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

Can't seem to find a well-fitting camera.

  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 FiveByEagle

FiveByEagle

    Messenger

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 422
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2020

Posted 10 April 2021 - 10:08 AM

Hello all!

 

I have an use a 183MM for my GT81IV and flattener combo. Been having the upgrade itch lately, but not really ready to let go of a "working" system (figured out my issues from previous threads, dont use Gain 0) unless I can find something that does not compromise too much.

 

The William Optics GT81 only has a dedicated .8x reducer flattener, and the Hotech SCA did not work for me to work at its native FL - stars were very pushed in, yet since it was not adjustable I was stuck. So I have the Flat6A and am working at a 382mm F4.7 imaging system. The 183MM has 2.4 micron px and is a 1.24"scale.

 

With this scope, seems like the 183MM is kind of what I am stuck with. The 294's large pixels are great, but will definitely net me a softer image, the 1600 is cool but old and doesn't offer much above the 183MM - at least as far as I can see. I could be wrong!

 

Can someone chime in with what they are using currently?

 



#2 jonnybravo0311

jonnybravo0311

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,557
  • Joined: 05 Nov 2020
  • Loc: NJ, US

Posted 10 April 2021 - 10:36 AM

The 294 has this neat trick up its sleeve called "unlocked" mode. Running in this mode, you use the sensor's native 2.315 micron pixels. Basically, you're getting the same image scale as your 183MM, except with the larger sensor and 47MP resolution. Then, you can also run it in "default" mode, which gives you the 4.63 micron pixels, 14 bit depth, 64ke- well, etc. It's pretty much 2 cameras in one :)



#3 bobzeq25

bobzeq25

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 24,169
  • Joined: 27 Oct 2014

Posted 10 April 2021 - 10:56 AM

I moved from a 183 to a 2600 for my C8 RASA.  Gave up some resolution (most often only theoretical in my skies, I couldn't even use all the resolution of the 2600 last night <smile> ), got some field of view.  That was handy for the image below.  Better version here.

 

https://www.astrobin.com/kis712/

 

You're just saying there is no perfect camera.  There are many good choices once you give up on unicorns.  <smile>

 

Jellyfish, SH2-249 -small.jpg


Edited by bobzeq25, 10 April 2021 - 11:03 AM.

  • Stelios and jonnybravo0311 like this

#4 FiveByEagle

FiveByEagle

    Messenger

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 422
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2020

Posted 10 April 2021 - 11:28 AM

I moved from a 183 to a 2600 for my C8 RASA.  Gave up some resolution (most often only theoretical in my skies, I couldn't even use all the resolution of the 2600 last night <smile> ), got some field of view.  That was handy for the image below.  Better version here.

 

https://www.astrobin.com/kis712/

 

You're just saying there is no perfect camera.  There are many good choices once you give up on unicorns.  <smile>

 

attachicon.gifJellyfish, SH2-249 -small.jpg

2600MM? 

 

Part of me is thinking of going back to OSC with the 2600MC.



#5 FiveByEagle

FiveByEagle

    Messenger

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 422
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2020

Posted 10 April 2021 - 11:33 AM

I guess the title should be "another camera that is as well fitting"



#6 bobzeq25

bobzeq25

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 24,169
  • Joined: 27 Oct 2014

Posted 10 April 2021 - 11:44 AM

2600MM? 

 

Part of me is thinking of going back to OSC with the 2600MC.

2600MC first, for right now.  Probably 2600MM later for luminance and Ha.  RASA with no filter wheel changes things.  <smile>



#7 unimatrix0

unimatrix0

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 209
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2021

Posted 10 April 2021 - 12:00 PM

Hello all!

 

I have an use a 183MM for my GT81IV and flattener combo. Been having the upgrade itch lately, but not really ready to let go of a "working" system (figured out my issues from previous threads, dont use Gain 0) unless I can find something that does not compromise too much.

 

The William Optics GT81 only has a dedicated .8x reducer flattener, and the Hotech SCA did not work for me to work at its native FL - stars were very pushed in, yet since it was not adjustable I was stuck. So I have the Flat6A and am working at a 382mm F4.7 imaging system. The 183MM has 2.4 micron px and is a 1.24"scale.

 

With this scope, seems like the 183MM is kind of what I am stuck with. The 294's large pixels are great, but will definitely net me a softer image, the 1600 is cool but old and doesn't offer much above the 183MM - at least as far as I can see. I could be wrong!

 

Can someone chime in with what they are using currently?

I got 2 cameras, and I am torn between the 2 which one to use, both have their advantages and disadvantages. 
QHY183C  - It's the same sensor as your 183MM, but in color. I like how sharp subs it produces, but I don't like how it's only 15k welldepth. 
ASI533 -  square shaped sensor, nearly more than 3x the welldepth of the 183 but larger sensor size and produces softer images. 
Using both with small focal length refractors (560mm and 360mm) stuck on top of each other on my mount, I did some imaging and while taking subs with both of the same target, I still couldn't decide which one I liked better! 
Both still had edge over the other in different criterias. 
At the end of the day, I realized that I'm still not taking full advantage of either cameras' capabilities, but I'm slowly learning how to bring out the best from them and it's a lot of trial and error. 

Forums and social media can only point me to a direction, but there are no rules carved into stone to follow , because sky and conditions and equipment are always different.

If there is one rule I would carve into stone is that sky conditions are always different and require adjustments, even with the same equipment from one night to the next and cannot depend on what worked for someone else to work the same way for my setup and current conditions. 
It comes down to setting up my gear what worked before, take a sub and look at it and take an educated guess whether it's gonna work or needs adjustments. The educated guess is the key, meaning - to know if I change a certain aspect - gain, exposure length, filters, or even the scope itself- what direction that's gonna take me and how it's gonna effect my imaging capabilities. 


Edited by unimatrix0, 10 April 2021 - 12:03 PM.


#8 Stelios

Stelios

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 11,080
  • Joined: 04 Oct 2003
  • Loc: West Hills, CA

Posted 10 April 2021 - 02:49 PM

Hello all!

 

I have an use a 183MM for my GT81IV and flattener combo. Been having the upgrade itch lately, but not really ready to let go of a "working" system (figured out my issues from previous threads, dont use Gain 0) unless I can find something that does not compromise too much.

 

The William Optics GT81 only has a dedicated .8x reducer flattener, and the Hotech SCA did not work for me to work at its native FL - stars were very pushed in, yet since it was not adjustable I was stuck. So I have the Flat6A and am working at a 382mm F4.7 imaging system. The 183MM has 2.4 micron px and is a 1.24"scale.

 

With this scope, seems like the 183MM is kind of what I am stuck with. The 294's large pixels are great, but will definitely net me a softer image, the 1600 is cool but old and doesn't offer much above the 183MM - at least as far as I can see. I could be wrong!

 

Can someone chime in with what they are using currently?

The 1600 may be old, but this is irrelevant. It has ONE flaw--the microlensing effect on very bright stars. Other than that, it just demolishes the 183. I have both cameras. I bought the 183 specifically to use with my SVX070T and 0.8x reducer (336mm F/L). I have used it rarely though, as the 1600 produces superior pictures (I dither and drizzle) even at 2.33"/px scale. The 183 is very finicky with exposure due to the small well depth. 

 

I don't get the "softer image" comments. Any examples from both cameras on the same target? Is this personal experience or just quoting other opinions? 


  • Der_Pit likes this

#9 BRIMoPho

BRIMoPho

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 51
  • Joined: 20 Apr 2020
  • Loc: Queen Creek, AZ

Posted 10 April 2021 - 11:30 PM

I haven't seen it mentioned yet in this thread; but, you can also use the calculators at astronomy.tools to see how different cameras will fit and work with your lens.  I used it when I was looking and it helped me a lot.

https://astronomy.to...ccd_suitability

 

There's also a FOV calculator that will give you a representation of your FOV with your camera/lens combo against well known targets to give you an idea what your image would look like with the different cameras.

https://astronomy.to.../field_of_view/

 

I settled on a ASI2600MC Pro, it's perfect for the AT92.



#10 terry59

terry59

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10,346
  • Joined: 18 Jul 2011
  • Loc: Colorado, USA

Posted 11 April 2021 - 09:23 AM

I'm surprised to see all of the OSC recommendations....it shows me (again) the lack of narrowband options. I am happy with my SV70T/183M combination for nebula and am glad there is no micro lens diffraction. 



#11 terry59

terry59

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10,346
  • Joined: 18 Jul 2011
  • Loc: Colorado, USA

Posted 11 April 2021 - 09:26 AM

I moved from a 183 to a 2600 for my C8 RASA.  Gave up some resolution (most often only theoretical in my skies, I couldn't even use all the resolution of the 2600 last night <smile> ), got some field of view.  That was handy for the image below.  Better version here.

 

https://www.astrobin.com/kis712/

 

You're just saying there is no perfect camera.  There are many good choices once you give up on unicorns.  <smile>

 

attachicon.gifJellyfish, SH2-249 -small.jpg

Nice image Bob...the shell should be blue though, not green


  • bobzeq25 likes this

#12 bobzeq25

bobzeq25

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 24,169
  • Joined: 27 Oct 2014

Posted 11 April 2021 - 12:51 PM

I'm surprised to see all of the OSC recommendations....it shows me (again) the lack of narrowband options. I am happy with my SV70T/183M combination for nebula and am glad there is no micro lens diffraction. 

I was a terrific fan of mono plus filters.  Still am.  It's the best quality solution.

 

But I recognize a few things.  Many (most?) don't have the budget for it.  And OSC has increased in quality, especially with the new duoband filters for emission nebulae, and some people doing sophisticated things in data acquisition/processing.

 

Since I can't use a filter wheel (RASA) it has some appeal, although I plan to get a mono camera to add Ha or L.



#13 BRIMoPho

BRIMoPho

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 51
  • Joined: 20 Apr 2020
  • Loc: Queen Creek, AZ

Posted 11 April 2021 - 01:10 PM

I was a terrific fan of mono plus filters.  Still am.  It's the best quality solution.

 

But I recognize a few things.  Many (most?) don't have the budget for it.  And OSC has increased in quality, especially with the new duoband filters for emission nebulae, and some people doing sophisticated things in data acquisition/processing.

 

Since I can't use a filter wheel (RASA) it has some appeal, although I plan to get a mono camera to add Ha or L.

Agreed, running mono is an investment in both time and money, I figured it about an additional $1000 upfront and 3x the OSC imaging time.


Edited by BRIMoPho, 11 April 2021 - 01:11 PM.


#14 terry59

terry59

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10,346
  • Joined: 18 Jul 2011
  • Loc: Colorado, USA

Posted 11 April 2021 - 01:17 PM

Agreed, running mono is an investment in both time and money, I figured it about an additional $1000 upfront (yes)     and 3x the OSC imaging time. (definitely not!!!!).



#15 terry59

terry59

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10,346
  • Joined: 18 Jul 2011
  • Loc: Colorado, USA

Posted 11 April 2021 - 01:28 PM

I was a terrific fan of mono plus filters.  Still am.  It's the best quality solution.

 

But I recognize a few things.  Many (most?) don't have the budget for it.  And OSC has increased in quality, especially with the new duoband filters for emission nebulae, and some people doing sophisticated things in data acquisition/processing.

 

Since I can't use a filter wheel (RASA) it has some appeal, although I plan to get a mono camera to add Ha or L.

My impression of these multi band filters is there are some very nice images with them but many I see disappoint me.  It's the same with DSLR...I think light pollution makes OSC very challenging. I'll always advocate for getting a mono camera and a HA filter. You'll know if you want to keep going or not and you can image every clear night, getting quality data. As Stelios said above, upgrades are making some mono cameras relatively cheap (~700) and used filters can be had across the price spectrum. A OSC camera and multi band filters are going to be pricy based on the brief look I took (I was surprised).

 

This is advise for beginners...and this is the beginners forum

 

smile.gif


Edited by terry59, 11 April 2021 - 01:30 PM.


#16 bobzeq25

bobzeq25

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 24,169
  • Joined: 27 Oct 2014

Posted 11 April 2021 - 03:55 PM

Agreed, running mono is an investment in both time and money, I figured it about an additional $1000 upfront and 3x the OSC imaging time.

Money only, not time.  Yes, that's not intuitive.  <smile>

 

With a OSC camera you're only using some of the pixels on some of the data.  50% of the pixels are green.  The Bayer matrix filter, designed for low cost and to sell terrestrial cameras, is inefficient for astro.  A mono camera is using all the pixels.  And very efficient (if expensive) interference filters.  That's particularly important when doing LRGB imaging.  With the L filter you're using all the pixels all the time on all the light.  That's a _big_ deal.

 

So a mono camera generally can give you the same signal to noise ratio with _less_ total imaging time.  As I said, just not intuitive.  You'll see long total imaging times with mono cameras because they're generally used by serious imagers who prefer even more signal to noise ratio, to saving time. 

 

Bottom line.  The chief drawback to mono is cost.  It's a more efficient way of gathering astro data, so there's not really a cost in time, much less 3X.  Gathering all the colors simultaneously seems like it should be more time efficient, but it's not.  The reverse is true.


Edited by bobzeq25, 11 April 2021 - 03:55 PM.


#17 terry59

terry59

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10,346
  • Joined: 18 Jul 2011
  • Loc: Colorado, USA

Posted 12 April 2021 - 05:55 AM

 

 

Bottom line.  The chief drawback to mono is cost.  It's a more efficient way of gathering astro data, so there's not really a cost in time, much less 3X.  Gathering all the colors simultaneously seems like it should be more time efficient, but it's not.  The reverse is true.

With LRGB it is best to determine how much red, green and blue integration time is needed to achieve your desired SNR (I take 15 x 3 minute subs of each channel with the 383L+/Tak....still working out the appropriate sub time with the 183M) and spend the rest on luminance. It makes a major difference over OSC


  • bobzeq25 likes this

#18 FiveByEagle

FiveByEagle

    Messenger

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 422
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2020

Posted 22 April 2021 - 05:34 PM

So, I will be doing this anyway. Regardless of the benefits of mono. It does take more time.

 

Integration? No.

Now, I know im not fooling myself...I know for a fact you will get more data out of a LRGB run than OSC run with equal imaging time. 

 

However, taking flats per channel, dark flats per channel, different darks per channel (if you mix and match gains and exp times...) yes. it DOES take longer and that is a fact. Especially if something goes sideways. (as it always does in AP) and you have to reshoot a specific color filter's flats and dark flats all over again.. and transfer files and re-integrate in Pi or APP. 

 

Sadly this did happen fairly often from a mysterious light leak that comes and goes in my flattener and so this entire mono era (Sept 2020 to now) from me has produced 3 images...

 

Comparing to when I was putting out 3 images a month OSC, it just sucks. It kills the mood and fun of the hobby and the whole reason I got into it. Taking super high quality photos of DSO's and cool **** in the sky... I got into this to escape my high-stress engineering gig during the day.. and when I moved to mono imaging started to feel more like work than fun.

 

Anyway... ASI533 sound good for an 800mm scope?


  • Lord Baltimore 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