6 replies to this topic

[JWP2]

The appeal of the AA+ for simple EAA enjoyment on my Alt/Az SE-8 is that I don't need to bring a laptop into the field.  Which camera should I get? In scouring CN, many say the 224MC will not be a long-term satisfactory camera, on the other hand, that the 294MC has serious vignetting (GaxzingOli).   As a visual guy, I enjoy observing the spectrum of available objects, so I use the SE-8 with and without the focal reducer.   I am thinking the camera would mostly be used for the DSO's that fit my FOV; color (and cost) are important to me.   Your thoughts are appreciated.

John

[steveincolo]

The appeal of the AA+ for simple EAA enjoyment on my Alt/Az SE-8 is that I don't need to bring a laptop into the field.  Which camera should I get? In scouring CN, many say the 224MC will not be a long-term satisfactory camera, on the other hand, that the 294MC has serious vignetting (GaxzingOli).   As a visual guy, I enjoy observing the spectrum of available objects, so I use the SE-8 with and without the focal reducer.   I am thinking the camera would mostly be used for the DSO's that fit my FOV; color (and cost) are important to me.   Your thoughts are appreciated.

John

With a C8 on alt-az and the AA+, the uncooled ASI533MC would be the obvious choice. 

[alphatripleplus]

.... Or perhaps a 585MC, which has a smaller sensor than the 533, but larger than the 224.

[Mark Lovik]

Both the suggested cameras mentioned above are good.  They will work much better with the 0.63 reducer. 

• You will not get better seeing limited resolution at F/10 compared to F/6.3.  
• You really want the speed improvement you get with the reducer -- unless you like EAA in the slow lane
• The reducer should provide a flatter field - this is mainly an issue with the larger '533

[GazingOli]

as far as I remember, I wrote about serious vignetting in reference with rhe C6 and the ASI294, especially when reduced to f/6.3. With the C8 @f/6.3, the vignetting can be handled easily by applying flats. 

 

So far, the ASI294 is the camera I prefer for the C8 because it is very sensitive, thanks to its big pixels and it provides the biggest FOV you can get with the C8.

 

That is why I even did not try to use the ASI533 with the C8, even though I think it should work quite well, too.

 

CS.Oli

Edited by GazingOli, 02 December 2023 - 02:10 AM.

[JWP2]

Guys, thank you ALL for the valued replies; it is just what I needed to focus me.  Oli, I was not paying close enough attention; in my need to reach a yes/no about the 294 on an SCT I latched onto your earlier reply to a poster with a 294 /SCT question and completely missed the aperture difference.  Mark, thanks for the note on the importance of the FR.
CS, John

[Mark Lovik]

as far as I remember, I wrote about serious vignetting in reference with rhe C6 and the ASI294, especially when reduced to f/6.3. With the C8 @f/6.3, the vignetting can be handled easily by applying flats. 

 

So far, the ASI294 is the camera I prefer for the C8 because it is very sensitive, thanks to its big pixels and it provides the biggest FOV you can get with the C8.

 

That is why I even did not try to use the ASI533 with the C8, even though I think it should work quite well, too.

 

CS.Oli

The 294 seems like a great SCT camera at F/6.3 (and F/10 from your results).  It has a 0.75 pixel scale and does a nice job of working in the SCT/reducer field of view.

 

• I only avoided the 294 because of the irritations a friend had with this camera.  A big part of the problem can be handled with good darks and flats.  This was a personal choice for me.
• The 2600 (or 533) was purchased for my main imaging refractor last year.  I really like the camera .. just figured I would run at F/6'ish on my 8" SCT until I had a better solution.
  • This is about the same pixel scale as my original 178mc camera with dual reducers running around F/4.  
  • It's not blindingly fast but works well.
• Running the SCT at F/4.23 with the 2600 is a perfect fit for me.
  • I just need to clip the field of view (SharpCap's ROI mode) to 533 pixel size. 
  • This provides a maximum field of view of  0.8 degrees.  This is mostly limited by the scope.
  • The resulting pixel scale is 0.9"
  • My experience is the Starizona Night Owl image is cleaner than using the standard .63 reducers.  I suspect the 0.63 Starizona Reducer would provide similar performance and effective field of view.

Edited by Mark Lovik, 03 December 2023 - 07:42 PM.