Spongey

Duplicate post

The 268M comes with the following adapters as marked in red and blue: These are all the bolt on type, and (I believe) are all spacers except the end piece, which provides an M48x0.75 female thread. This can of course be attached directly to the camera as it shares the bolt pattern with all the items in the diagram. M48 to M42 adapters are relatively common so shouldn't be too tricky to find. From the images I have seen it doesn't look like the camera has any threads on it directly.

I couldn't agree more. If they were more similarly priced I almost definitely would have gone with ZWO, but that extra £400 is effectively a 'free' filter wheel and more. It seems that ZWO have done a great job at building a customer base among the community and are now reaping the rewards.

I can't say I blame you! I haven't got them yet, no. Based on their website they have got the Ha and Sii in stock, both of which I have ordered in 36mm unmounted. It looks like they have 1.25" Oiii Pro but no other sizes yet. I've sent an email to enquire about the Oiii but no response yet. Although, even if I do receive them this week I'm yet to have a camera to test them with! Cheers

Great first light for these filters! I'm guessing that you're no longer getting the Antlia 3nm Pros now?

Neither of these are actually 'tilt' plates, but it is stated as such due to a poor Chinese translation. The interface on the 268C is a dovetail type adapter that allows for camera rotation. The interface on the 268M is only the bolt on configuration. QHY provide an adapter in the box that converts this bolt on interface to M48, and consumes 5mm backfocus (see my above post regarding adapters included with the 268M). Otherwise, it is possible to bolt the camera directly onto the QHY filter wheel / their other bolt on accessories such as OAG etc.

There has been some discussion on this over on CN. TL;DR: There is some doubt cast over the published ZWO curve, and the QHY curve seems to be more believable (subjective, of course)

I remember reading at same point that QHY have confirmed that there is only one version of this (IMX 571) sensor (can't find a source right now, sorry).

It comes down to what 'correct' spacing is for you and your set up. As I linked above QHY provide spacers for M48 55mm backfocus systems. I'm unsure of what is included with the ZWO camera. Each circumstance is different and every setup has different requirements. The best course of action would be to figure out what you need, and then look at the options and who provides what.

That is a fair assumption and understandably frustrating in your circumstances. However, I think it is a positive design decision as the additional backfocus will certainly help some people with their systems, and also allows the filters to be placed closer to the sensor, allowing e.g. the use of 36mm filters for moderately fast optics.

This is true, and I apologise if I didn't make those assumptions clear in my comment. It sounds like you have a more specialised case though, and may require custom adapters

The QHY268M will be shipped with all adapters necessary to reach 55mm backfocus, when using one of the QHY filter wheels (source).

Now listed on ModernAstronomy's website. It states that stock will be arriving every week so looks like production of this camera is ramping up! EDIT: Looks like Sam got there just before me

I have been discussing with Bernard from Modern Astronomy, and have a place in line for the 268M. I've yet to actually part with the funds, as it is yet to be put on the website. I believe Astrograph and Modern Astronomy are the only UK based QHY vendors. The pre order price is valid until January 31st. I've yet to see the 2600MM available to pre-order in the UK (TS have it on their website but it looks incredibly expensive!). It is a very tempting camera...

Another way to evaluate how 'accurate' the tool may be in potentially 'creating' detail is to compare the image with one taken with a larger aperture scope. I've taken this image for reference and copied below for comparison (shot with a 304mm scope). I appreciate that this is not the best comparison as the reference image is narrowband, and looks like it has been through a fair share of noise reduction itself.

This is a good point and it has led me to clarify my thoughts somewhat. I would never try to 'create' detail in an image that would or could never be there in the first place. As you say, gear has fundamental limits and detail beyond that is simply not achievable. I suppose my stance is similar to Richard's above. By definition, de-noising is only destructive and that is fine to me. In theory, one would never require de-noising should they have enough data with a theoretical perfect camera. How de-noise is applied, whether that be via AI or regularly, is semantics. This is of course assuming that the AI does not create some structure in something that isn't there, by selectively processing certain parts of the image based on what it thinks should be there. I suspect that there is some aspect of this in the de-noise AI software, but it is hard to know. It is a fine line and one that would require detailed analysis of the workings of the program to hash out, which can't / won't happen. Thanks for that, I've put together this comparison: To my eye, both the de-noise and sharpening look like they could be adding 'detail' that isn't present in the original. I suppose that at the end of the day, it is a tool in the astrophotographers toolbox that must be applied with full understanding that any undisclosed, AI-based processes may well destroy the integrity of the data, when compared to a more traditional method of noise reduction or sharpening such as a wavelet based approach. An interesting test would be to apply the tool to a stack of say, 10 subs, and to compare the result with an unmodified stack of 100 subs. That would be a good method in quantifying the destructive property of the tool. EDIT: Updated image with sharpen only.

Agreed, providing the author is up front and honest with whatever processes or steps (s)he has taken to produce the image, then I have no problem. If people were claiming that some structure was present when in fact it is an artefact of software, then I would take issue. However, I don't think many people would do that, and at the end of the day, we're (or at least I am) in the business of taking pretty pictures, not performing scientific analysis on structural detail.

I'd be interested in the output of the tool with only denoise functionality, if you could do such a test?

It has certainly done more than just denoising, there appears to be some selective sharpening too. Whether or not that detail is really there or is a product of the AI aspect of the software is another question. Regardless of the answer, the final result makes for a truly stunning image. Cheers

If it's any help I run my CEM40 through NINA (no hand controller). You can do this either with the ASCOM driver or the native driver, although I use the latter. The native iOptron driver ustilises a program called iOptron Commander which on the face of it looks quite similar to EQMOD (although I have no experience with EQMOD).

Truly breathtaking. That E160 is proving to be a keeper!

That is a good point. In the latest crop of sensors (IMX455 and IMX571), QHY offer four different read modes compared to ZWO, who offer one. How useful these are depends entirely on your circumstances. If you image from dark skies you might benefit from the extended full well modes on offer.

In recent days they seem to be very similar in terms of quality. QHY are known for generally having better hardware and build quality, whereas ZWO are typically cheaper, but also have better customer support. This is possibly down to QHY being more scientifically oriented, and ZWO being firmly in the consumer market. The gap has certainly narrowed recently, and with this camera, QHY are in fact cheaper. Driver issues with QHY are pretty much a thing of the past from what I have heard.

Have you heard from 365Astronomy regarding an ETA for these? Cheers

They said in a Facebook post that the first units may ship in Feb, but without placing a pre-order you're not likely to get your hands on one until March / April I expect