Spongey

I have ordered the QHY 268M for similar reasons to those mentioned above, but primarily availability and price. 

If the two cameras were the same price then I probably would have gone with the ZWO, but £400 is a significant chunk. If I end up needing a USB hub then I'm sure the savings from the camera will cover it 

Considering both of these cameras are based on their colour counterparts, one other thing possibly worth noting is the issues with residue on the 2600MC sensor due to grease used in manufacture. I haven't heard of any similar issues with the 268C.

Duplicate post

1 hour ago, gorann said:

So now I have one on order 🥴 and need to find out how to attach it to my telescopes. I will use it on the RASA 8 so there I need a female T2 thread and then I want to use it with a filter wheel on my Meade 14" ACF, but I think I will stear away from the bolted wheel and rather want to screw on the filter wheel on a M48 or T2 thread so I do not need to take the wheel apart and unscrew all those small screws to get it onto my RASA. So I am thinking about a Starlight Xpress  5x2" wheel. How do you know that the camera comes with an M48 adapter? On the OPT and QHY sites it says Female M54x.75.

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.

Just now, SamAndrew said:

Shame the ZWO version is £400 more, the usb hub is a nice feature.

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. 

6 minutes ago, emyliano2000 said:

Who can say no to chroma? Alastair was too kind to sell them to me 🙂

Zoltan wasn't very happy when I told him. Did you get yours yet? He rang me after I told him I won't get them anymore and he said that he has the Ha and Sii but the Oiii will come at a later date?

Emil

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? 

5 minutes ago, gorann said:

I am also very tempted and a bit confused. The tilt plate (as seen on the QHY site) looks different between the M and C models - does anyone know why and what consequence it may have for adjusting tilt. I worry that it cannot be adjusted without removing the camera, especally on a RASA.

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.

4 minutes ago, DaveS said:

Interesting QE curve, peaking in the [OIII] - H-Beta region. Is that a function of the IMX 571 sensor itself?

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) 

3 minutes ago, DaveS said:

I don't know if it applies to the IMX 571 sensors, but according to the Astrograph site the ASI 6200 uses the cheaper "C" (Consumer) grade sensor while the QHY 600 uses the more expensive "K" (Industrial) grade. The QHY 600L, using the "C" grade sensor is "£500 less than the ZWO camera.

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).

2 minutes ago, smr said:

would any of this be easier with the 2600M ? I only ask because afaik the 2600C comes with the correct spacing out of the box whereas the colour 268 doesn't ? 

Just wondering if the 2600 M would be easier re spacing etc.?

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. 

10 minutes ago, DaveS said:

I had been thinking the QHY268M would have the same dovetail ring as the colour version, which has thrown my calculations into the bin.

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.

2 minutes ago, DaveS said:

Assumes: a) that you need 55mm BF, b) that you are using the QHY wheel, c) you need 48mm thread.

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 

2 minutes ago, SamAndrew said:

The QHY cameras don't come with the spacers required out of the box

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  

6 minutes ago, gorann said:

Has anyone gone for the pre-order of the QHY268M yet? How long does the pre-order price last? The UK price for pre-order price from Astrograph.net (1799 GBP) seems much better than what I can see on EU sites like TS. Is it only Astrograph.net selling it in the UK? Never bought anything from them. Are they OK? I assume no one has seen the ASI2600MM on pre-order yet. Maybe I am getting tempted.......

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.

41 minutes ago, Kinch said:

I will never get the detail with a 5" refractor that someone with a 17" Planewave will get....so I know there are limits.  Overall it is that challenge that keeps me going.

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. 

1 hour ago, Allinthehead said:

I've no interest in using a tool like this if it's adding something that isn't in the data.

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.

40 minutes ago, Allinthehead said:

This is with sharpening slider set to 0

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.

Just now, Kinch said:

But that is what is changing.....you will find in time that if you are the only one not using such a tool, then yours will be the worst looking image regardless of the time & effort you put in getting the data and putting your years of processing back into the final image.

For me....we cannot stop this ....but until is is more common and generally used, I would just love people to let me know that Topaz AI is in the equation somewhere.  

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.

Just now, Allinthehead said:

Indeed, I've just clarified that the tool does have a sharpening aspect.

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

12 hours ago, Allan the plumber said:

Yes have all that loaded into the Eagle Version 6.5.1  what I’m trying to work out whether I can run SGPro via ascom without having to use the  hand control 

it seems to hint that you can Like you can with Skywatcher via Eqmod just asking if anyone knows 

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!

20 minutes ago, Davey-T said:

Looking at the spec's of some colour cameras the QHY ones had deeper well depth than the equivalent ZWO versions.

Dave

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.

8 minutes ago, Starflyer said:

Thanks for that.

Any opinions on quality, ZWO Vs QHY?  I had a QHY guide camera years ago, the camera was fine but the quality of the drivers left a lot to be desired.  I guess for them to still be around they must have upped their game significantly.

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.

2 hours ago, emyliano2000 said:

Still waiting for mine. 

Emil

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

Cheers