CCD options

[zicklurky]

Hi! I'm finally pulling the trigger on a CCD, but I just can't make up my mind! I was hoping someone with some experience would be able to give me some advice. I'm going to be imaging with my Canon lenses, mostly the 200mm, I'm a bit of a wide field junkie! I've got it down to 3 options. I don't want to use filter drawers, so I need the integrated filter wheel.

- Moravian G2-8300

- Atik One 6.0

- Atik One 9.0

All are similarly priced. Moravian make a Canon connector, or I could use the TS adapter on the Atiks. I guess it comes down to the Kodak vs Sony. I do like the idea of super fast imaging with the Sony's, but the Moravian is a really solid CCD from what I can gather.

Argh! Decisions!

[Earl]

IMO if your planning on CCD and lenses i would choose one with the dedicatd eos connections out the box, far less faffing. QSI is also worth looking at.

[swag72]

Just one thing to think about - With the CCD camera's you are looking at - Is there enough back space for them? The back spacing requirement for a Canon lens is 45mm. This in my experience has made it very difficult to fit a filter wheel into the equation. Perhaps with the Atik all in one solution it will fit? I really don't know.

I'm sure that you've thought of this, but I just wanted to make sure

The QSI is an excellent camera, certainly better than anything else I have ever seen in the build quality stakes - But, if you buy the wsg version (integrated filter wheel and OAG) there is too much back space for a Canon lens. You can buy an expensive adapter plate, but as far as I can see that basically takes out your OAG.

[RAC]

You can just use a filter drawer when using a lens. This should leave some space.

[pete_l]

The only advice I can offer is to make sure there is a UV/IR filter somewhere in the optical path. If you're planning on buying a mono camera, have you considered the possibility of attaching coloured filters to the front of the lens, rather than trying for a filter wheel? You'll have to refocus whenever you change filters, but it may be the case that normal 1¼" filters either lead to vignetting, or if you are using dichroic ones (or narrow band) they don't respond well to the rapidly converging light-cones of fast lenses.

It's something you should check.

[davew]

Looking at Zicklurky's question he has checked already what fits.

I have used a Moravian 8300 camera for 3.5 years. In that time I'm afraid I haven't found out if the back up service is any good or not. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your point of view, my camera has never broken down !

Both Moravian and QSI have built in filter wheels. They can if you wish have OAGs and external wheels. They both have Canon adapters built for their cameras and they also both have Nikon adapters. Loads of space so long as you don't want an OAG but I assume one isn't required as it hasn't been mentioned.

One great advantage they both have is they can use the 31mm unmounted filters that are the same price range as the 1.25". No need for 36mm or 2" filters.

They will both work with F/Rs down to f2.8. The Moravian will work at f2 ( I know, I've used an f2 200MM lens on it ) but does get a bit dark in the corners !

The QSI costs £ 2775 plus £ 183.91 for the adapter. The Moravian costs £ 2088 plus £ 115.80. I realise money isn't everything and some will say the more you pay the more you get but they've never used or even seen a Moravian camera. I've used data from a QSI 8300 chipped camera and if you don't read the Fits header, you won't know the difference. It's every bit as good as the Moravian !

I won't give an opinion on the Atik cameras mentioned as I've never used one but have seen one.

In my view it's more a fight out between the Sony and Kodak chips. I chose Kodak because they're bigger, which has been mentioned in a few threads already. I don't use darks but a BPM although I've heard time and again you HAVE to use darks. The read out is quieter from the Sony chip by around 2e if that affects the choice. The Sony has less hot pixels but that doesn't concern me in the slightest. The KAF chip is slightly biased towards red and the interlines more to blue, again if that affects the choice. The Sony has a higher QE and smaller pixels. Could be good for camera lenses.

Flats with the 8300 have to be longer in duration than the Sony because of the shutter but that again has never concerned me.

The Web page for the Moravian is here - http://gxccd.com/

Their Facebook page here - https://www.facebook.com/gxccd

Any questions and I'll get back.

Dave.

PS. Just remembered. The Moravian adapter takes the clip filters for the Canon lenses. That way, if you have them, you can still use those filters with an open filter position. The QSI may also take them but I don't know.

[zicklurky]

Thanks for the help, very much appreciated! Yeah the 3 cameras I listed all have sufficient back space to allow for camera lenses. That is, without an OAG, but I'll be using a separate guide scope so that's not an issue.

Sara, how do you find the 814 sensor in your QSI compared to the 694 sensor in your old Atik? Do you find the smaller pixels make a big difference? What swayed you to go for the QSI 690 rather than a QSI 660?

Another thing to consider - I already have a full set of 1.25" mounted filters that I got for planetary imaging, and I'm not too keen to replace them with unmounted. Dave, have you tried mounted filters on your Moravian? I'm wondering at what F/R vignetting becomes an issue with mounted filters.

Thanks,

Chris

[davew]

They seem to be ok at f4 at least. I don't think I have saved subs at f2.8 with a 1.25" filter.

Fay uses 1.25" with her QSI and the two filter wheels are around the same distance from the chip. I have seen her produce f3.4 subs.

In fact QSI give you the choice of either wheel but Moravian advise 31mm. Makes no odds to me as the Moravian 31mm wheel allows me to screw 1.25" filters in anyway !

Dave.

[swag72]

Sara, how do you find the 814 sensor in your QSI compared to the 694 sensor in your old Atik? Do you find the smaller pixels make a big difference? What swayed you to go for the QSI 690 rather than a QSI 660?

I suppose that based in the fact that I image a lot at 329mm, the smaller pixels worked fine for me and also I could bin them at a longer focal length. Do I notice a difference? Probably not!!

[zicklurky]

They seem to be ok at f4 at least. I don't think I have saved subs at f2.8 with a 1.25" filter.

Fay uses 1.25" with her QSI and the two filter wheels are around the same distance from the chip. I have seen her produce f3.4 subs.

In fact QSI give you the choice of either wheel but Moravian advise 31mm. Makes no odds to me as the Moravian 31mm wheel allows me to screw 1.25" filters in anyway !

Dave.

Thanks Dave!

[zicklurky]

I suppose that based in the fact that I image a lot at 329mm, the smaller pixels worked fine for me and also I could bin them at a longer focal length. Do I notice a difference? Probably not!!

Haha, thanks Sara! Yeah I'm thinking with my short focal length that the small pixels may suit me quite well as well.