Andy274

Interesting that we were discussing this on this thread 2020/2021

https://astronomy-imaging-camera.com/news/oil-leak-issue-on-asi2600mc-pro-and-other-cameras.html

Confirmed my mistrust of ZWO & im so glad i went for the Altair 26C & 26M.

I want to state that this is in no way a dig at FLO as their support is not in question at all. 

29 minutes ago, tooth_dr said:

Because page 3 talks about oil leak on the 2600, calm down!

I did respond pre coffee 😬

I just can't be bothered with the partisan brand nonsense - that's my point. I'm not bothered if you're an Altarian, a ZWOmbie, or whatever the QHY lot call themselves. Just pick a camera that suits your needs.

If you're worried about the potential of it leaking oil - don't get the zwo,  if you're not bothered, pick what you like.

Not sure why my post from last yr was brought up,  all I can say is that I've had my Altair astro 26C since release & it's operated flawlessly. It's so good I bought the 26M too. Not heard of a single instance of any of the Altair or QHY flavours having this issue which suggests its limited to ZWO.

The partisan Altair, QHY or ZWO doesn't interest me really. I've found my preferred brand - not based on speculation, but based on fact & experience. 

Whichever camp you're in - cool & good luck, no hate here but happy to talk about my experiences if anyone is interested.

Cheers 

Andy

On 12/12/2020 at 09:26, smr said:

tbf the Altair 26C comes with Dessicant as well. Thought it was worth mentioning that as otherwise people might be spending £2k thinking it's some kind of magical astro camera which will never need them.

The price difference between the 26C and 2600 at the moment is about £90. Though the 2600 does have an offer on. 

 

No it doesn't come with dessicant tablets, sealed chamber & doesn't need them. I contacted the guys there to confirm

So I never expected to generate this kind of debate when I posted my musing - I can say after a patchy night of imaging due to fabulous North West England weather & a full moon that the camera is a game changer.  

There are lots of images taken using flooding in & in now convinced that it is not worth spending the extra £400+ on the QHY or ZWO offerings given they need dessicant tablets & leak oil in the case of the ZWO.

In Steve's xbox tv analogy I kind of think it's established already that altair, qhy & zwo are the Samsung, LG & Sony equivalent so all are quality products.  Your lucky to have received your series x too - still waitng on mine 😒

This is exactly the type of debate I was hoping to generate guys. I agree with Vlaiv, I don't think there will be much difference - hence the whole reason for the post. 

When my camera arrives & if we ever get a clear night I'll be out there & we'll see what's what

57 minutes ago, MartinB said:

Andy, you have asked about a camera which, as far as I am aware, is only available "pre order".   Any response is bound to be speculative and likely to include reference to what members have experience of.  It is also no surprise to find "partisan affiliation" from satisfied customers.  You have now managed to critisise the members who have taken the time to respond, FLO and a hugely respected member of the astro retail community.  Also you have implied in this thread the notion that members will be leaving in droves to another forum.  You have asked a perfectly sensible question so it would be a shame if the thread descended into rancour.  I am very interested to hear about this camera!

In what way have I criticised SGL members that have responded Martin? 

By partisan affiliation with regard to any astronomical brand, I liken it to supporting a football team - some people will only buy a particular brand etc, not in any way can that be construed as criticising anyone. 

No offence was meant to Steve, FLO or Ian, but I think I'm safe enough to describe my experience - im not in China or North Korea. 

I really don't want to get into the politics of brand bashing, not my thing, the post was started by asking an open & honest question - which still stands. 

The proof of the pudding will be in the images I guess, now all we really need to work on is a de-cloud machine. 

If we can all work on that we'd be onto a winner!

Cheers

Andy

42 minutes ago, FLO said:

That is NOT FLO's stock response. It never has been.

Ian first thought it could be firmware related so suggested ZWO support might provide some input.

It is normal for us to ask how the camera is powered because most apparent faults are related to power supply. Your camera was then collected and tested in our workshop. We concluded it was performing to spec. 

No. They are not! 🙂 

ZWO, QHY and ToupTek are not all the same. They are three entirely different and unrelated manufacturers. 

It is okay to choose the cheaper product. It is not necessary to bash other brands in an attempt to justify your choice. 

Steve 

That's my experience im afraid Steve, I did feel thoroughly fobbed off by Ian - asked 1 or 2 questions which I answered then bounced me to ZWO support. I understand that I may be an outlier with that experience.

The end of my post stated that I'll buy what's right for me & not because its any particular brand but because its what I believe will work. 

The whole point of this post was to ask for details in the difference between the 3 brands of camera so I could make an informed choice & so far nobody had been able to give me one.

Instead my post had been filled with partisan affiliation which frankly isn't helpful. 

Not the intention to rubbish any brand, but quite within my rights to share my experience on here - whether people agree or not. 

Cheers

Andy

21 hours ago, MartinB said:

Andy, you have posed a very interesting question!  I think you could do all the imagers on SGL a big favour by buying the Altair camera, get a few images in the bag and give us a report!  I have had a look at the specs given on the link you posted which all look pretty standard.  I see it states that there is zero amp glow.  If you are using USB 2 you might want to check about an in built data buffer which you will need if you want to avoid amp glow.  You might also want to check that your capture software will work with the drivers, I presume there will be a ascom driver available.  I presume altair make a compatible OAG, worth checking if you plan to guide this way.  This sort of camera should be great with DSLR lenses e.g. 135/200mm.  Does Altair provide the required adaptors and other peripherals to support this?

I have had a couple of poor quality CCD cameras in the past - unreliable cooling, icing up of the sensor / cover slip, unreliable drivers.   For the past 11 years I have been using a QSI camera, silly expensive, still going strong with never a glitch.  I have also been very impressed with my ZWO ASI 1600 pro which works flawlessly.  In fact I have now bought a ZWO MM294 to use in my observatory and my QSI has been put into semi retirement.

If this Altair can match the ZWO it will be very good news for cash strapped imagers.  I suspect there are a lot of people hanging onto their cash whilst the early adaptors test it out!

I have bought one Martin so will definitely be posting my images.  I have only had 1 ZWO camera - a 533 bought from FLO.  I had a cooling issue with it & when i emailed to discuss it - Ian King was dealing with it & the stock response from FLO was for me to call ZWO support - which was the most futile and mind numbing experience i can remember for a long time - their only interest was if it was powered properly.  Over a number of weeks this became intolerable until after more correspondence with FLO it went in for testing.  Not a great experience overall. 
I doubt i'll ever buy another ZWO camera again if im honest after my experience.

Ive no allegiance to any brand or company, i want to buy whats best for me.  Ultimately theyre painted components that are stickered up.  So if the 26C stacks up, then win win all round & Ive saved £500 over the equivalent ZWO camera & i'll let the partisan branding debates keep going on & i'll continue to purchase based on experience 

On 30/09/2020 at 06:52, newbie alert said:

Not ignoring the question,  just do your own research to come to your own conclusions.. but ask yourself why the altair is far cheaper, altair will sell far less than zwo , and zwo will outsell qhy.. surely if it's the same camera from all different suppliers then everyone would buy altair right? But they don't...

Yeah I personally believe its 90% brand loyalty & nothing to do with differences in the cameras themselves. I do know that zwo support were shocking - like properly poor. So I've gone for the Altair version. My friend is getting the qhy so we'll do a proper comparison & I'll post it on here - that's if anyone is left here from the exodus onto the new forum

On 26/09/2020 at 08:59, newbie alert said:

Different brands may share the same sensor, but by no means are the same camera ..

So what's the difference between the 3 then? Nobody can explain it to me to justify the extra costs for either the zwo or qhy units. Either because they can't or they want to ignore the question

That's my point really Vlaiv, are they all the same though? Hasn't there been a side by side comparison between the zwo & qhy cameras? They're both out currently aren't they? I can't see the Altair version being any different from the other 2 brands. 

If that's the case then it shows how much mark up there is on the others without any justification & that it comes down to brand loyalty in choosing. 

I'm confused by it all

Reading the Altair spec it looks like you can run it at 100 gain - which is CCD killer territory isn't it? Lower read noise, 16bit etc?

https://www.altairastro.com/altair-hypercam-26c-aps-c-colour-camera-16bit-6451-p.asp

Hi guys,  been looking to replace my ASI 533 with another camera,  was looking at the ASI 2600, then I've noticed that QHY use the same chip at the same cost, now Altair Astro have released the 26C. All the same sensor yet the Altair is significantly cheaper.

Can anyone tell me what the difference is between them & if they're the same, why is the Altair camera less expensive than the ZWO or QHY versions?

People will tell you horror stories of owning an RC - mainly due to collimation.  Ive recently managed to collimate mine using David Davies's process & couldnt be happier with it.  Its not as scary as people will let you believe.

Your cameras would be a great match for that scope too - to be sure - check out CCD suitability on astronomy tools

Good luck

Cheers

Andy

1 hour ago, lukebl said:

As the originator of this thread, I've only just caught up with the replies and many thanks for the responses.

After reading all this, all I can say is that I doubt anyone will EVER, EVER buy a Ritchey Chretien EVER AGAIN!

I know what you're saying Luke, 

They're a mare to collimate, but if & when you persevere &get it working - its a proper weapon 

Thanks Basilio,

Without a bahtinov mask I was getting as close as I can to focus I'm happy with.

The next challenge is checking collimation...which as we know is the big test 😱

Cheers 

Andy

10 hours ago, davies07 said:

Hi B4silio,

You have an interesting couple of images. Looking at the first one, I think the secondary shadow is biased toward the 3 o'clock direction and the halo is brighter towards the right than the left. In the image with star in focus, the star is also off centre towards the right. I would read this as a real effect. Going back to the first image, and as you focus on the star, I suspect you would see the right edge of the star image brightening and a coma appearing towards the left (9 o'clock) direction.  

Coma in the centre of the image is controlled by the pointing of the primary mirror, so I suspect your first step of pointing of the primary based to get the laser to hit the center of the secondary is not a good strategy. You could try one of my original approaches, above, of removing the secondary (carefully) and using a translucent screen to adjust the primary to point the laser at the central hole of the secondary spider. That would eliminate any errors introduced by  the initial pointing direction of the secondary.  Then re-attach the seconday and do your step 2. (Remember to mark the position of the secondary with paint marks.)

My final step would then be to check the comma on a central star at focus. I use Mataguide to do this. It's free but you need to use a video-type camera such as a ZWO. Alternately, you could use a high powered eyepiece and look at the slightly out of focus star. If the shadow of the secondary is towards the right and the bright edge of the star is towards the right, then the shadow of the secondary needs to be pulled towards the left. This is done by adjusting the primary mirror. You slightly tighten the left hand pull screw (the larger one) and at the same time slightly slacken the push screw on the left.

I have a saying "pull the secondary shadow", meaning tighten the primary pull screw to pull the secondary shadow towards that pull screw. And you must do things very gently with very small adjustments.

I think it is vital to eliminate coma at the centre of the field for good images. It is the primary mirror that controls coma. So it is the last adjustment you make (and on a star). The secondary mirror centralises the 'quality' of the image in the field of view. So if you have distorted stars in one corner, say, then it is the secondary mirror that needs adjusting.

 

I hope this helps,

David

David 

You should start a collimation service - just a thought. 

I've recently bought a 2nd hand RC8 & rather than do what some people do - buy one - struggle - then sell on, I'm going to persevere with it & want to get it as good as it can be. 

Unfortunately I'm not as technically competent (or brave enough lol) as i need to be to follow your steps myself. 

Great post & great resource for reference

Cheers

Andy

9 hours ago, B4silio said:

Hey Andy!

The reducer shortens the light path to the focus point from the secondary mirror to (hopefully) the sensor, so the stronger the reduction, the shorter the "real" distance. With the reducer at a distance corresponding to a .75x reduction, the distance from plate to the back of the focuser would need to be longer to compensate for the smaller shrinking happening inside the reducer. And if you have no reducer at all you'll start needing all the extender rings to get the sensor sufficiently far away from the plate (It would not surprise me if that was indeed the infamous 254mm you mentioned).

If you'll allow me some mad text-drawing skills:

• Sensor <----> 0.67x Reducer <-------------> Plate
• Sensor <--> 0.75x Reducer <---------------------------> Plate
• Sensor <------  no reducer  --------------------------------------------> Plate

The focuser itself can be anywhere on the right hand side of the schema, as long as it provides the proper overall distance. In my case I tend to push the reducer fully inside the focuser so that when screwing it in place I am not pinching the reducer lens, but this also allows me to have a bit of play with the optimal range of focus.

Hope this helps!

Basilio

EDIT: Added an actual drawing 

Hey Basilio, 

Thanks for this - I've been outside as its been clear & I've managed to get the scope in focus. Unfortunately I've got no bahtinov mask yet so can't get it dialed as precisely as id like. The collimation looks a little bit out but that's just a cursory impression looking at a de-focused star. I had to add an extra spacer between the backplate & focuser and I'm approx 50mm between focuser (which sits in the focuser) and chip. Attached is an image of the moon using my smartphone whilst it was up on screen. 

Again thanks for your help on this

Cheers

Andy

On 03/04/2020 at 15:37, B4silio said:

Hi,

This is my setup at focus, I'm also using the 0.67x reducer (which is pushed further inside the focuser).

I have exactly 85mm between reducer and sensor. The complete distance seems to be ~187mm for me (focus for H_a filter, pass-through would be a bit different).

I actually had to take out all the extension rings between plate and focuser as I could hardly get close enough for focus.

That is exactly what I'm looking for B4silio - absolute magic. 

B4silio that is exactly what I was looking for.  Much appreciated.  So if I wanted to have 0.75 I would reduce that to something like 50mm between the back of the focuser (by back of the focuser I mean the end closest to the camera) & the camera.  That 160mm from the backplate to the camera end of the focuser is crucial im guessing - but as stated by Fellside not so much between the focuser & camera - depending upon how much focal reduction I want.  The sweetspot for me would be between .75 & .63

cheers

Andy

HI David

yes, they confirmed 254mm which seems a very very long way from the back of the OTA

I'll give that a go Graham thanks

Andy

Thanks but that doesn't really help. I've no idea how far away the focal point is from the rear of the scope with or without the reducer. I've seen different images of people's setup (all different) but no lengths i.e. 1"Spacer-tilt ring-focuser- reducer-spacer-camera vs similar with no tilt ring etc. 

Nobody can tell me what the distance to chip is from the backplate. We always seem to need to find the answers ourselves as it never ships with the scope from the manufacturer does it. 

The hunt continues

Hi guys, 

I've just acquired an Altair branded RC8 carbon tube. 

I'm trying to find the back fucus distance to chip from the backplate on the scope. 

I've got myself an astrophysics 0.67x telecompressor. I'm getting conflicting distances - I'm being told 254mm which is a mile long. 

If anyone has a pic of their configuration & or distances etc - that's be a massive help

Cheers

Andy

56 minutes ago, Laurin Dave said:

I’d just put your 383 on your 70mm frac (what focal length) and see what you get.. pretty sure it’ll be ok in terms of resolution (I’d guess 3”/pp or finer which is perfectly fine, there are great images out there from Tak106/kaf11000 chip at 3”/pp) and  it will have a good fov for larger objects..  and with narrowband you’ll get small stars..  the alternative camera with the same chip size but smaller pixels is the ASI1600 but that’ll only increase resolution to 2.25”/pp which when looking at full frame on a screen won’t  be unnoticeable..  and on bright suffers  (depending on the scope) from microlensing artefacts around bright stars..  the ASI183 or equivalent will give 1.5”/pp but it has a smaller chip and the fov will Id guess be little larger than that with your 383 on the 110 scope..  

hth

Dave

I had a 72mm WO doublet that I got some great shots  on using that 383L. Its just being presented with new information that put me into a flat spin. 

Was ready to sell it & get a 183 instead... 

The FL of the Altair triplet is 432mm (I think) 

Thanks for all your input - it's saved me from a grave mistake as I love that camera

Andy

Yes that scale & I know its fine on the 110mm - it's the 70mm I want to use a mono camera on