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

QHY Camera and Accessory Connections Question

  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#1 ChrisWhite

ChrisWhite

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 6,356
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2015
  • Loc: Northeast USA

Posted 17 January 2021 - 07:08 PM

Man, I feel like this is a beginner question, but man the QHY documentation is just terrible so hoping someone here can clarify for me. 

 

I'm looking at the new APS-C camera and trying to decide between ZWO and QHY.  I'll be using this on a fast scope with limited backfocus so the QHY with a reputation of better sensor orthogonality has me interested.  I wont have space for a CTU tilt adjuster. 

 

The 268m Looks to have a tilt plate on the front of the camera as well... but it's listed as only having 12.5mm backfocus. 

 

It looks like there are 6 tapped holes for a FW to mount to.  Is this accurate?  Does the filter wheel bolt on to the camera body?  Some of the pictures show some sort of dovetail mount for the FW, and others dont.  (Some of this will need to be assumed based on already released models)

 

1) How does the FW connect to the camera?

2) How does the OAG connect to the FW?  This at least looks like it is a bolt on for sure....

3) What is the thickness of the OAG?  Cant find this anywhere. 

4) What the heck are the thumb screws on the camera body in some of the pics, but not others.

5) Is there a tilt plate?

 

Could someone help me make sense of all of this nonsense?

 

Camera:  https://agenaastro.c...qhy268m-ph.html

Filter Wheel: https://agenaastro.c...ycfw3m-sr7.html

OAG: https://agenaastro.c...dium-oag-m.html

 

And finally, how much backspacing will the above consume? 

 

Seriously, QHY needs to do a better job documenting this stuff...


Edited by ChrisWhite, 17 January 2021 - 07:12 PM.


#2 SilverLitz

SilverLitz

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,333
  • Joined: 17 Feb 2018
  • Loc: Louisville, KY

Posted 17 January 2021 - 07:47 PM

I am also having problems getting exact QHY268M info. 

 

When you see the 268C manual (do NOT see a 268M manual), it says it comes with the tilt plate.  The documentation says the output is M54, but does not specify whether it is Male or Female.  Messages from other CN'ers seem to say M54 Female, which by the photos, this would seem to be the inside threads of the tilt-plate.  QHY's other documentation says all medium size cameras (which includes 268) come with tilt plates.

 

I am about ready to pull the trigger on a QHY268M, and I expect to at least initially use my ZWO 7x36mm EFW.  This combo would need a M54 Male to M42 Male adapter.   Agena has such an adapter, and as luck would have it, I have this part in my toolbox. I erroneously bought it almost 3 years ago (trying to connect my ED102CF to my t-ring, but needed F-M not M-M).


  • ChrisWhite likes this

#3 OhmEye

OhmEye

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 935
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2019
  • Loc: Western NY Southern Tier

Posted 17 January 2021 - 07:51 PM

Here's my understanding from my research. I chose the 268m instead of the 2600MM partly based on the mounting system and less backfocus consumption.

 

1) The Medium FW has M54 female on both sides with a 6 hole bolt pattern. The 268m has a 5mm plate with M54 that removes, and the camera body has the 6 hole bolt pattern. The intent is to remove the plate and bolt directly to the FW, this results in 12.5mm BF from the FW case to the sensor.

2) The OAG has a 10mm thick body with 6 through-holes, and comes with 4 plates that are 3mm thick with the 6 hole pattern that can bolt on either side. Two plates have M42 female and two have M54 female. My intent is to bolt the OAG directly to the FW, and use one of the M54 plates (or M48 if I can find one) on the scope side.

3) OAG thickness is 10mm with bolt-on both sides, 13mm with threaded one side and 16mm with threaded both sides.

4) I believe the 3 thumb screws on the plate are the tilt adjustment or a flange lock. (I haven't paid close attention since I don't intend to use it either way.) That 5mm thick plate can be moved forward to the FW or OAG or not used. Removed from the camera body gives 12.5mm backfocus instead of 17.5mm.

5) I believe so, the aforementioned 5mm plate with the thumb screws. I think it has tilt adjust but perhaps it's just a flange lock although that would be different from all the other medium cameras I believe.

 

My calculation for BF consumption is camera 12.5mm>slim FW 17mm>OAG 10mm>M54 plate 3mm = 42.5mm

 

I believe but am not certain since I don't have all the gear yet that the 3mm thick plates that come with the OAG could be made to work on the 268m or FW also. They are just a flat disc with a M54 or M42 threaded hole and the 6 hole bolt pattern, so it should be possible to bolt one to any of the components as a threaded adapter. They may be available separately if you don't have the OAG, I don't know. I considered that as a way to use my ZWO 36mm FW but decided to replace the ZWO with a QHY Medium slim (US=UltraSlim) FW since the unmounted filters are thin enough and the FW is at least 3mm thinner than any ZWO offer that I know of. I want to use bolt-on not just for less backfocus consumption but also to avoid the hell of alignment for camera/FW/OAG using threaded connections and spacers. (I am so over that!) So to use bolt-on I would need to replace my current EFW with the new bolt-on version that's not out yet, and since the QHY is thinner and has a fully enclosed motor I went that direction.

 

I have the OAG, so I'm certain about it's dimensions. I'm fairly confident my understanding of the 268m and slim FW are correct but I haven't verified personally so appreciate if anybody knows to the contrary.

 

100% agree on the need for clear documentation of this stuff by QHY.


Edited by OhmEye, 17 January 2021 - 08:11 PM.

  • ChrisWhite likes this

#4 lucam

lucam

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,014
  • Joined: 09 Oct 2017
  • Loc: Upstate NY, USA

Posted 17 January 2021 - 07:59 PM

Chris,

 

this diagram QHY posted on their Facebook page may be useful to answer some of your questions:

 

IMG_0888.JPG


Edited by lucam, 17 January 2021 - 08:00 PM.

  • ChrisWhite likes this

#5 OhmEye

OhmEye

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 935
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2019
  • Loc: Western NY Southern Tier

Posted 17 January 2021 - 08:32 PM

this diagram QHY posted on their Facebook page may be useful to answer some of your questions:

An example of why there is confusion. Multiple sources for specs on the slim FW show it's 17mm thick, not 17.5, including their FW spec product page. I'm looking at QHYCFW3M-US-7. https://www.qhyccd.c...137&id=34&cut=1

 

They do seem to be much more active on their Facebook group than on their product website, much of the information people have provided me came from FB. (I don't use FB)

 

Here's one some info about the camera apparently from FB:

image0.png?width=606&height=793


Edited by OhmEye, 17 January 2021 - 08:37 PM.

  • ChrisWhite likes this

#6 Peter in Reno

Peter in Reno

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11,634
  • Joined: 15 Jul 2008
  • Loc: Reno, NV

Posted 17 January 2021 - 08:52 PM

QHY "tilt plate" does NOT adjust for tilt. It's a very bad Chinese to English ( https://www.engrish.com/ ) translation. All it has is a dovetail to frame objects in FOV of camera. That's it and nothing else.

 

Peter


Edited by Peter in Reno, 17 January 2021 - 08:53 PM.

  • ChrisWhite and OhmEye like this

#7 ChrisWhite

ChrisWhite

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 6,356
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2015
  • Loc: Northeast USA

Posted 17 January 2021 - 09:22 PM

Here's my understanding from my research. I chose the 268m instead of the 2600MM partly based on the mounting system and less backfocus consumption.

1) The Medium FW has M54 female on both sides with a 6 hole bolt pattern. The 268m has a 5mm plate with M54 that removes, and the camera body has the 6 hole bolt pattern. The intent is to remove the plate and bolt directly to the FW, this results in 12.5mm BF from the FW case to the sensor.
2) The OAG has a 10mm thick body with 6 through-holes, and comes with 4 plates that are 3mm thick with the 6 hole pattern that can bolt on either side. Two plates have M42 female and two have M54 female. My intent is to bolt the OAG directly to the FW, and use one of the M54 plates (or M48 if I can find one) on the scope side.
3) OAG thickness is 10mm with bolt-on both sides, 13mm with threaded one side and 16mm with threaded both sides.
4) I believe the 3 thumb screws on the plate are the tilt adjustment or a flange lock. (I haven't paid close attention since I don't intend to use it either way.) That 5mm thick plate can be moved forward to the FW or OAG or not used. Removed from the camera body gives 12.5mm backfocus instead of 17.5mm.
5) I believe so, the aforementioned 5mm plate with the thumb screws. I think it has tilt adjust but perhaps it's just a flange lock although that would be different from all the other medium cameras I believe.

My calculation for BF consumption is camera 12.5mm>slim FW 17mm>OAG 10mm>M54 plate 3mm = 42.5mm

I believe but am not certain since I don't have all the gear yet that the 3mm thick plates that come with the OAG could be made to work on the 268m or FW also. They are just a flat disc with a M54 or M42 threaded hole and the 6 hole bolt pattern, so it should be possible to bolt one to any of the components as a threaded adapter. They may be available separately if you don't have the OAG, I don't know. I considered that as a way to use my ZWO 36mm FW but decided to replace the ZWO with a QHY Medium slim (US=UltraSlim) FW since the unmounted filters are thin enough and the FW is at least 3mm thinner than any ZWO offer that I know of. I want to use bolt-on not just for less backfocus consumption but also to avoid the hell of alignment for camera/FW/OAG using threaded connections and spacers. (I am so over that!) So to use bolt-on I would need to replace my current EFW with the new bolt-on version that's not out yet, and since the QHY is thinner and has a fully enclosed motor I went that direction.

I have the OAG, so I'm certain about it's dimensions. I'm fairly confident my understanding of the 268m and slim FW are correct but I haven't verified personally so appreciate if anybody knows to the contrary.

100% agree on the need for clear documentation of this stuff by QHY.

Super helpful. I understand it now. One thing that worried me about the slim wheel was whether you could reach focus with the oag and main camera simultaneously. Seeing that diagram from qhy that Lucam shared shows this setup without any spacing between the fw and oag suggests it will not be a problem.

Edited by ChrisWhite, 17 January 2021 - 09:25 PM.


#8 ChrisWhite

ChrisWhite

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 6,356
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2015
  • Loc: Northeast USA

Posted 17 January 2021 - 09:25 PM

Chris,

this diagram QHY posted on their Facebook page may be useful to answer some of your questions:

IMG_0888.JPG


Thanks! Very helpful!

#9 ChrisWhite

ChrisWhite

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 6,356
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2015
  • Loc: Northeast USA

Posted 17 January 2021 - 09:28 PM

QHY "tilt plate" does NOT adjust for tilt. It's a very bad Chinese to English ( https://www.engrish.com/ ) translation. All it has is a dovetail to frame objects in FOV of camera. That's it and nothing else.

Peter


Got it. I assumed tilt adjuster. Actually, it was your report on the 600 regarding sensor orthogonality that made me interested in this. It seems that many of the zwo imx455 cameras have some degree of tilt, and for my application at f3.6, tilt would not be easy to sort out. Seems that qhy might be a little more precise. Whether that is true or not, I don't know.

#10 lucam

lucam

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,014
  • Joined: 09 Oct 2017
  • Loc: Upstate NY, USA

Posted 17 January 2021 - 11:01 PM

Super helpful. I understand it now. One thing that worried me about the slim wheel was whether you could reach focus with the oag and main camera simultaneously. Seeing that diagram from qhy that Lucam shared shows this setup without any spacing between the fw and oag suggests it will not be a problem.


Chris, that depends on what guide camera you use. I currently use a SX Ultrastar with the CFW3 M ultraslim wheel and ZWO 17mm backfocus camera and I had to put 6mm of spacers between the OAG and the filter wheel. Obviously, a shorter backfocus guide camera like the ASI290 or similar would take care of that problem.

Luca


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

#11 ChrisWhite

ChrisWhite

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 6,356
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2015
  • Loc: Northeast USA

Posted 18 January 2021 - 07:07 AM

Chris, that depends on what guide camera you use. I currently use a SX Ultrastar with the CFW3 M ultraslim wheel and ZWO 17mm backfocus camera and I had to put 6mm of spacers between the OAG and the filter wheel. Obviously, a shorter backfocus guide camera like the ASI290 or similar would take care of that problem.

Luca


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, good point.  I'll be using a 290mm, however that camera presents a potential challenge for in-focus.  With the body shoulder near the back of the camera you are limited with how far you can slide the camera into the OAG mount.  I could always switch to the QHY variant if that is a problem assuming that the QHY guidecams have an 8mm setback as well.  I guess it will be really close either way and the only way to tell would be to test.  If it does work seamlessly without any spacing the slim setup would be ideal as you could use imaging setups with 55mm backspacing requirement.  My current requirement is ~58mm, so the regular FW would also work, but is limiting for potential use in the future. 

 

Thank you,



#12 ezwheels

ezwheels

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,303
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2017
  • Loc: Oakland, CA.

Posted 18 January 2021 - 11:49 AM

Chris, this probably won't directly answer your question but, when the helical focuser is bottomed out the minimum distance from the inside of the OAG camera pocket and the shoulder of this part on the QHY OAG-M is 40.27mm. My 290mm mini is set in the OAG on my other scope so I do not have that measurement of the tip of the 290mm body to the shoulder where it widens in diameter. 

 

Also, not sure if this has been mentioned but, when you bolt the QHY OAG to the FW you remove the back plate from the OAG and it gets a thinner combined profile than if you threaded the OAG to the FW. Here is the QHY thin 7x36 FW and the QHY-M OAG.

 

IMG_3664 copy.jpg


  • ChrisWhite likes this

#13 djholt

djholt

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 32
  • Joined: 18 Jan 2021

Posted 18 January 2021 - 08:40 PM

These mounting clarifications have been super helpful. Thanks!

 

I'm also studying to decide between the ASI2600MM and QHY268M. I plan to pre-order one of these two. This is my first leap into NB imaging, so I don't currently have a FW, but a 36mm bolt-on solution seems ideal from what I've read. I don't plan to use an OAG right now, but it's a likely future addition. I'll initially mount to a WO GT71 with FLAT6AIII flattener (M48).

 

Based on this discussion and the other ASI2600MM thread, I'm currently leaning toward the QHY268M. This post from OhmEye was very helpful (thanks!). Still, I don't feel confident in the decision and I'm looking for some more guidance. My top considerations so far in favoring the QHY268M: lower pre-order cost, slimmer bolt-on FW option (that is actually released), higher (presumed) build quality, larger M54 (vs. M42) mount. I also see the QHY268M has a substantially larger memory buffer, but I don't know if that difference lends to any practical performance improvement.

 

On the surface, I don't see much to gain with the ASI2600MM (I don't care about or need the internal USB hub). However, I am worried that QHY does seem defeated by ZWO in popularity, and I speculate that ZWO cameras benefit from increased adoption rate, better community support, and better overall reliability on day one. Can any of this be substantiated as a valid concern? Or can I put this concern to rest?

 

Lastly and most importantly, are there any additional points I would be wise to consider before choosing the QHY over the ZWO? Based on the overall popularity of ZWO over QHY, I can't shake the feeling that I must be missing something altogether.

 

Thanks so much! I really appreciate the input.



#14 dswager

dswager

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2019
  • Loc: Fiddletown, CA

Posted 19 January 2021 - 02:42 PM

One thing I will add as a factor is repair support. I have been without a working camera for two months and estimate it will be at least another month before I see it. 99% of that time, the camera has been out of my hands, i.e. has been in transit or in somebodies hands waiting for things to happen. In the interest of brevity, I won't detail the convoluted repair "process" and effort I've had to put in to stay informed and/or even figure out what I'm supposed to do, but it's...frustrating...

 

I've heard tell that QHY has a repair facility in the U.S., which seemingly would reduce the time to repair, but have no direct experience.

 

I'm considering both cameras as well. Unless something radical happens in this repair effort, I'll be trying QHY.


Edited by dswager, 19 January 2021 - 02:44 PM.


#15 dghent

dghent

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 981
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2007

Posted 19 January 2021 - 04:09 PM

A new USB driver package version was put on the QHY website last night. The USB driver package is what delivers the model-specific firmware blobs to the cameras, and and the release notes for this new version mention:

 

Update history:
1.QHY268: Added the humidity and pressure support;

 

It doesn't specify if this is relevant to C or M models (or both). In the QHY600 line, models of the -PH and -Pro variants built after a certain date (I believe December 2019, but I'm not sure of the exact time, it could be early 2020) started including a humidity and air pressure sensor inside the sensor chamber of the camera. This is so that those stats can be monitored and the user would know when they might want to do a desiccant service on the camera. Dr. Q did mention to me last year that they were also considering selling a hand-powered vacuum pump so that further evacuating the sensor chamber of moisture would be possible, but I don't know where their plans are on this. At any rate, my guess is that the pending 268M's (and maybe newer C's) will have these sensors as well.



#16 ChrisWhite

ChrisWhite

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 6,356
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2015
  • Loc: Northeast USA

Posted 19 January 2021 - 08:37 PM

One thing I will add as a factor is repair support. I have been without a working camera for two months and estimate it will be at least another month before I see it. 99% of that time, the camera has been out of my hands, i.e. has been in transit or in somebodies hands waiting for things to happen. In the interest of brevity, I won't detail the convoluted repair "process" and effort I've had to put in to stay informed and/or even figure out what I'm supposed to do, but it's...frustrating...

 

I've heard tell that QHY has a repair facility in the U.S., which seemingly would reduce the time to repair, but have no direct experience.

 

I'm considering both cameras as well. Unless something radical happens in this repair effort, I'll be trying QHY.

I've also heard that there will be a repair facility for QHY in the US as well (from multiple sources) which I think would be great.  This would definitely give some incentive to go QHY. 



#17 Wilsil

Wilsil

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 15
  • Joined: 09 Jan 2021
  • Loc: Perth, WA AUSTRALIA

Posted 19 January 2021 - 08:41 PM

I have ordered the 268M with filter wheel on the last day of 2020.

Can't wait to get it in my hands.



#18 djholt

djholt

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 32
  • Joined: 18 Jan 2021

Posted 19 January 2021 - 11:29 PM

One thing I will add as a factor is repair support. I have been without a working camera for two months and estimate it will be at least another month before I see it. 99% of that time, the camera has been out of my hands, i.e. has been in transit or in somebodies hands waiting for things to happen. In the interest of brevity, I won't detail the convoluted repair "process" and effort I've had to put in to stay informed and/or even figure out what I'm supposed to do, but it's...frustrating...

 

I've heard tell that QHY has a repair facility in the U.S., which seemingly would reduce the time to repair, but have no direct experience.

 

I'm considering both cameras as well. Unless something radical happens in this repair effort, I'll be trying QHY.

Thanks for pointing this out. If this happens, that would remove a big concern for me also.

 

I'm also worried about driver support and reliability. QHY's reputation isn't great in that regard. Since I use INDI, I've posted over there to see if folks have had luck with the QHY268C. If so, I figure I'm good with the 268M.

 

One of my last concerns is filter size. I'd happily save money with 36mm filters & FW, but would invest in 2" filters if needed. At this point, without any hard evidence from testing, how sure can we be that vignetting won't occur with 36mm filters at f/4? Assuming filter distance can be minimized with the ultra-thin QHY FW.

 

Thanks everyone.



#19 el_guanaquito

el_guanaquito

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2021

Posted 20 January 2021 - 10:27 AM

Good morning! I dropped some coin on the QHY268M and am eagerly awaiting its arrival. In the meantime, I need to figure out how to connect it to my existing Paracorr Type 2. Since this is my first foray into a dedicated astrophotography camera, I don't have any ring adapters to screw onto the Paracorr.

 

What type of adapter do I need to connect the Paracorr to the QHY spacer rings?

 

Thank you!



#20 SilverLitz

SilverLitz

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,333
  • Joined: 17 Feb 2018
  • Loc: Louisville, KY

Posted 20 January 2021 - 11:55 AM

Yesterday, I pulled the trigger on the QHY268M.  I will at least initially be using my existing ZWO 7x36mm EFW, connecting with the M54 Male to M42 Male connector I already have (from Agena).  This is my 2nd camera, after using an ASI183mm-Pro for almost 2 years. 

 

I debated between the 268M and the 294M, but the 268M's larger FoV, cleaner sensor, and 16-bit depth were clear advantages for the 268M.  Threads on the 294M seem show some teething pains, which I assume will be due to using a totally new sensor (IMX492) vs. the existing IMX294 OSC.  The 268M using basically the same sensor, IMX571, as the OSC 268C (w/o Bayer array), should reduce early problems.  The 268M is also a much better compliment to my 183M, while the 294M is more of a larger FoV replacement for the 183.


  • OhmEye likes this

#21 lucam

lucam

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,014
  • Joined: 09 Oct 2017
  • Loc: Upstate NY, USA

Posted 20 January 2021 - 12:08 PM

Good morning! I dropped some coin on the QHY268M and am eagerly awaiting its arrival. In the meantime, I need to figure out how to connect it to my existing Paracorr Type 2. Since this is my first foray into a dedicated astrophotography camera, I don't have any ring adapters to screw onto the Paracorr.

 

What type of adapter do I need to connect the Paracorr to the QHY spacer rings?

 

Thank you!

This is an excellent adapter to connect the TeleVue Paracorr to the focuser and imaging train with an all threaded connection.

 

https://www.teleskop...r-an-M68x1.html



#22 el_guanaquito

el_guanaquito

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2021

Posted 20 January 2021 - 01:35 PM

This is an excellent adapter to connect the TeleVue Paracorr to the focuser and imaging train with an all threaded connection.

https://www.teleskop...r-an-M68x1.html


Excellent! Thank you so much!

#23 milkychris

milkychris

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 94
  • Joined: 09 Jun 2019

Posted 20 January 2021 - 03:17 PM

Yesterday, I pulled the trigger on the QHY268M.  I will at least initially be using my existing ZWO 7x36mm EFW, connecting with the M54 Male to M42 Male connector I already have (from Agena).  This is my 2nd camera, after using an ASI183mm-Pro for almost 2 years. 

 

I debated between the 268M and the 294M, but the 268M's larger FoV, cleaner sensor, and 16-bit depth were clear advantages for the 268M.  Threads on the 294M seem show some teething pains, which I assume will be due to using a totally new sensor (IMX492) vs. the existing IMX294 OSC.  The 268M using basically the same sensor, IMX571, as the OSC 268C (w/o Bayer array), should reduce early problems.  The 268M is also a much better compliment to my 183M, while the 294M is more of a larger FoV replacement for the 183.

Where is a M54 at on the camera or spacers? The diagram I have seen shows a M48 output on one of the spacers, but it isn't clear if that can be mounted directly to the camera face.  https://www.facebook...20422648060998/



#24 ChrisWhite

ChrisWhite

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 6,356
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2015
  • Loc: Northeast USA

Posted 20 January 2021 - 10:14 PM

I decided to go 268M for this.  The selling point for me is that with the thin FW I will be able to fit a tilt adjuster if I need one.  (Imaging at f3.6 with limited backspacing).  Additionally, I'm hoping the QHY reputation for sensor orthogonality holds true.  My 6200 has a little tilt and I have had tilt with other ZWO cameras... so going to give QHY a try. 

 

Thanks for everyone's help to understand these connections better.


  • ezwheels, lucam and OhmEye like this

#25 OhmEye

OhmEye

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 935
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2019
  • Loc: Western NY Southern Tier

Posted 20 January 2021 - 10:34 PM

I have similar conclusions for choosing the 268m over the 2600MM.

  • Rumored better build quality (sensor orthogonality, etc.)
  • Bolt-on filter wheel that's slimmer and has fully enclosed motor
  • Thinner OAG
  • 4 selectable readout modes
  • Significantly lower preorder cost (about $180 less)

  • ChrisWhite likes 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






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics