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

QHY600m versus ASI6200 mm Pro

  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#1 gregbradley

gregbradley

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 159
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2008

Posted 01 May 2020 - 02:59 AM

I am interested in a comparison between these 2 cameras.

 

On paper the comparison seems to go:

 

ASI  mono                                                        QHY600 mono

                                                                      Better dew control

Lower price

 

reliable software drivers                                  Supposed to be fine now but were problematic at some point.

 

256mb DRAM 111                                           2 gigabyte DRAM 111

 

has fine random horizontal line                      Has corrected this and no longer shows it.

 

Complaints about M54 opening too small     Opening of the QHY seems to be quite large

and needing tilt adapter.                                Tilt adapter seems standard.

 

Latest model has M68 opening  

 

Does not have this                                         Multiple modes some which extend the full well capacity from standard of 51K to 80K.

 

Threads on ASI6200 talk endlessly about adapters

etc and hardly any images on the net using it.    There are a lot more images from users of the QHY600.

 

Any comments about these 2? 

 

Greg.


Edited by gregbradley, 01 May 2020 - 03:01 AM.


#2 ezwheels

ezwheels

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,189
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2017
  • Loc: Oakland, CA.

Posted 01 May 2020 - 03:36 AM

I have the ZWO variant.

 

I have no issue so far with dew control but I can not speak on whether it is better or worse than the QHY. So far I have read nothing about either of these cameras having issues with dew control.

 

I thought the QHY aperture was M54 all the way through the OAG, FW and camera front. The ZWO is M68 through the OAG and then M54 at the camera side of the FW and the camera's front opening.

The ZWO comes with an M54 tilt adaptor, and now offers an M68 tilt adaptor variant as well. The camera body opening and interface is still M54. 

 

I see no fine random Hz lines in my frames.

 

I am not aware of an extended full capacity in the QHY. I am not sure how this is accomplished but if it is accurate, it sounds interesting. I am pretty sure the ZWO FWC is the rated 51k and I can take 10min RGB subs at gain 0 without blowing out to many star cores. 

 

Yeah adaptors are a constant in this hobby. The ZWO thread has a lot of talk about the adaptors and configurations because I am guessing that a lot more folks have ordered them than the QHY and have been waiting for months for them to be produced and then delivered. That time has to be used for something, so we talk about adaptors.grin.gif I am guessing you will have the same adaptor issues with any camera you get.

 

I think there are more images around taken with the QHY as it was out for at least a few months longer. I expect that to change pretty soon as more of the imagers waiting for their ZWO camera are just now getting them. 


Edited by ezwheels, 01 May 2020 - 09:48 AM.


#3 pyrasanth

pyrasanth

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,141
  • Joined: 08 Jan 2016

Posted 01 May 2020 - 03:38 AM

I use the ASI6200 and I'm more than happy with the camera. The drivers are stable & the camera performs reliably. The M54 opening will not be a problem for the majority of users and the $29.00 upgrade cost to the M68 adaptor will not break the bank. I agree that the M54-M68 adaptor debate over ran a bit but its important for some systems & less so for others.

 

The larger memory size in the QHY600 is probably to support the fibre capability more in line with the speed required & the amount of data that could need to be buffered. I've not seen anything in the ASI6200 that suggests that there is not enough local memory- download time through USB3 at full bin is very fast.

 

I've posted lots of images on the forum- so you can see samples of my work. I think the points you have picked up on are some differences between camera brands and nothing really that gives great concern across either model for the majority of users. I have no issues with dew & I've taken thousands of frames under all conditions- inside & out.

 

I'm not sure I understand the multi mode difference- setting gain , offset & binning changes the well depth & camera characteristics on either of the models. Certainly 1x1,2x2,3x3 and 4x4 binning will suit the majority of users on most telescopes which are served in the default drivers.

 

The camera is checking out very well and seems a solid purchase.


  • leviathan and rockstarbill like this

#4 rockstarbill

rockstarbill

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,564
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2013
  • Loc: Snohomish, WA

Posted 01 May 2020 - 10:09 AM

I am interested in a comparison between these 2 cameras.

 

On paper the comparison seems to go:

 

ASI  mono                                                        QHY600 mono

                                                                      Better dew control

Lower price

 

reliable software drivers                                  Supposed to be fine now but were problematic at some point.

 

256mb DRAM 111                                           2 gigabyte DRAM 111

 

has fine random horizontal line                      Has corrected this and no longer shows it.

 

Complaints about M54 opening too small     Opening of the QHY seems to be quite large

and needing tilt adapter.                                Tilt adapter seems standard.

 

Latest model has M68 opening  

 

Does not have this                                         Multiple modes some which extend the full well capacity from standard of 51K to 80K.

 

Threads on ASI6200 talk endlessly about adapters

etc and hardly any images on the net using it.    There are a lot more images from users of the QHY600.

 

Any comments about these 2? 

 

Greg.

Looks like you pasted in a table of some sort, without the table formatting. This makes your post hard to read.

 

1. Dew control - both cameras use heated applications to prevent dew. QHY supplies a tube you can full with desiccant beads. They provide this with all of their cameras, and most folks dont bother using it. I don't think there is enough real world data to suggest the QHY camera has better dew prevention. Neither have purged argon chambers.

 

2. Driver Support - ZWO's driver support is leaps and bounds better. This isnt even close. ASCOM, Native, SkyX x2, INDI all supported.

 

3. RAM - The RAM buffer difference is irrelevant unless you plan to get the QHY professional model with fiber support.

 

4. Tilt Plate & Adapter Drama - The entire QHY camera config is M54. The complaints you mentioned were founded in some cases and not founded in others. ZWO offers a M68 tilt plate now to support those that need more clear aperture at the connection point. With QHY, you do not have that option. When comparing things, you should probably avoid "seems to be...." as in this case, it is not larger. Its smaller. The ZWO tilt adapter is standard for M54, and you need to buy a $29 M68 one, if you need the larger one. It is worth calling out that the QHY "tilt adapter" slides onto a dovetail on the face of the camera and locks into place with 3 thumbscrews. Personally, you would never catch me using that. I would get the short backfocus version which does not have that design fault and bolts directly on with no silly thumbscrew plate that is just asking to slip around and cause havok.

 

5. Modes - I dont know anything about these modes QHY talks about. The IMX455 supports binning though, as another poster pointed out. Perhaps QHY can explain what they mean by these modes and why we should care. Their website is clear as mud about it. 

 

6. Images - Lack of images from the ASI6200 is due to people waiting on their cameras to arrive. Patience is a virtue. QHY released an "Early Bird" version of their camera well before the ASI6200 released -- thus there has been much more time for folks to accumulate data with the QHY versus the ASI6200.

 

Edit, missed one:

 

7. Vertical line - This is caused by multiple ADC's, similar to what you see with the FLI-50100. It calibrates out, so its irrelevant. No idea what horizontal line you are talking about. Have not seen this in a single ASI6200 frame.


Edited by rockstarbill, 01 May 2020 - 12:04 PM.


#5 ezwheels

ezwheels

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,189
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2017
  • Loc: Oakland, CA.

Posted 01 May 2020 - 12:02 PM

 

7. Horizontal line - This is caused by multiple ADC's, similar to what you see with the FLI-50100. It calibrates out, so its irrelevant. 

Actually, this is the vertical line in the exact middle of the sensor. It delineates the two ADC units. This was clarified by Sam from ZWO in the 6200 initial impressions thread post 718. 

 

I still am not sure what the Hz line is that is being referenced here is but, I think I remember some users of the newer cameras having issues based on the USB cable or transfer speeds having artifacts. Whether this was the ZWO or QHY 455 variants or the other new Sony sensors I can not recall.  



#6 rockstarbill

rockstarbill

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,564
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2013
  • Loc: Snohomish, WA

Posted 01 May 2020 - 12:06 PM

Actually, this is the vertical line in the exact middle of the sensor. It delineates the two ADC units. This was clarified by Sam from ZWO in the 6200 initial impressions thread post 718. 

 

I still am not sure what the Hz line is that is being referenced here is but, I think I remember some users of the newer cameras having issues based on the USB cable or transfer speeds having artifacts. Whether this was the ZWO or QHY 455 variants or the other new Sony sensors I can not recall.  

Oops, I meant vertical line. At least I got the FLI 50100 comparison part of my post right.

 

See this post for an example.


  • ezwheels likes this

#7 ezwheels

ezwheels

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,189
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2017
  • Loc: Oakland, CA.

Posted 01 May 2020 - 12:07 PM

grin.gif ....kinda figured you would not have made that error on purpose. 



#8 rockstarbill

rockstarbill

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,564
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2013
  • Loc: Snohomish, WA

Posted 01 May 2020 - 12:15 PM

grin.gif ....kinda figured you would not have made that error on purpose. 

Lack of coffee at 8am Pacific.  grin.gif

 

Good thing is, my ASI6200 that shipped from Canada on 4/20 is out for delivery today after being stuck in NY for 3 days, and in MA for 2 days. Should have ample time this weekend to test. 


  • ezwheels likes this

#9 gregbradley

gregbradley

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 159
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2008

Posted 01 May 2020 - 03:39 PM

Actually, this is the vertical line in the exact middle of the sensor. It delineates the two ADC units. This was clarified by Sam from ZWO in the 6200 initial impressions thread post 718. 

 

I still am not sure what the Hz line is that is being referenced here is but, I think I remember some users of the newer cameras having issues based on the USB cable or transfer speeds having artifacts. Whether this was the ZWO or QHY 455 variants or the other new Sony sensors I can not recall.  

No not talking about that. I am talking about the fine horizontal banding that is random. I can see some of it sometimes in my 183mm. This:

https://www.qhyccd.c...catid=23&id=281

 

Some sort of random pattern noise that can show up in underexposed subexposures. I first noticed it when someone gave me their darks from their ASI6200. The lines moved from sub to sub so it won't dark subtract out. I thought it may be an issue in some dim areas of images? Perhaps not. Better its not there though.

I compared it to my darks from a Microline 16 (KAF16200). Any patches of nonuniformity were the same sub to sub so it does dark subtract out.

 

Greg,



#10 rockstarbill

rockstarbill

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,564
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2013
  • Loc: Snohomish, WA

Posted 01 May 2020 - 04:06 PM

No not talking about that. I am talking about the fine horizontal banding that is random. I can see some of it sometimes in my 183mm. This:

https://www.qhyccd.c...catid=23&id=281

 

Some sort of random pattern noise that can show up in underexposed subexposures. I first noticed it when someone gave me their darks from their ASI6200. The lines moved from sub to sub so it won't dark subtract out. I thought it may be an issue in some dim areas of images? Perhaps not. Better its not there though.

I compared it to my darks from a Microline 16 (KAF16200). Any patches of nonuniformity were the same sub to sub so it does dark subtract out.

 

Greg,

My camera just arrived today, I will have a look later and see if this is present. 



#11 rockstarbill

rockstarbill

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,564
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2013
  • Loc: Snohomish, WA

Posted 01 May 2020 - 04:51 PM

I performed the exact test they showed on the QHY site, and I do not see that issue occuring on my ASI6200MM Pro camera.


Edited by rockstarbill, 01 May 2020 - 05:57 PM.


#12 ezwheels

ezwheels

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,189
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2017
  • Loc: Oakland, CA.

Posted 01 May 2020 - 06:19 PM

My camera just arrived today, I will have a look later and see if this is present. 

Congrats and let the dark library begin! The first few days of my cameras existence were spent in a dark cold refrigerator. Super anti-climatic after waiting for four months to get it... but well worth the effort. 



#13 rockstarbill

rockstarbill

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,564
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2013
  • Loc: Snohomish, WA

Posted 01 May 2020 - 06:40 PM

Congrats and let the dark library begin! The first few days of my cameras existence were spent in a dark cold refrigerator. Super anti-climatic after waiting for four months to get it... but well worth the effort. 

I only plan to use the camera at Gain 100 and I am only cooling it to -5C (no real need to go further) so my darks are being taken on my desk. :) 


  • psandelle likes this

#14 ezwheels

ezwheels

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,189
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2017
  • Loc: Oakland, CA.

Posted 01 May 2020 - 08:04 PM

I agree on the temp setting. -5c was all I shot. 30 frames per exposure duration still adds up. I did a 0 gain and a 100 gain library. From my location I tested Gain 100 with the Lum filter last night and I was looking at around 2-3min subs before blowing stars out pretty bad.

 

.... now how do we segue back to the topic of the ZWO vs QHY battle? grin.gif

 

To the OP's point aside from the fiber channel connection and the price, I see no huge insurmountable difference between these cameras and they are both looking like winners. 


Edited by ezwheels, 01 May 2020 - 08:04 PM.


#15 gregbradley

gregbradley

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 159
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2008

Posted 01 May 2020 - 09:05 PM

Do you think the different modes of the QHY are a marketing thing and are just different offset and gain settings?

 

Or is it a more substantial difference between the 2. The more full well you can get the better. My Proline 16803 has 105,000 electron full well depth and its rare to see anything blown out in a 10 minute subexposure.

 

Small wells can lead to processing problems with stars looking fuzzy and bloated or lacking in colour.

 

Greg.



#16 ezwheels

ezwheels

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,189
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2017
  • Loc: Oakland, CA.

Posted 01 May 2020 - 10:06 PM

I can not say about the possible FWC difference. If I had to guess, I would say I am not sure how it can be done as that would seem to be a hardware limit of the IMX455 sensor which they do not make or even have control over customization as their orders for this chip are microscopic compared to consumer digital cameras. 

 

Then again I am not an expert on this and I am sure someone like Jon Rista would have a PHD level dissertation on why or why not this is possible. But if the cost differential is not a concern to you, just get the QHY. I am pretty sure it is a fantastic camera and if they can magically increase the FWC by over 50%... well Yay! Bonus. 



#17 gregbradley

gregbradley

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 159
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2008

Posted 02 May 2020 - 02:14 AM

Sony has a tech sharing agreement with a company that developed a pixel design that could open a larger reserve for the pixel to gain extra well depth. Perhaps that is what is being tapped here. 

 

Greg.



#18 gregbradley

gregbradley

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 159
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2008

Posted 02 May 2020 - 04:46 PM

Looks like you pasted in a table of some sort, without the table formatting. This makes your post hard to read.

 

1. Dew control - both cameras use heated applications to prevent dew. QHY supplies a tube you can full with desiccant beads. They provide this with all of their cameras, and most folks dont bother using it. I don't think there is enough real world data to suggest the QHY camera has better dew prevention. Neither have purged argon chambers.

 

2. Driver Support - ZWO's driver support is leaps and bounds better. This isnt even close. ASCOM, Native, SkyX x2, INDI all supported.

 

3. RAM - The RAM buffer difference is irrelevant unless you plan to get the QHY professional model with fiber support.

 

4. Tilt Plate & Adapter Drama - The entire QHY camera config is M54. The complaints you mentioned were founded in some cases and not founded in others. ZWO offers a M68 tilt plate now to support those that need more clear aperture at the connection point. With QHY, you do not have that option. When comparing things, you should probably avoid "seems to be...." as in this case, it is not larger. Its smaller. The ZWO tilt adapter is standard for M54, and you need to buy a $29 M68 one, if you need the larger one. It is worth calling out that the QHY "tilt adapter" slides onto a dovetail on the face of the camera and locks into place with 3 thumbscrews. Personally, you would never catch me using that. I would get the short backfocus version which does not have that design fault and bolts directly on with no silly thumbscrew plate that is just asking to slip around and cause havok.

 

5. Modes - I dont know anything about these modes QHY talks about. The IMX455 supports binning though, as another poster pointed out. Perhaps QHY can explain what they mean by these modes and why we should care. Their website is clear as mud about it. 

 

6. Images - Lack of images from the ASI6200 is due to people waiting on their cameras to arrive. Patience is a virtue. QHY released an "Early Bird" version of their camera well before the ASI6200 released -- thus there has been much more time for folks to accumulate data with the QHY versus the ASI6200.

 

Edit, missed one:

 

7. Vertical line - This is caused by multiple ADC's, similar to what you see with the FLI-50100. It calibrates out, so its irrelevant. No idea what horizontal line you are talking about. Have not seen this in a single ASI6200 frame.

I just tried to list the 2 cameras and their "pros" and "cons", the format is a tad rough.

 

Thanks for the comprehensive reply. And others' replies as well. Apart from the unclear modes QHY talks about with extra full well depth it appears there is little between them except the software differences.

 

Greg.


  • rockstarbill likes this

#19 4esop

4esop

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 33
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2017

Posted 04 May 2020 - 02:51 PM

Last time I checked QHY was using the K version of the chip which is the industrial grade version.  ZWO is using the consumer grade version.  

 

This page provides readout mode information.  It's not just gain / offset settings as they are graphing readout modes with different gains.  https://www.qhyccd.c...=94&id=55&cut=1 - If I had to guess there are underlying parameters that can be set on the Sony chip and they are allowing you to tweak them.  One of the modes gives near linear response which would be helpful for scientific applications.

 

I haven't used a ZWO as my primary camera but their drivers seem very solid on my guide cam.  I have had occasional issues with QHY163 drivers.



#20 EspacioProfundo

EspacioProfundo

    Vendor-Espacio Profundo

  • -----
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 46
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2007

Posted 18 June 2020 - 01:04 AM

Do you think the different modes of the QHY are a marketing thing and are just different offset and gain settings?

 

Or is it a more substantial difference between the 2. The more full well you can get the better. My Proline 16803 has 105,000 electron full well depth and its rare to see anything blown out in a 10 minute subexposure.

 

Small wells can lead to processing problems with stars looking fuzzy and bloated or lacking in colour.

 

Greg.

These three modes in QHY600 are real, not marketing. You can set individual gain and offset for each mode. It's about flexibility and object type. 

 

Regards 



#21 Peter in Reno

Peter in Reno

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11,315
  • Joined: 15 Jul 2008
  • Loc: Reno, NV

Posted 18 June 2020 - 01:20 AM

These three modes in QHY600 are real, not marketing. You can set individual gain and offset for each mode. It's about flexibility and object type. 

 

Regards 

That's correct. These three modes for QHY600M cameras are definitely real. You set set the mode via QHY ASCOM or Voyager's specific native QHY600M driver.

 

Peter 



#22 herman2017

herman2017

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 25
  • Joined: 05 May 2017

Posted 13 September 2020 - 01:25 AM

I have used a KAF-16803 for 13 years and I am a huge fan. I'm getting ready to take the leap to CMOS (forced to I guess by the demise of CCD) and buy a camera with a monochrome IMX455 chip for a portable setup.  It's been three months since the last post on this thread so I thought I'd check in with the community here to see if one of these cameras is "winning".  I realize there are lots of factors ranging from company-support, ADCs, to driver-stability, etc.  I have been leaning towards the ASI6200MM but I guess I can't really give a solid reason why other than I tend to see more images from them.  I don't care about speedy downloads (I've lived with 20-second downloads with my KAF-16803 all these years).  Clean images that can be reliably calibrated, no reflections issues, and solid drivers are most important.  Any strong votes for one or the other?

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Jeff



#23 dghent

dghent

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 719
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2007

Posted 13 September 2020 - 10:55 AM

I have a QHY600M that has been rolling fine since I got it in May. QHY also just added a 4th readout mode, a lower read noise version of the extended full well mode. QHY also just announced a new variant of the QHY600, the lower-priced (sub-$4000) QHY600L ("Lite") version, which is USB-only and features a shorter body length and 1GB internal buffer instead of the normal 2GB, but it's otherwise the same as the others.

 

I have colleagues who have the ASI6200MM and they are churning out data fine just as well.

 

My own, personal opinion is that I appreciate how QHY continues to develop their take on the IMX455, and they've come a long, long way on the driver front over the past 2 years. I don't find myself wanting or regretting; I have a camera that works (tilt issues aside, these sensors will demand the upmost of your optical train no matter what.)


Edited by dghent, 13 September 2020 - 06:50 PM.

  • leviathan and Morefield like this

#24 Xentex

Xentex

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 91
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2015

Posted 13 September 2020 - 01:39 PM

I went with the ASI6200 myself primarily because it was in stock and ready to ship at $3,999 and the QHY's were back ordered everywhere and there was no hint of the "sub-$4000" QHY showing up anywhere any time soon.

 

Going past that I felt there were tradeoffs either way.  I've had great experience with ZWO and its drivers, and bad experience a very long time ago with my one QHY guide cam.  But I like the QHY larger memory size (even though I can't imagine it ever making a difference), the fiber port is cool (although I can't imagine I'd ever use it and certainly wouldn't pay for it), and I like the idea of the extra read modes.  But I still don't see how the different read modes would make any practical difference for my usage, and not clear to me that ZWO couldn't add such a thing with a firmware update if there was real value in it (but it's certainly conceivable they can't.)

 

On Astrobin I believe there are more QHY600 images than ASI6200 images, but I believe that's mostly because there are half a dozen active imagers on Astrobin with the QHY and only 2 or 3 with the 6200.

 

In the end, it's the same sensor in both cameras.  I would be very surprised if there's ever found to be any meaningful difference in performance (other than very niche cases for people using the QHY600 Pro model at 2x the price of the ASI6200mm).



#25 ezwheels

ezwheels

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,189
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2017
  • Loc: Oakland, CA.

Posted 13 September 2020 - 04:26 PM

I think both are awesome cameras. I have had an excellent experience with my 6200MM. 




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