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

My first impressions of the ASI2600mc-pro from the ASI294mc-pro and ASI1600mm-pro

astrophotography imaging equipment CMOS
  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 Holltim4103

Holltim4103

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 327
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2013
  • Loc: Plattsburgh, NY

Posted 25 January 2020 - 12:35 AM

I just upgraded to the ZWO ASI2600mc-pro.  Here is my reasoning for the upgrade, why I chose the ASI2600mc-pro, my first impressions from opening the box, to using it in the field and finally my after thoughts.

 

I started imaging in March of 2013 with a Canon 450D DSLR that I purchased the camera off eBay and it was extremely inexpensive compared to the camera options on the market.  After taking several images through it, and seeing other people’s images, I realized I could do better.  I started researching about modifying the camera.  I read about the difference between a full spectrum modification or performing the Baader modification.  I went with the self Baader modification route which simply swapped the stock IR filter out for a Baader IR filter.  Although this worked well, each time I imaged, I had to capture a new set of dark and bias frames to be consistent with the ambient temperature of my light frames.  I decided I was going to venture further into astrophotography, so I purchased the ZWO ASI1600mm-pro, which was a lot of fun to do narrowband imaging with and gave excellent results.  It was extremely sensitive and pulled spectacular detail, especially while using the 2nd generation ZWO 31 mm, 7nm narrowband filters I bought.  I also used it with an Astronomik LRGB filter set to image galaxies.  This process involved capturing flat frames for each filter, swapping between filters, refocusing after each filter change and extra steps to calibrate and stack each channel.  I found mono to be very time consuming and demanding, so I started looking at One Shot Color (OSC) cameras.  After looking at the camera specifications, I went with the ASI294mc-pro.  It had a slightly smaller sensor of what I used on the Canon 450D (Canon 450D = 22.2x14.8mm and the ASI294mc-pro = 19.1x13mm), but a very similar size sensor to the ASI1600mm-pro (17.7x13.4mm).  I also went with the ASI294mc-pro for the great full well depth (63700 electrons), the same back focus distance as the ASI1600mm-pro (6.5mm), which made it easy to swap the cameras between the ASI1600mm-pro and the ASI294mc-pro, and the 14-bit ADC.  Between the monochrome camera and the OSC camera, I thought I had it covered.  Over time, I used various scopes to image with the cameras.  I went from an 8” Newtonian f3.9, an 80mm f5.6 refractor, to a Celestron 9.25” EdgeHD SCT.  I imaged at the native 2350mm (f10) focal length and purchased the 0.7x reducer by Celestron to bring the focal length down to 1645mm (f7). I added a Starizona Hyperstar to the front which brought the focal length down to 516mm (f2.2).  This has become my favorite scope and setup to use.  It is a lot of fun for me to image at f2.2.  I can image several targets in one night at shorter exposures, or I can spend an entire night on one object.  After using the fast optics, I did not like to change out the Hyperstar with the Secondary mirror.  The Hyperstar with the ASI294mc-pro was a fabulous setup.  A look closer at the specifications of the ASI294mc-pro showed the pixel size was 4.63 microns.  I always used the following formula to figure out my sampling.  (Pixel Size / Telescope Focal Length) x 206.265.  This applies to average typical seeing of 2” to 4”.  With this formula, any value over 2” is considered under-sampled and any value under 0.67 is over-sampled.  With the Hyperstar and the ASI294mc-pro, the value I got was 1.85”.  I am on the upper end of the values which are closer to becoming under-sampled.  When looking close at the image, the stars appeared square shaped and pixelated due to too few of pixels to capture at the resolution of the telescope.  When I used the ASI294mc-pro on the Celestron 9.25” SCT at F7, 1645mm, the value I calculated is 0.58” which indicates I am over-sampled, which increases the imaging time as light is spread across more pixels than needed for full resolution.  Through my experience using deep space astrophotography cameras with various scopes, I have learned it is much better to be over-sampled than under-sampled.  If you are planning to use a camera with various scopes, I would look at either the scope you plan to use the most to base the pixel size on or run the sampling formula with all the scopes and look for that happy medium.  You can also try drizzle. Not dither but drizzle.  If you are planning on drizzling, you will want to dither.  That is a tongue twister.  Drizzle is a technique that improves the resolution of an under-sampled image.  Regardless of the sampling, my experience with the ASI294mc-pro has been excellent.  I live in a colder climate in Upstate, New York, in the Northern Adirondacks (44 degrees latitude), where the temperature in the winter averages -12 degrees Celsius and the summer temperature averages 15 degrees Celsius.  With these low temperatures and using the TEC cooler built in the ASI294mc-pro, I am able to cool the sensor to -20 degrees Celsius all year round which reduces the noise in the images.  The ASI294mc-pro easily cools the sensor to 35 degrees Celsius below the ambient temperature.  With the ASI294mc-pro, I found the noise level of an uncalibrated light frame to be moderate, but when calibrated with darks, the image was smooth and the noise was very minimal.  A look at the stretched dark frames from the ASI294mc-pro, revealed amp glow, noise and hot pixels.  I also dithered to eliminate walking noise which appeared in my images.  The walking noise was visible in the image as a rain pattern running down the image.  I was always able to process this out during processing, but when I take care during capture and use proper calibration frames, it makes processing a lot easier and the images appear clean and smooth at the end.  I want to stress that, even though the ASI294mc-pro has distinct amp glow, I never had an issue with calibrating it out of my light frames by using dark frames.

 

Now that galaxies are starting to come up, I have been wanting to maintain my fast speed of f2.2 with the Hyperstar and at the same time, image the small galaxies.  My options would be to take the Hyperstar off and go f7 or get a camera which has higher resolution and smaller pixels to crop much of the image out.  I started looking at the cameras offered by ZWO and found the ASI2600mc-pro to be the camera which matched my goals.  It first caught my attention when ZWO advertised it as a camera with a new Sony IMX571 back-illuminated sensor which was claimed to improve the camera sensitivity and reduce noise.  ZWO also claimed there was absolutely no amp glow from this camera which I found interesting since every camera I have used has had amp glow.  From looking further at the specifications, it had a larger APS-C sized sensor at 23.5x15.7mm, still maintained a deep full well at 50000 electrons, smaller pixels at 3.76 microns, greater resolution at 26 megapixels, and a 16-bit ADC which provided greater dynamic range.  On paper, this looked like a great camera for my Hyperstar setup.  When I plugged the pixel size in with the focal length, my sampling looked much better at 1.50”.  It is better sampled than the ASI294mc-pro on my Hyperstar. 

 

Upon receiving the ASI2600mc-pro and unboxing the camera, I thought, “Wow, this is a massive camera.”  The camera was much heavier than the ASI294mc-pro and had a wider diameter.  The ASI294mc-pro weighed in at 14.8 ounces and the ASI2600mc-pro weighed in at 24.7 ounces.  The ASI294mc-pro has a diameter of 78mm and the ASI2600mc-pro has a diameter of 90mm.  I was immediately worried about the secondary obstruction.  I measured the secondary obstruction on the Hyperstar and it was 104mm, so I was safe.  I also worried about tilt due to the weight, but the ASI2600mc-pro had a built-in tilt adjuster.  The back-focus distance on the ASI2600mc-pro was 17.5mm, which is the same distance as using the ASI294mc-pro (6.5mm back focus) with the 11mm collar spacer.  It was cloudy for the first several nights after I received the camera, so I spent time building dark frames and dark flat frames for my calibration frame library.  ZWO recommended using two gain settings; zero and 100.  I built two libraries at each of these recommended gain levels and at a sensor temperature of -20 degrees Celsius.  To achieve this temperature while indoors, I put the camera in the refrigerator.  This kept the camera cool, so there was less stress on the TEC cooler and the refrigerator acts as a dark box, with no light leakage.  The dark frames were smooth and showed no signs of any amp glow when I stretched them.  They were much cleaner than the ASI294mc-pro.  I read more about the camera and learned more about it.  I should have done this before getting the camera, but it was all good news I stumbled across.  I never had an issue with a ZWO camera frosting up, but I have read about it being a possibility and this crossed my mind with the larger sensor.  I discovered the ASI2600mc-pro had a built-in polyimide dew heater built in to the front of the camera.  So not only does this camera cool the sensor, but it also has a dew heater to keep the front window of the camera free of frost and dew.  While talking about the TEC cooler, the camera has a two stage TEC cooler which can lower the temperature of the sensor to 35 degrees Celsius below the ambient temperature just like the ASI294mc-pro.  Not only does it keep the sensor cool for lower noise, it also allows me to use consistently cooled calibration frames.  When I attached the ASI2600mc-pro to the Hyperstar, I checked the collimation of the scope’s optics.  I noticed the field of view was much wider, I had to re-collimate the optics as the stars were not pinpoint across the field.  I adjusted the collimation and I adjusted for minor tilt.  Once the camera was set on the Hyperstar, I started star hopping across the sky to see how the camera would perform on targets.  The moon was in a waning crescent phase and I was imaging under Bortle 3 skies.  I initially used a 2” Astronomik UV/IR L2 filter on the scope.  After the first session and reading more on the ASI2600mc-pro, I realized it has a built in D60-2 IR filter, so the UV/IR filter is not needed.  The ASI294mc-pro just has an anti-reflectivity window.  Without the UV/IR filter on the ASI294mc-pro, I found the stars would have star bloat and the UV/IR filter really tightened up my stars.  I started with the Horsehead nebula, at gain 100 and 60 second exposures.  There was a gusty wind which caused my guiding to be off a bit.  The colors pulled from the ASI2600mc-pro were beautiful.  I could notice a difference in the dynamic colors, especially in the Flame Nebula, compared to the ASI294mc-pro. Again, like I noticed in the dark frames, the noise was very minimal and the image appeared very smooth.  I zoomed in to the stars and confirmed the stars were round and less pixelated like I figured it would be.  After shooting a hour of Horsehead, I wanted to go after a smaller target to check what the image would look like when cropped.  I shot 20 x 60 second frames of Comet C/2017 T2 PANSTARRS near the Double Cluster in Andromeda.  I was amazed at how smooth and clean each individual light frame looked.  I zoomed into the comet and again, noticed the difference in the higher resolution of the ASI2600mc-pro.  In comparison of colors produced by the ASI294mc-pro and the ASI2600mc-pro, I felt the colors in the ASI2600mc-pro were more natural.  In the past, I had imaged several smaller sized comets with the ASI294mc-pro.  With the ASI2600mc-pro, the detail of the comet and stars were much more clear.  I then moved on to M101 and took 3 hours of 60 second exposures.  I then moved on to NGC891 and took 3 hours of 60 second exposures.  I used the newly released ZWO ASIair Pro for image acquisition and control.  When finished capturing, I used my Spike-a-flat panel on the front of the scope to capture flat frames.  During the imaging session, the outside ambient temperature was -18 degrees Celsius.  The camera worked flawlessly.  I had no issues cooling the camera and I kept the camera’s dew heater on.  I took the camera off the Hyperstar to verify no frost was present. 

 

I transferred the camera files over to my laptop.  This is where I immediately found an issue that I did not consider.  Each image file size from the ASI2600mc-pro was 50,966 kilobytes. The ASI294mc-pro was only 22,846 kilobytes.  This really lengthened the time needed to calibrate, stack and process the images and it bogged down my computer.  I used Astro Pixel Processor to calibrate and stack the images and PixInSight to process the images.  Once the files were transferred, calibrated and stacked, I found the images produced by the ASI2600mc-pro were much easier to process.  A simple bump in the saturation really brought out a lot of colors in the nebulas, stars and the galaxies.  With the ASI294mc-pro, I used various masks to get the colors to pop out.  This was not as necessary with the ASI2600mc-pro.  I was even able to crop NGC891 into an acceptable field of view without losing too much resolution and becoming too pixelated. 

 

For those who are looking to do narrowband imaging with an OSC camera, the ZWO duo band filter and the Optolong L-Enhance filter work well.  I even used the OPT Quad Band filter with the ASI294mc-Pro and got amazing results.  Or you can try your hand with narrowband filters and construct a Hubble Pallett using the Sulfur II, Hydrogen Alpha, and Oxygen III filters.  There are many options available to OSC users.  Sure, the mono will out perform the OSC camera, but we are for the most part amateurs.  I see OSC images that put mono imagers to shame and I see mono imagers that really out shine the OSC cameras.  At the end it is the technique and process.

 

In summary, in comparison to my experience with the ASI294mc-pro on my Hyperstar setup, I really like the ASI2600mc-pro camera and enjoy using it.  I like the smooth uncalibrated light frames produced by the camera with no amp glow.  I like the smaller pixels and the wider field of view.  With the smaller pixels, I could crop down the image to get a narrower apparent field of view for the smaller targets which was the primary goal of why I got the ASI2600mc-pro.  I really liked the natural colors and increased dynamic range produced by the ASI2600mc-pro.  Some features which I really weren’t too excited about but realize I have no control over are the camera size, camera weight, and the much larger file sizes.  I really am enjoying the ASI294mc-pro, but the ASI2600mc-pro will be replacing my ASI294mc-pro. 

 

If the cost, size, or file sizes of the ASI2600mc-pro bother you, take a look at the ZWO ASI533mc-pro.  It has the same back illuminated sensor technology, same size pixels as the ASI2600mc-pro, same deep well depth at 50000 electrons, but it has a much smaller sensor at 11.31x11.31mm, and less dynamic range at 14-bit ADC.  The ASI533mc-pro has an Anti-Reflectivity window instead of the IR coated window, so an UV/IR filter should be used.  The ASI533mc-pro is a lot less in price and the file sizes are only approximately 17000 kilobytes.

 

For more detailed images, check out the page on my website: AstroNorth.com/zwo-asi2600mc-pro-camera

 

Clear skies and I hope this helps someone who was once in my shoes researching camera information and trying to pick out a camera.

Attached Thumbnails

  • IMG_3081.JPG
  • IMG_3082.JPG

  • Jim Waters, mewmartigan, R Botero and 13 others like this

#2 Holltim4103

Holltim4103

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 327
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2013
  • Loc: Plattsburgh, NY

Posted 25 January 2020 - 12:39 AM

Here is an image showing the size comparison of the ASI294mc-pro and the ASI2600mc-pro. 

 

Also an image showing the sampling difference on the Hyperstar.  The 2600mc-pro is on the left and the 294mc-pro is on the right.  Notice the more pixelated and square stars from the 294 being more on the under-sampled side.

Attached Thumbnails

  • IMG_3083.JPG
  • Pixel (1).JPG

  • Jim Waters, elmiko and leviathan like this

#3 APshooter

APshooter

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,940
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2013
  • Loc: Camby, In.

Posted 25 January 2020 - 01:33 AM

Awesome, great news!  So glad you posted this!


  • elmiko likes this

#4 james7ca

james7ca

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,882
  • Joined: 21 May 2011
  • Loc: San Diego, CA

Posted 25 January 2020 - 05:21 AM

Thanks for the report.

 

I do wonder, however, about your pixel comparison sample. While there is a difference in the sampling and pixel size of these two cameras I see no reason why the camera with larger pixels would appear to have a much more pixelated image (when shown at the same level of magnification or zoom). That is unless you tried to match the image scales or displayed the sample from the ASI294 at a higher screen zoom. True, you might see some artifacts (diamond-shaped stars) when using a camera with larger pixels (if that combination produced an undersampled image) but it looks like the pixels in the ASI294 sample are just being shown at a higher level of zoom on the screen.


Edited by james7ca, 25 January 2020 - 05:35 AM.

  • DSO_Viewer likes this

#5 bulrichl

bulrichl

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 210
  • Joined: 27 May 2018
  • Loc: La Palma (Canary Islands)

Posted 25 January 2020 - 06:20 AM

Hi Tim,

 

you wrote a very interesting post about your experience with this camera, thank you.

 

After the first session and reading more on the ASI2600mc-pro, I realized it has a built in D60-2 IR filter, so the UV/IR filter is not needed.

I searched on ZWO's website but could not find this specification for the protective window of the ASI2600MC Pro. Where did you read it?

 

Bernd

 



#6 Coconuts

Coconuts

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 447
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2012

Posted 25 January 2020 - 07:12 AM

Tim:  A very complete synopsis of your extended journey, thanks!  I'm sure some would have preferred paragraph breaks.  What caught my attention (along with Bernd's) was your mention of a UV/IR filter on the ASI2600MC Pro.  I just bought a similar but larger sensor ASI6200MC Pro.  I am teaming it with Takahashi hyperbolic astrographs which have a two element refractive corrector, and was wondering if a UV/IR cut filter would help.  It would be amazing if it is already built in.  Can you provide a link to where you learned this for the ASI2600MC Pro?

 

All the best,

 

Kevin



#7 bortle2

bortle2

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 181
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2019

Posted 25 January 2020 - 07:34 AM

I just bought a similar but larger sensor ASI6200MC Pro.  I am teaming it with Takahashi hyperbolic astrographs which have a two element refractive corrector, and was wondering if a UV/IR cut filter would help.  It would be amazing if it is already built in.  Can you provide a link to where you learned this for the ASI2600MC Pro?

Seems like you're in luck.

 

On ZWO site, there's a page with camera manuals. There, you can download manuals for both OP's ASI2600 and your ASI6200.

 

On page 5, the former (ASI2600 manual) says: "Protect window: IR CUT".

 

On page 5, the latter (ASI6200 manual) says

 

Protect window    AR window (mono)
                  IR CUT (color)


Edited by bortle2, 25 January 2020 - 07:41 AM.


#8 Holltim4103

Holltim4103

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 327
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2013
  • Loc: Plattsburgh, NY

Posted 25 January 2020 - 07:42 AM

I searched on ZWO's website but could not find this specification for the protective window of the ASI2600MC Pro. Where did you read it?

Hi Bernd, it’s on the ZWO website under the compare cameras section. 

Attached Thumbnails

  • FDDBB0F7-D089-452B-B105-463B4CB323BE.jpeg


#9 Simcal

Simcal

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 214
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2018
  • Loc: Caledon, Ontario

Posted 25 January 2020 - 10:06 AM

Thank you for putting the time in to write this up Tim. Every bit of extended and shared knowledge helps the community. It's certainly educating me!



#10 Umasscrew39

Umasscrew39

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 907
  • Joined: 07 Dec 2016
  • Loc: Central Florida

Posted 25 January 2020 - 10:32 AM

Tim

 

A great review like I saw on the ZWO FB page.  I forgot to mention on my response that the ASI533MC is an excellent alternative as you mentioned.  So far, I have found it to have very little noise, no amp glow (as advertised) and no issues with file size to slow down my computer.  Other than it has about 40% less real estate than my 294MC, I can't find any issues with it so far.  It seems to work well on my C11" EdgeHD at f/7 and f/2.  F/7 might be pushing it (oversampling if seeing not great) but I am anxious to also try it at f/4 if Starizona ever comes out with the .4x Night Owl for the EdgeHD scopes.  

 

Anxious to keep following your use of this camera.

 

Bruce


Edited by Umasscrew39, 25 January 2020 - 03:11 PM.


#11 Coconuts

Coconuts

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 447
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2012

Posted 25 January 2020 - 11:41 AM

Tim and Bortle2:  Thanks!  Very nice to know about; it does make sense that they don't do it on the mono version. I couldn't find any mention of D60-2 IR Cut filter online, and so will ask ZWO for a transmission curve.  No idea if it also cuts UV.

 

All the best,

 

Kevin



#12 DSO_Viewer

DSO_Viewer

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,019
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2016

Posted 25 January 2020 - 12:27 PM

Here is an image showing the size comparison of the ASI294mc-pro and the ASI2600mc-pro. 

 

Also an image showing the sampling difference on the Hyperstar.  The 2600mc-pro is on the left and the 294mc-pro is on the right.  Notice the more pixelated and square stars from the 294 being more on the under-sampled side.

My only issue is that during the springtime galaxy season, I prefer to use a camera that does not block out IR & for nebula's yes I like to block out the IR. At least the 294 lets you decide if you want to cut off the IR but no choice for the 2600. Also when showing the star images what are you zoomed at since you will not be looking at a picture with this amount of zoom?

 

Steve



#13 DJE44

DJE44

    Sputnik

  • *****
  • Posts: 31
  • Joined: 06 Jan 2012
  • Loc: Bucks County, Pennsylvania

Posted 25 January 2020 - 05:21 PM

The review I’ve been waiting for. Thanks for this TJ, the sampling is noticeably better than the 294 and the amp glow is none. I would drop coin on it tomorrow if I could find a buyer for my 294. Only downfall is I’d need to spend a week doing my darks library over! Awesome review. waytogo.gif



#14 DSO_Viewer

DSO_Viewer

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,019
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2016

Posted 25 January 2020 - 09:02 PM

The review I’ve been waiting for. Thanks for this TJ, the sampling is noticeably better than the 294 and the amp glow is none. I would drop coin on it tomorrow if I could find a buyer for my 294. Only downfall is I’d need to spend a week doing my darks library over! Awesome review. waytogo.gif

If there is no amp glow and very low dark current noise, why would you need darks?

 

Steve



#15 james7ca

james7ca

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,882
  • Joined: 21 May 2011
  • Loc: San Diego, CA

Posted 26 January 2020 - 03:08 AM

If there is no amp glow and very low dark current noise, why would you need darks?

 

Steve

You'll still have bright and dark pixel defects which generally vary with the gain and exposure time. So, darks can still be useful. Also, since there APPARENTLY is no amp glow you can probably use bias files and dark field scaling to get even better calibration results (maybe, probably needs to be tested). This might help to eliminate pattern walking noise in the final stack.


  • DJE44 and Umasscrew39 like 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





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: astrophotography, imaging, equipment, CMOS



Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics