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

ASI533MC vs ASI294MC

  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 Carl Wright

Carl Wright

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 144
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2004

Posted 04 December 2019 - 01:58 PM

Any imput on these would be helpful.



#2 cmooney91

cmooney91

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 180
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2017
  • Loc: Massachusetts

Posted 04 December 2019 - 02:30 PM

Some of the first to order asi533 should receive them mid December. We'll know better once they have had time to play with them.

 

From a spec. point of view the 533 has

 

Better

1.0e vs 1.2e Read noise

1/10th the Dark current

Nearly no Amp glow

 

Similar

Dynamic range

 

Wash (depends on use case)

Smaller pixels

Smaller size/FOV

Square aspect ratio

 

For example, for many people who are planing to use the night owl f4 reducer with a C8 the ASI533 seems to be the ideal camera.

 

I currently I have an 8" F4 newt with coma corrector, and in the future I plane to use a 12 F4 newt with an ASA X0.73 CC.

I thought long and hard about it and decided that the ASI294 was better suited for my use due to it's larger pixels and FOV.  Currently with the 8" its large pixels are a little bit undersamped, but with a future larger scope the bigger pixels will help prevent over sampling.

 

Even though I chose the ASI294, I still think the ASI533 will be an exceptional camera. I can't wait to see it in action here on the forums.


Edited by cmooney91, 04 December 2019 - 02:32 PM.

  • saguaro likes this

#3 GaryShaw

GaryShaw

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 357
  • Joined: 28 Nov 2017
  • Loc: Boston

Posted 04 December 2019 - 02:31 PM

Hi

The people who know the most about these cameras will want to know more... such as:

- what scope and mount will be used?

- what object types do you plan to observe ?

- are you planning ti use them for EAA or full AP?

I’d suggest you edit or augment your post with at least the added information. 
Gary



#4 Carl Wright

Carl Wright

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 144
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2004

Posted 04 December 2019 - 02:40 PM

My use will be with  a 22" F/4 dob, 80mm  Astro tech refractor, C8 for EAA.



#5 cmooney91

cmooney91

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 180
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2017
  • Loc: Massachusetts

Posted 04 December 2019 - 02:56 PM

That's a tough call.

 

The 22" dob would definitely benefit from the bigger asi294

 

The 80mm could favor the 294 for widest field, or the 533 for medium sized DSO grab and go.

 

The C8 could also swing either way depending how you use it, and what reducers you use. Slight edge to the 533 for finer sampling sub f6.3.


  • gdd likes this

#6 barbarosa

barbarosa

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2,252
  • Joined: 11 Apr 2010
  • Loc: 139 miles W of the Awahnee Hotel

Posted 04 December 2019 - 03:19 PM

Take a look at this review of the 533 and the link to Astrobin images made with the 533. Not exactly EAA but...


  • selfo and Alien Observatory like this

#7 Astrojedi

Astrojedi

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,138
  • Joined: 27 May 2015
  • Loc: SoCal

Posted 05 December 2019 - 07:53 PM

On paper the 533 is a cleaner sensor than the 294 with significantly less amp glow and dark current. My guess is it should be easier/better for EAA use and if true darks/calibration will be optional. But only time and usage will tell.

 

Either camera will work for you if you pair it with a suitable scope/FL. For EAA a smaller scope like the 80mm can be quite effective for larger objects. The 22" will be superb for observing small galaxies like the ARPs, Hicksons, galaxy clusters etc. using EAA. The C8 is more like an all rounder.


Edited by Astrojedi, 05 December 2019 - 07:58 PM.


#8 Umasscrew39

Umasscrew39

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 835
  • Joined: 07 Dec 2016
  • Loc: Central Florida

Posted 06 December 2019 - 08:50 AM

My 533 arrives in a week.  So, be prepared for a week or so of cloudy nights.  I will be comparing it to my 294 (both for EAA and long AP exposures) but really need to get the Night Owl .4x for the C11" EdgeHD which I am on the waitlist.  So far, my 294 and 385 both full nice niches for me.  Will find out if the 533 is complimentary or essentially redundant despite a few different specs and upgrades. 


  • saguaro likes this

#9 CCD-Freak

CCD-Freak

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,625
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2008
  • Loc: Whitesboro,Texas

Posted 06 December 2019 - 08:35 PM

I have the ASI533MC-Pro on order and I am looking forward to getting it out under the sky..  I will be using it mainly for regular astro imaging but I will do some EAA as well.   By selecting various OTAs to suit the FOV of objects I want to image.  I also like the way the square sensor frames many objects.  The low read noise, well depth, 14 Bit ADC and lack of amp glow were the main specs that drove my decision to get this camera. 

 

ASI-533MC-Pro various FL.jpg

 

John

CCD-Freak

WD5IKX


  • Alien Observatory likes this

#10 a-po

a-po

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 23 Nov 2019
  • Loc: Paris - France

Posted 08 December 2019 - 02:02 PM

Hi,

I also consider the 533 for EAA with a TS 102/714 and a 0.8 reducer. The sampling seems more adapted than the 294 for my configuration. Is it a good choise ?

Thanks,
Anthony

#11 OleCuss

OleCuss

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,583
  • Joined: 22 Nov 2010

Posted 08 December 2019 - 06:12 PM

Hi,

I also consider the 533 for EAA with a TS 102/714 and a 0.8 reducer. The sampling seems more adapted than the 294 for my configuration. Is it a good choise ?

Thanks,
Anthony

It depends on your expectations and such as to whether it is a good choice.

 

1.  If you are using an ED-Doublet you will have chromatic aberration and minimally degraded optics in general.  It should be pretty good but you can't do the post-processing to fix stuff that people doing Conventional AP do.  So if you are OK with slightly (maybe unnoticeably slightly) degraded views, the OTA might be pretty good.

2.  Depending on your "seeing" your sampling would be expected to be pretty good for most of us even with the use of the reducer.

3.  Your FOV will be a bit small since your sensor is a bit small.  Really not bad, but you won't get all of the Andromeda Galaxy in a single frame.  If you aren't overly concerned with targets as big as the Andromeda Galaxy I'm guessing you'll be OK with the FOV.

 

However, you have to think about how you are going to be viewing.

 

If you are going to set up the system and have the image sitting on your screen and you are not zooming/cropping to see small portions of the screen, then I think most of us would find the sampling with the IMX294 camera and your OTA with reducer to be no problem at all.

 

If you are wanting to post images to a forum like this one?  No one will be able to tell your sampling is bad unless you zoom/crop to a small portion of the screen.  There are pretty significant restrictions on the size of the image you can post and that means that you won't be able to post the entirety of the image with enough resolution to where anyone will be able to see the sampling issues with the IMX294 camera.

 

If your tracking isn't very good then the sampling with the IMX294 camera won't really be a limiting factor.

 

 

BTW, I'm assuming your reducer is actually a reducer/flattener.

 

If it is not a flattener/reducer then the IMX533 will avoid some of the field curvature problems just because it isn't big enough to see all of the image circle generated by your OTA.

 

The IMX294 will be expected to see more of the image circle so you are more likely to see the field curvature if your reducer isn't actually a reducer/flattener.  However, you could actually avoid much of the field curvature by simply defining a smaller ROI (Region Of Interest) or cropping/zooming in on the image.



#12 DSO_Viewer

DSO_Viewer

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 962
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2016

Posted 08 December 2019 - 10:43 PM

It depends on your expectations and such as to whether it is a good choice.

 

1.  If you are using an ED-Doublet you will have chromatic aberration and minimally degraded optics in general.  It should be pretty good but you can't do the post-processing to fix stuff that people doing Conventional AP do.  So if you are OK with slightly (maybe unnoticeably slightly) degraded views, the OTA might be pretty good.

2.  Depending on your "seeing" your sampling would be expected to be pretty good for most of us even with the use of the reducer.

3.  Your FOV will be a bit small since your sensor is a bit small.  Really not bad, but you won't get all of the Andromeda Galaxy in a single frame.  If you aren't overly concerned with targets as big as the Andromeda Galaxy I'm guessing you'll be OK with the FOV.

 

However, you have to think about how you are going to be viewing.

 

If you are going to set up the system and have the image sitting on your screen and you are not zooming/cropping to see small portions of the screen, then I think most of us would find the sampling with the IMX294 camera and your OTA with reducer to be no problem at all.

 

If you are wanting to post images to a forum like this one?  No one will be able to tell your sampling is bad unless you zoom/crop to a small portion of the screen.  There are pretty significant restrictions on the size of the image you can post and that means that you won't be able to post the entirety of the image with enough resolution to where anyone will be able to see the sampling issues with the IMX294 camera.

 

If your tracking isn't very good then the sampling with the IMX294 camera won't really be a limiting factor.

 

 

BTW, I'm assuming your reducer is actually a reducer/flattener.

 

If it is not a flattener/reducer then the IMX533 will avoid some of the field curvature problems just because it isn't big enough to see all of the image circle generated by your OTA.

 

The IMX294 will be expected to see more of the image circle so you are more likely to see the field curvature if your reducer isn't actually a reducer/flattener.  However, you could actually avoid much of the field curvature by simply defining a smaller ROI (Region Of Interest) or cropping/zooming in on the image.

Please excuse my ignorance but I am confused regarding this sampling discussion. You have a TS 102/714 and a 0.8 reducer which would be a focal length of 571 mm and when using the ASI294MC you will be achieving 1.68 arc-seconds per pixel. How is this under-sampling and not allowing for tighter zooms?

 

Steve


  • OleCuss likes this

#13 Noah4x4

Noah4x4

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,589
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2016
  • Loc: Colchester UK

Posted 09 December 2019 - 04:56 AM

As an enthusiast of 4k UHD EAA I find the sensor size/pixel ratio of the ASI533 a bit odd.

 

The ASI533 offers 3008 x 3008 = 9 megapixels            Ratio     1 : 1

 

The ASI294 offers 4144 x 2822 = 11.7 megapixels       Ratio 1.4 : 1 (approx)

An Atik Horizon or ASI1600 = 16 megapixels                 Ratio 1.4 : 1 (approx)

 

Now consider this...

 

A UHD (4k) monitor is 3840 x 2160 = 8.2 megapixels  Ratio  1.7 : 1

A HD monitor is 1920 x 1080 = 2.0 megapixel               Ratio  1.7 : 1

 

It seems odd to me that ZWO has suddenly adopted a square sensor (11.31 x 11.31mm) and also square pixel array ratio (1: 1) when most monitors and photograph frames are rectangular, typically 1.7 : 1. I can see the logic in one sense as a circular telescope aperture does fit in a square. But how will this display? 

 

On any typical computer monitor (e.g. that used for EAA) won't you suffer wide black vertical bars with the ASI533 either side of your image, or do the horizontal pixels somehow stretch to fill the screen (distortion)? In a typical photograph frame or browser etc won't you have to crop to fit? 

 

I have never thought of this before, but I find the 1.4 : 1 ratio of 4/3" cameras appropriate as once you take account of the software controls that typically appear either side of my image (be this in Infinity or Sharpcap or SG Pro or other software) it neatly fits my 1.7 : 1  screen ratio. But I can't help thinking a 1 : 1 pixel and 1 : 1  image  ratio might look a little odd on a 1.7 : 1 ratio monitor screen. Frankly, I am not sure how this will display? Any thoughts folks? 


  • OleCuss and DSO_Viewer like this

#14 OleCuss

OleCuss

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,583
  • Joined: 22 Nov 2010

Posted 09 December 2019 - 06:01 AM

Please excuse my ignorance but I am confused regarding this sampling discussion. You have a TS 102/714 and a 0.8 reducer which would be a focal length of 571 mm and when using the ASI294MC you will be achieving 1.68 arc-seconds per pixel. How is this under-sampling and not allowing for tighter zooms?

 

Steve

 

The typical recommendation for sampling is 2-3x.  So if your "seeing" is 2 arc-seconds you should aim for 0.67-1 APP.

 

But thank you for pointing things out for me!

 

I ran the numbers wrong for the ASI533.  Its sampling with that rig would be about 1.35 APP which is not all that much better than for the IMX294 and is still under-sampled with that rig.

 

I'd not have fixed the error if you didn't work me over just a little!

 

But for most of us I suspect either camera would work pretty well.


Edited by OleCuss, 09 December 2019 - 06:17 AM.

  • DSO_Viewer likes this

#15 OleCuss

OleCuss

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,583
  • Joined: 22 Nov 2010

Posted 09 December 2019 - 06:08 AM

As an enthusiast of 4k UHD EAA I find the sensor size/pixel ratio of the ASI533 a bit odd.

 

The ASI533 offers 3008 x 3008 = 9 megapixels            Ratio     1 : 1

 

The ASI294 offers 4144 x 2822 = 11.7 megapixels       Ratio 1.4 : 1 (approx)

An Atik Horizon or ASI1600 = 16 megapixels                 Ratio 1.4 : 1 (approx)

 

Now consider this...

 

A UHD (4k) monitor is 3840 x 2160 = 8.2 megapixels  Ratio  1.7 : 1

A HD monitor is 1920 x 1080 = 2.0 megapixel               Ratio  1.7 : 1

 

It seems odd to me that ZWO has suddenly adopted a square sensor (11.31 x 11.31mm) and also square pixel array ratio (1: 1) when most monitors and photograph frames are rectangular, typically 1.7 : 1. I can see the logic in one sense as a circular telescope aperture does fit in a square. But how will this display? 

 

On any typical computer monitor (e.g. that used for EAA) won't you suffer wide black vertical bars with the ASI533 either side of your image, or do the horizontal pixels somehow stretch to fill the screen (distortion)? In a typical photograph frame or browser etc won't you have to crop to fit? 

 

I have never thought of this before, but I find the 1.4 : 1 ratio of 4/3" cameras appropriate as once you take account of the software controls that typically appear either side of my image (be this in Infinity or Sharpcap or SG Pro or other software) it neatly fits my 1.7 : 1  screen ratio. But I can't help thinking a 1 : 1 pixel and 1 : 1  image  ratio might look a little odd on a 1.7 : 1 ratio monitor screen. Frankly, I am not sure how this will display? Any thoughts folks? 

Good points!

 

However, a square sensor can capture more of the image circle if they are sorta matched.  Of course, they often don't match all that well so. . .

 

Also, it's possible that for some of us the displayed computer software controls might make the viewing area of the screen fairly square?  It doesn't usually work that way for me but I've not messed with enough computers to know how it works for everyone.

 

But yes, if one is doing Conventional AP then I think square is the way almost no one will actually be viewing the final image.  For those of us doing OAP - I'm not sure.



#16 a-po

a-po

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 23 Nov 2019
  • Loc: Paris - France

Posted 09 December 2019 - 06:40 AM

Thanks for these points of view.

Very usefull to help me understand data and do a choise.

 

I practice 80% time near from Paris (50 km) with a seeing around 1.5 - 2.0

And 20% during summmer in South-Est France with a seeing around 1.0 - 1.5

So sorry for my english, it's not my natural language you've understood... :-)

 

My reducer is a flattener

I don't use any tracking. Only the Goto of my Eqm-35.

Few time to practice when I go out (rare DOF, EAA top for me !...) 

 

Today I've a Rising Tech 224, but to little FOV and limited compatibility with Sharpcap.

I was about to buy a 294 when the 553 was announced...

 

To follow...



#17 OleCuss

OleCuss

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,583
  • Joined: 22 Nov 2010

Posted 09 December 2019 - 07:36 AM

I know that it can be confusing, but if you have a GoTo mount I am pretty sure that you must have tracking.

 

It may be that you mean that you do not have any guiding/auto-guiding?  I do not auto-guide either.  I don't want the complexity and since I don't normally track a single object for very long time periods I don't really need auto-guiding.

 

 

I think that if you have little opportunity to practice with the software that you might consider something like the Atik Horizon.  It can use the Infinity software which both gives you less control over what you see - and a simpler process so that the learning to use the software is usually not a problem.  That Atik Horizon likely doesn't have as good signal-to-noise-ratio as do either the IMX533 or IMX294 but the ease of use of the Infinity software just might make it worth considering.  The sensor is also larger so your FOV may be a little better.

 

But do understand that the idea of considering the Atik Horizon is so that you can use the Infinity software.  The camera is not necessarily superior.  And with SharpCap you can get better results than you could with Infinity - but you will have to spend more time learning the software and then spend time while observing to optimize the image.



#18 a-po

a-po

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 23 Nov 2019
  • Loc: Paris - France

Posted 09 December 2019 - 07:40 AM

Yes of course ! By "tracking" I meant "auto-tracking". 

I follow targets with my goto... And with EAA and short time exposure, it's enough.

 

Thanks for your advice with the Atik Software.

I'll look at it. 



#19 mikenoname

mikenoname

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 571
  • Joined: 29 Jan 2015
  • Loc: Death Valley Region (Bortle 2 - SQM 21.9+)

Posted 09 December 2019 - 08:24 PM

It seems odd to me that ZWO has suddenly adopted a square sensor (11.31 x 11.31mm) and also square pixel array ratio (1: 1) when most monitors and photograph frames are rectangular, typically 1.7 : 1.

I'm fairly certain the answer lies in the fact that you are looking at the wrong end of the equation.

 

Optical aberrations, by and large, show up the further out you get in a field of view from center. A square sensor keeps more of the active image area near the center of the field of view, reducing optical aberrations. A rectangular sensor, on the other hand, pushes the outer corners out wide where they are much more likely to hit coma, field curvature etc.


  • CCD-Freak, Rickster and selfo like this

#20 bemo47

bemo47

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 53
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2016

Posted 10 December 2019 - 07:55 AM

any new images coming from this new ASI533 ?

i have heard that some deliveries occurs recently... may be we could have new images and testing ?... if sky god's are with us....




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