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

Final Decision: ASI1600mm-Cool vs ASI183MM Pro

  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 Ibuprofen200mg

Ibuprofen200mg

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 108
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2020
  • Loc: SC, USA

Posted 05 August 2021 - 12:53 PM

Welcome to the 1,000,000th thread on this topic, but just wanted to get some input from you guys to make sure I’m not overlooking anything. Both of these cameras can be had now for essentially the same price used, which I’m locked into for budget reasons. I will be using one of these with my Nikkor ai-s 180 ED. I also have the 300 mm f/4.5 ED but will likely stick to the 180 as my mount is better suited to wide field. I already have the ZWO Nikon adapter with filter drawer and a 7nm Ha filter with 2” to 1.25” adapter. I will mounting this on my Star Adventurer and guiding with the 120MM mini.

I understand that the pixel scale and detail will be better on the 183 MM (2.75”/pix) but I like the wider FOV of the 1600 MM (4.35”/pix) I have seen some really nice wide field images at ~4”/pix and higher...practically is this a huge difference? Also in terms of S/N ratio the 1600MM would seem to to have an advantage with its larger pixels, allowing for shorter subs. I’m shooting in Bortle 7/8 skies so ideal subs for both to swamp read noise would be less than 3 minutes...so really not a huge issue?

I’m also not perturbed by the lack of RAM buffer in the 1600MM-cool as I will be running all USB 3.0 connections.

What would you do?

Thanks in advance!

#2 bobzeq25

bobzeq25

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 25,953
  • Joined: 27 Oct 2014

Posted 05 August 2021 - 01:31 PM

I'd get the 183MM (and I did <smile> ).  Much more modern camera, no microlensing artifacts, as on the 1600.

 

In Bortle 7-8, 180mm, F4.5, broadband, I'd expect 30 - 45 second subs would be fine, even with the tiny pixels.  Narrowband could be done with those 3 minute subs.

 

The 183 is a niche camera, it's niche is short fast optics.  The 180mm (even the 300mm) qualifies.  I got mine for my 400mm F2 C8 RASA.

 

All that said, if the wider field is a main consideration, the 1600 is a reasonable choice. 


Edited by bobzeq25, 05 August 2021 - 01:36 PM.

  • dswtan and OldManSky like this

#3 OldManSky

OldManSky

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,469
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2019
  • Loc: Valley Center, CA USA

Posted 05 August 2021 - 01:36 PM

I got the 183mm as well.  Microlensing artifacts was an issue.  4"/pixel scale was too rough for me.

It's been a great camera on my short refractors.

 

I just recently added an ASI2600MC-Pro (APS-C sized, bigger 3.76 micron pixels).  Planning to keep both cameras, one for mono, one for OSC.



#4 Sean1980

Sean1980

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 52
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2020

Posted 05 August 2021 - 01:44 PM

Had the 183MC and now have the 183MM. Running it with a 345mm fl scope at 4.7 in similarly bortle 7/8 and I am loving it. No experience with the 1600

#5 ChrisWhite

ChrisWhite

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,192
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2015
  • Loc: Northeast USA

Posted 05 August 2021 - 10:07 PM

183 is my preference. I'm not a fan of the Panasonic M chip found in the 1600.


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