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

Is a 2600MM really coming, or is it just a myth?

  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#26 dghent

dghent

    Viking 1

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

Posted 19 September 2020 - 01:37 PM

Yes, 36mm filters are perfect for APS-C sensors, which are 28-29mm on the diagonal. Smaller filters will certainly cause vignetting at the focal ratios we tend to image at.



#27 Umasscrew39

Umasscrew39

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 1,240
  • Joined: 07 Dec 2016
  • Loc: Central Florida

Posted 19 September 2020 - 01:50 PM

Two main things other than being able to use your existing filter wheel and filters.

 

30% better QE, no microlens issues, and larger pixels too which will be better for longer focal length scopes.

 

The QE I think is a pretty big deal. I’ve seen this somewhat bear out on my ASI6200 vs the 1600 as it’s also 90% QE (claimed by ZWO). I can image the same object in 6 hours vs 9 hours with similar results.

 

I realize this isn’t really a fair comparison but here’s 10 hours on the wizard with the 1600 at F5.9

get.jpg?insecure

 

Here’s 7 hours on the wizard with the 6200 at F7.

get.jpg?insecure

 

There’s a quality difference for sure due to the two scopes, but I’m just amazed at how much better the OIII and HA looked with less hours on a slower scope.

Thanks, Andrew.  We both have the same setup and have chatted in the past about such topics.  Always good to compare notes and thoughts.  I felt the 30% was no big deal but it appears I was wrong.

 

Bruce


  • Lead_Weight likes this

#28 Umasscrew39

Umasscrew39

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 1,240
  • Joined: 07 Dec 2016
  • Loc: Central Florida

Posted 19 September 2020 - 01:52 PM

Having worked with QHY over the past 2 years due to being the implementer of the native driver in NINA, providing feedback and reports, their rewrite of their SDK - the underpinnings of native and ASCOM drivers alike - has resulted in their driver quality coming a long way. In particular, they have added a lot of low-level hardening and error state recovery to the USB code paths in their SDK since February, which I have noticed paid off a lot. Since a lot of NINA users with QHY cameras come to me with issues, I've noticed this drop in complaints. So this is just my take on it from sitting in the software trenches and kinda being forced into the position of acting as an interface between vendor and user when it comes to this stuff.

 

As for IMX294/IMX492-chipped cameras versus the 4/3 format stalwart that is the ASI1600MM and its Panasonic chip, there are some additional considerations. First, Panasonic has discontinued its CMOS imaging sensor division and the production of the Panasonic MN34230 sensor that is used in these cameras has been discontinued for some time now, with ZWO, QHY, and other makers of astro cams with this chip drawing on remaining stock to produce cameras. So this mono IMX492 comes not a moment too soon as there now is a proper chip to carry the mono 4/3 torch.

 

Second, the IMX492 is Sony's 5th gen Exmor R design; while it's not 6th gen (stacked silicon) it is still fairly recent tech and thus has the improvements one would expect over the MN34230 sensor - a much higher QE due to the back-illuminated design and a dual conversion gain amplifier system that grants you extremely low read noise (1e-) at a high conversion gain. This HCG mode is pretty much a godsend to DSO astrophotography... all the DR without the noise consequences. The full well size takes a hit due to this, however it is a very tolerable one.

Well- this is very encouraging to hear.  Thanks much for the update.



#29 rms40

rms40

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 883
  • Joined: 15 Apr 2016
  • Loc: NW of Harper, TX

Posted 19 September 2020 - 02:40 PM

I wanted an APS-C mono sensor last year. It looked like there wasn't going to be an option for a long time. Well, things change fast these days.

 

I have used both QHY and ZWO cameras. I like them both. One thing I wish QHY would do is add the simple USB hub to their cameras. That really helps with cable management. I always use the USB hub on my ZWO cameras. Works great.

 

The QHY readout modes that started with their QHY600 are a plus. That is something I wish ZWO would implement.

 

Randall


  • Jii likes this

#30 aatdalton

aatdalton

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 232
  • Joined: 05 Feb 2019

Posted 21 September 2020 - 12:29 AM

I found the ZWO usb hub super helpful (still do to an extent), but now that I have an EFW, EAF, and guidecam I need an extra cable running up there anyway. At that point I either need a hub mounted on the scope or mount head or to run extra cables so the advantage is kind of gone. QHY does at least connect natively to their own filterwheels.



#31 idclimber

idclimber

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 563
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2016
  • Loc: McCall Idaho

Posted 21 September 2020 - 12:00 PM

My paramount has two USB ports as part of the mount. With the USB hub in the ASI1600 I have enough ports for a guide cam, focuser and the filter wheel. I really am considering the QHY but would then need to run another cable through the mount and add a hub up top. I would also need two cable at the base instead of the one. 



#32 suvowner

suvowner

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 593
  • Joined: 22 May 2016
  • Loc: Arkansas

Posted 21 September 2020 - 01:00 PM

To your points, QHY seems to have been working on their own mono cam based on the IMX492, and has the ability to run the sensor in an unlocked mode at 46.8 megapixels of 2.315um pixels. If it’s anything like what they do with some of their other cameras, switching between modes can be done in software so you can have a 11.6mp/4.63um/14 bit mode or operate in a 46.8mp/2.315um/12 bit mode. They are calling it the QHY294 Pro but say price is TBD. Same backfocus as the QHY163 (ca. 8mm I think?)

https://www.qhyccd.c...w&catid=94&id=9

this is very interesting. if qhy can do it, seems no reason zwo couldn't ? the 2.315um pixels would be great for short <400mm-ish refractors....this would put my starizona apex reduced esprit 100 at 1.34"/pixel . 



#33 aatdalton

aatdalton

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 232
  • Joined: 05 Feb 2019

Posted 21 September 2020 - 01:20 PM

this is very interesting. if qhy can do it, seems no reason zwo couldn't ? the 2.315um pixels would be great for short <400mm-ish refractors....this would put my starizona apex reduced esprit 100 at 1.34"/pixel . 

No reason other than they may want to sell another camera. Or perhaps they'll change their mind down the road. Right now QHY is selling an objectively better version for $200 less.



#34 Stelios

Stelios

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 10,221
  • Joined: 04 Oct 2003
  • Loc: West Hills, CA

Posted 21 September 2020 - 04:02 PM

I'm just starting out in AP, and still accumulating equipment.  Took the advise of someone here on the forum to buy only 2" filters for the very reason you cite.  I don't want to have to re-buy filters based on future camera decisions.

And what 2" filters did you buy? Astrodon? Chroma? LRGB and narrowband? Which filter wheel? $1,188 for the LRGB Astrodons, and $1,145 *each* for the 3nm Ha, Oiii, Sii. That's $4,500 in filters alone. 

 

Unless you're made of money, a full 2" setup (which needs a full-frame sensor to justify it, a scope with large focuser, large opening OAG, etc.) conflicts with other priorities (more scopes, more cameras, better mount). People who buy 2" filters usually also buy Takahashi-quality scopes and Astro-Physics mounts. If I only had $20K to spend in the hobby, I almost certainly would *not* buy 2" filters. With $30K, maybe. With $40K, probably. With $60K, sure. 


  • Szumi likes this

#35 my-spot

my-spot

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 213
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2010
  • Loc: South East Michigan

Posted 21 September 2020 - 07:46 PM

It is nice to see some new mono cameras in this size range. Either the announced/rumored QHY268M or QHY294M would be a perfect replacement for my old venerable QHY9M. I think I would give the QHY268M the edge for my purposes but the extra $1K could sway me...



#36 aatdalton

aatdalton

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 232
  • Joined: 05 Feb 2019

Posted 01 October 2020 - 04:38 PM

The 268M is honestly on a different tier from the 294. It's a generation newer tech with pretty much every spec number better where it counts. Only practical decision making otherwise is pixel size for your setup and cost, including larger filter requirements.



#37 Dean J.

Dean J.

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 652
  • Joined: 13 Aug 2011
  • Loc: Vista, CA

Posted 01 October 2020 - 06:28 PM

A couple of months ago QHY had said that the 268M was going to be released in October. Well, it is October now...

Anyone hear anything about how things are going with the 268M release?

#38 dghent

dghent

    Viking 1

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

Posted 01 October 2020 - 08:06 PM

The first week of October is a national holiday in China. And "in October" doesn't necessarily mean "within the first few hours of" wink.gif


Edited by dghent, 01 October 2020 - 08:06 PM.

  • Stelios, rockstarbill and aatdalton like this

#39 rgsalinger

rgsalinger

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 7,141
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2007
  • Loc: Carlsbad Ca

Posted 02 October 2020 - 09:37 AM

I also have a Paramount and need more than 2 USB connections. I also do not want to run a cable through the mount for a number of reasons. So, I decided to compromise when I got my QHY600. I just run it at USB 2 speeds. Works like a charm. Of course I'm never going to do planetary imaging with that connection and full frame downloads take about 9 seconds but my exposures are 4-5 minutes so the time loss doesn't amount to much. I do have a Startech 7 port USB 3 hub mounted on the OTA of my scope, though. I connect all of the other system components - rotator, focuser, guide camera, etc to it but keep the other USB port just for the camera.

 

Rgrds-Ross



#40 Dean J.

Dean J.

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 652
  • Joined: 13 Aug 2011
  • Loc: Vista, CA

Posted 02 October 2020 - 11:18 AM

The first week of October is a national holiday in China. And "in October" doesn't necessarily mean "within the first few hours of" wink.gif

Sigh...  Well of course.  Anyone else with anything substantive?



#41 suvowner

suvowner

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 593
  • Joined: 22 May 2016
  • Loc: Arkansas

Posted 02 October 2020 - 11:24 AM

I saw a post from Sam with zwo that said they don’t expect to get the sensors from Sony in time to build the cameras within this year



#42 Dean J.

Dean J.

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 652
  • Joined: 13 Aug 2011
  • Loc: Vista, CA

Posted 02 October 2020 - 11:26 AM

So maybe QHY is facing the same sensor production schedule.


Edited by Dean J., 02 October 2020 - 03:29 PM.


#43 ezwheels

ezwheels

    Apollo

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

Posted 03 October 2020 - 01:21 AM

QHY seemed to have gotten their hands on the IMX455 chips before ZWO did... Or at least the QHY600 was released a few months before the 6200. It is possible they get this IMX571 mono chip first as well.



#44 Dean J.

Dean J.

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 652
  • Joined: 13 Aug 2011
  • Loc: Vista, CA

Posted 03 October 2020 - 09:04 AM

I guess we will find out as the month progresses.

 

I have the color version of this detector - the ASI2600MC - and it works surprisingly well.  I would like to be able to retire my ASI1600MM and upgrade to the mono IMX571.


  • suvowner likes this

#45 Janco

Janco

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 270
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2017
  • Loc: Johannesburg, South Africa

Posted 04 October 2020 - 07:59 AM

Two main things other than being able to use your existing filter wheel and filters.

 

30% better QE, no microlens issues, and larger pixels too which will be better for longer focal length scopes.

 

The QE I think is a pretty big deal. I’ve seen this somewhat bear out on my ASI6200 vs the 1600 as it’s also 90% QE (claimed by ZWO). I can image the same object in 6 hours vs 9 hours with similar results.

 

I realize this isn’t really a fair comparison but here’s 10 hours on the wizard with the 1600 at F5.9

get.jpg?insecure

 

Here’s 7 hours on the wizard with the 6200 at F7.

get.jpg?insecure

 

There’s a quality difference for sure due to the two scopes, but I’m just amazed at how much better the OIII and HA looked with less hours on a slower scope.

ye not a very good comparison. You have about 2 years of extra experience in processing which I think is the absolute key factor here. Filters also weren't the same etc. Though 30% QE is a big deal and what you are saying is true. The difference will as you stipulated however much more subtle than the pictures illustrated. 

Microlensing of the ASI1600 is a big pain and by far its largest drawback and worth upgrading to a new mono even if everything else is the same. 


Edited by Janco, 04 October 2020 - 11:32 AM.

  • Lead_Weight likes this

#46 suvowner

suvowner

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 593
  • Joined: 22 May 2016
  • Loc: Arkansas

Posted 12 October 2020 - 12:37 PM

QHY responded to an e-mail inquiry about this camera and said they are shooting for December. sounds nice but I will believe it when I see it. 



#47 aatdalton

aatdalton

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 232
  • Joined: 05 Feb 2019

Posted 12 October 2020 - 02:14 PM

QHY responded to an e-mail inquiry about this camera and said they are shooting for December. sounds nice but I will believe it when I see it. 

That's an exciting rumor! I'm also in the camp of wait until I see it though. My wallet is ready.



#48 xonefs

xonefs

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 143
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2020

Posted 12 October 2020 - 02:29 PM

I guess we will find out as the month progresses.

 

I have the color version of this detector - the ASI2600MC - and it works surprisingly well.  I would like to be able to retire my ASI1600MM and upgrade to the mono IMX571.

Have you ever done any narrowband tests with the 2600mc? I would be curious how the improved QE even with a bayer filter compares to mono on an older 1600 and if they would be similar. 


Edited by xonefs, 12 October 2020 - 02:37 PM.


#49 Dean J.

Dean J.

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 652
  • Joined: 13 Aug 2011
  • Loc: Vista, CA

Posted 12 October 2020 - 03:18 PM

Have you ever done any narrowband tests with the 2600mc? I would be curious how the improved QE even with a bayer filter compares to mono on an older 1600 and if they would be similar. 

No, not me.  I wouldn’t use a narrowband filter with a color camera.  :-)



#50 gregbradley

gregbradley

    Vostok 1

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

Posted 12 October 2020 - 03:38 PM

A mono 2600 would give bigger real estate than a 294, no amp glow, 16bit versus 12 or 14bit but that's about it.

The 294 in the QHY version gives 2 readouts 48mp and 11.

 

I wonder how much difference there is in the real world between 14 and 16 bit cameras. All my CCD cameras are 16bit but then the actual image is always only in a relatively small slice of the available histogram slots.

 

Greg.




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