the QHY600 but am now concerned because of the cooling issue with the 367C.

 

Many Thanks,

Gene




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