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

1.25" filters size cameras compatible

  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 TareqPhoto

TareqPhoto

    Cosmos

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 7,673
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2017
  • Loc: Ajman - UAE

Posted 22 September 2021 - 06:22 AM

Hi all,

Which cameras are compatible to use 1.25" filters size without vignetting to minimal that can be corrected and without much issues of fall off or whatever?

#2 PiotrM

PiotrM

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,050
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2010
  • Loc: Poland

Posted 22 September 2021 - 07:28 AM

Edge cases will depend on f/ratio. Like ASI 1600 with a 4/3" sensor can use 1,25" filters but they state that you will get some vignetting if you go faster than around f/6 -  https://www.cloudyni...ther-questions/

 

Larger diagonals are rather not an option for 1,25" filters.


  • bobzeq25 likes this

#3 TareqPhoto

TareqPhoto

    Cosmos

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 7,673
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2017
  • Loc: Ajman - UAE

Posted 22 September 2021 - 08:04 AM

Most likely I will be shooting anywhere from F3 up to f6, I won't mention lenses faster than that, but I have one camera asi1600 I bought it last year and it is amazing, I found an offer to sell it or even my qhy163m so I can upgrade to 294 again and then I can use both 294 cameras, it is just I only have Astrodon and Chroma NB filters at 1.25" that I will never sell, and they are excellent, so either I stay with asi1600 forgetting the offer, or finding a newer camera compatible with 1.25", most likely I try to avoid ZWO cameras because they are more expensive now, I have QHY294M



#4 imtl

imtl

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 4,124
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2016
  • Loc: Down in a hole

Posted 22 September 2021 - 09:42 AM

If it helps then I work at F/4.3 with the ASI294mm pro and Chroma 1.25" filters and the vignetting can be fully corrected with flats.



#5 TareqPhoto

TareqPhoto

    Cosmos

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 7,673
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2017
  • Loc: Ajman - UAE

Posted 22 September 2021 - 10:10 AM

It helps only if I will buy ZWO asi294mm pro, unfortunately I won't, only QHY or another brand which are having deeper sensor location.

#6 bobzeq25

bobzeq25

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 25,978
  • Joined: 27 Oct 2014

Posted 22 September 2021 - 11:12 AM

It helps only if I will buy ZWO asi294mm pro, unfortunately I won't, only QHY or another brand which are having deeper sensor location.

That will likely mean you need bigger filters.  You're right on the edge.  This may be useful, but we're in "personal acceptance" territory, not clear right/wrong.

 

https://astronomy.to...ccd_filter_size



#7 klaussius

klaussius

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,420
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2019
  • Loc: Buenos Aires

Posted 22 September 2021 - 12:06 PM

It helps only if I will buy ZWO asi294mm pro, unfortunately I won't, only QHY or another brand which are having deeper sensor location.

I can confirm that QHY 4/3 sensors don't work very well with 1.25". I get considerable vignetting on my QHY 163m at F/5, which is the same sensor as in the ASI 1600, but deeper. Backfocus distance is the problem here.

 

Even 31mm unmounted filters have some vignetting. Good flats will correct it, but it's quite painful to work with, and not very forgiving at all.

 

QHY has changed the manuals since I bought mine, now they're recommending the medium filter wheel and 36mm filters. I can understand why.


Edited by klaussius, 22 September 2021 - 12:07 PM.


#8 TareqPhoto

TareqPhoto

    Cosmos

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 7,673
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2017
  • Loc: Ajman - UAE

Posted 22 September 2021 - 02:23 PM

That will likely mean you need bigger filters.  You're right on the edge.  This may be useful, but we're in "personal acceptance" territory, not clear right/wrong.

 

https://astronomy.to...ccd_filter_size

And what i can do with my high quality filters at 1.25" as i am not planning t sell them and i can't afford bigger one of the same quality??!!



#9 TareqPhoto

TareqPhoto

    Cosmos

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 7,673
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2017
  • Loc: Ajman - UAE

Posted 22 September 2021 - 02:25 PM

I can confirm that QHY 4/3 sensors don't work very well with 1.25". I get considerable vignetting on my QHY 163m at F/5, which is the same sensor as in the ASI 1600, but deeper. Backfocus distance is the problem here.

 

Even 31mm unmounted filters have some vignetting. Good flats will correct it, but it's quite painful to work with, and not very forgiving at all.

 

QHY has changed the manuals since I bought mine, now they're recommending the medium filter wheel and 36mm filters. I can understand why.

And that is not helping at all because i am not giving up or selling my 1.25" Astrodon/Chroma filters then, sounds like i am forced either to stay with ASI1600MM Pro or buy an upgrade/replacement camera from ZWO only. frown.gif



#10 bobzeq25

bobzeq25

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 25,978
  • Joined: 27 Oct 2014

Posted 22 September 2021 - 02:48 PM

And what i can do with my high quality filters at 1.25" as i am not planning t sell them and i can't afford bigger one of the same quality??!!

Get the ZWO camera so you can move the sensor closer to the filter.

 

There is no magic solution here.  You're going to have to compromise on something.


Edited by bobzeq25, 22 September 2021 - 02:49 PM.


#11 imtl

imtl

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 4,124
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2016
  • Loc: Down in a hole

Posted 22 September 2021 - 02:51 PM

I honestly don't see what is the big issue with getting the ZWO camera. QHY is not some sort of a magical superior brand. They are both equally good for mass consumer CMOS cameras.



#12 TareqPhoto

TareqPhoto

    Cosmos

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 7,673
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2017
  • Loc: Ajman - UAE

Posted 22 September 2021 - 03:34 PM

Get the ZWO camera so you can move the sensor closer to the filter.

 

There is no magic solution here.  You're going to have to compromise on something.

True, thank you



#13 TareqPhoto

TareqPhoto

    Cosmos

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 7,673
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2017
  • Loc: Ajman - UAE

Posted 22 September 2021 - 03:36 PM

I honestly don't see what is the big issue with getting the ZWO camera. QHY is not some sort of a magical superior brand. They are both equally good for mass consumer CMOS cameras.

Not against ZWO, but their prices sounds a bit weird for same model exactly from QHY for example, i can get QHY294 mono for example cheaper than ZWO $200-300, so that is something to consider, but at the end that will be much much more cheaper than getting 36mm filters set anyway.



#14 imtl

imtl

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 4,124
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2016
  • Loc: Down in a hole

Posted 22 September 2021 - 03:53 PM

Not against ZWO, but their prices sounds a bit weird for same model exactly from QHY for example, i can get QHY294 mono for example cheaper than ZWO $200-300, so that is something to consider, but at the end that will be much much more cheaper than getting 36mm filters set anyway.

Well, a 200$ difference might be meaningful (not going into people personal finances) but if the device is better suited for your needs then it is something to consider. And getting new Astrodon/Chroma 36mm filter set will be WAY more expensive than a 200$ difference in cameras of ZWO vs. QHY as you wrote yourself.



#15 TareqPhoto

TareqPhoto

    Cosmos

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 7,673
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2017
  • Loc: Ajman - UAE

Posted 22 September 2021 - 04:04 PM

Well, a 200$ difference might be meaningful (not going into people personal finances) but if the device is better suited for your needs then it is something to consider. And getting new Astrodon/Chroma 36mm filter set will be WAY more expensive than a 200$ difference in cameras of ZWO vs. QHY as you wrote yourself.

Ok, i have to think about it and wait, if i sell my camera soon then it is not a big deal to go with ZWO version then, thank you very much


  • imtl likes this

#16 rockstarbill

rockstarbill

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,495
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2013
  • Loc: Snohomish, WA

Posted 22 September 2021 - 05:45 PM

Not against ZWO, but their prices sounds a bit weird for same model exactly from QHY for example, i can get QHY294 mono for example cheaper than ZWO $200-300, so that is something to consider, but at the end that will be much much more cheaper than getting 36mm filters set anyway.


Well the QHY294 is currently on sale as well.

#17 TareqPhoto

TareqPhoto

    Cosmos

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 7,673
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2017
  • Loc: Ajman - UAE

Posted 22 September 2021 - 06:04 PM

Well the QHY294 is currently on sale as well.

I have one, just feel greedy to add another if i sell my ASI1600 or QHY163M first, but if i let that ASI1600 go then my 1.25" will have no use and then no longer any ZWO cooled i have.



#18 bobzeq25

bobzeq25

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 25,978
  • Joined: 27 Oct 2014

Posted 23 September 2021 - 10:01 AM

Not against ZWO, but their prices sounds a bit weird for same model exactly from QHY for example, i can get QHY294 mono for example cheaper than ZWO $200-300, so that is something to consider, but at the end that will be much much more cheaper than getting 36mm filters set anyway.

QHY stuff is not always "the same".  Their software may be different than ZWO.  Their hardware connections different.

 

In my personal experience ZWO's approach is better.  I think ZWO things are more standard, QHY can be idiosyncratic.  I've had issues.  If necessary (their prices are often the same), I cheerfully pay more for ZWO.


Edited by bobzeq25, 23 September 2021 - 10:06 AM.


#19 TareqPhoto

TareqPhoto

    Cosmos

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 7,673
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2017
  • Loc: Ajman - UAE

Posted 23 September 2021 - 10:06 AM

QHY stuff is not always "the same".  In particular, their software may be different than ZWO.

 

In my personal experience ZWO software is better.  If necessary (their prices are often the same), I cheerfully pay more to get it.

I have no issues with all brands even non ZWO/QHY, so i won't make that as a big or main deciding factor really, and they came long way and technology is improving, they should have that already covered, QHY isn't a new brand, you and many might prefer ZWO in that side, but QHY isn't any less even with driver thing, and as i said, i don't mind ZWO, if it was at better price then i will not think twice, to me i have to think otherwise than just a driver.




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