Adam J

I think that statment deserves to be supported by some independent evidence from ASTROBIN or similar. Same scope and similar intergration show me a OSC image that is comparable to a mono image. Personally i think that its more that they are getting to rival much older mono CCD cameras as opposed to rivaling the current generation MONO cmos equiverlents. Adam

For short exposures (<10s) dark current is not really a thing to be concerned about, what you really need is high QE large pixels and low read noise, as long as the sensor has no amp glow as is the case with the more modern sensors then cooling is not going to help you that much.

Great image.

Higher read noise though and lower QE, I would think that the two smaller chips are more suited to very short exposures. You would probably also SW bin the smaller chips to improve image quality unless you find that the short exposures are allowing you get get under some of the worst of the seeing. Its not a terrible idea to use the DSLR as above it will not be illuminated but nothing is forcing you to use the entire sensor. Adam

It eats into back focus slightly but I dont think that will be a big problem with that scope.

Well the ES HR corrector is supposed to be fantastic at F4 so I am sure it would work well with the 294mc. But hey if you cant afford it then you cant afford it. I am sure you would be pleased with the 533 and it is worth trying the SW CC in my opinion. The come up second hand all the time so you would not lose anything if it did not work out. It will be quite a bit faster than the ES HR when you take into account the HR Barlow and the SWs reduction.

With the smaller sensor of the 533 you may also get away with the SW CC with its 0.9x reduction at F4. Not much but it gets him down to F3.5, unlikely it would be up to the task with the 294 though as its not really designed for F4. Adam

I think that the 533mc is a good choice for ease of use in live stacking. I would just have a preference for the cleaner sensor over the 294mc despite it being the larger sensor but it depends on what you want to view with it and if those fit into the FOV with the smaller sensor or not. I suspect we are talking about small galaxies and planetaries and globs? But if mostly galaxies then I would be going mono with very short subs to try and beat the seeing 2s or so as you wont get great colour rendition anyhow. The new ASI294mm pro is a good choice for that...pricey in comparison to a 533 though.

Yes an IR cut will probably be required so as to prevent bloated stars. You will find an adaptor to allow you to use 1.25 inch filters with the camera in its box. I really dont see why you would go with a 2 inch filter for this camera??? Its such a small sensor there is no need. I know its not a ASI533mc pro but they all have the adaptor included and all work in the same way. In the case of the pro you just thread it onto the black female to female extension on the front of the camera. I would just save yourself money and buy smaller cheaper filters. In addition to that all the T2 extenders you will need to connect to the scope are in the camera box. The only thing you should need in addition to what comes with the camera is the IR cut filter. Adam

So as little as 5 months later we now have an APS-C (IMX571) aka ASI2600mm Pro and a 4/3 sensor (IMX492) aka ASI294mm Pro to add to my original list. I would put real serious money on there being a mono IMX533 at some point in the next two years also as it just makes sense for that chip due to its none astronomy based use cases. Anyone still believe that we will be seeing less and less mono cameras in the future as per OPs comments? Adam

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/zwo-cameras/zwo-asi-294mm-pro-usb-30-cooled-mono-camera.html

I am referring to the QHY268m / ASI2600pro mono.

I think that for APS-C you would just be ok with 31mm filters at F6 but not much faster. To be totally future proof for APS-C you could go with 36mm filters, but I see no need for 2 inch filters. For the 294, 31mm will be just fine even at F4.

Lol did not give people much change to reply, but you did the right thing, the ASI533MC Pro is baring maybe hyperstar almost always going to be the superior choice. Its just so much more sensitive than the 183. Adam

From what I have seen they may be a step up from baader but a step down from AD and Chroma. I see oiii reflections but the others look ok. Put it this way I would not swap my 5nm AD filters for a set of Antlia 3.5nm filters.

I would think it will cost nearly twice as much as the asi1600mm pro so it's not really in the same market segment.

Sorry I said 274 above but meant QHY247c https://www.modernastronomy.com/shop/cameras/cooled-ccd/qhy-cooled-ccd-cameras/qhy247-aps-c-cmos-camera/ Adam

You should consider the qhy247 as it's more of a step up than the 168 if you can't press to the 268. Honestly I can't comment on customer service but beware of anyone commenting on it that has not owned a QHY as there is allot of badge snobbery in astro imaging cameras as is the case with cars.

The horizon would not be an upgrade in terms of optics in my opinion from your 72ed pro.

I am using the 76mm ZWO camera clamp at the back of the camera and a 50mm guide scope ring just infront of the filter wheel. Its not together at the moment as the camera is on my Esprit but ill take a picture when next i use it. Adam

I would say that 31mm is the way to go but depending on F-ratio then 1.25 may also work out. After that its just a question of budget. I would say Baader personally for buget filters, they are tried and tested. You will get OIII reflections but unless you are willing to pay the big bucks (AD / Chroma) that is not something you will be able to get rid of. Adam

Above is all I have done with it, just a quick test to see if it has any issues after purchase. I have yet to start my first full project with it. I will post here when I have something. Adam

Personally I dont see any contest between the two. The Esprit is a F5 FPL53 Triplet it wins hands down against the doublet. Adam

White wall are good. You will need to set your black point high though. To about 35 or so, their metal sublimation prints are great. Across the board it's very hard to see detail in the blacks unless you illuminate the print heavily and that leaves the image looking washed out in the mid tones. Better to raise them and aim for something that looks good under natural light levels. I have found that images that look good printed do not look good on the monitor and vice versa. I print at 200 - 250 DPI. Depending on the subject imaged.

No it only has a flattener to use with it. Focus travel is limited so most likely a reducer Would not work out.