Sony 694 v Kodak KAF8300 - Help please!

[Steve 1962]

Hi

I'm in the market for a Mono CCD camera as an upgrade from my DSLR for use with my f5 William Optic FLT98 and I'm going around in circles bewteen the Sony 694 and Kodak 8300.

I'm aware that the Sony chip has lower noise levels but I plan to take darks whichever camera I get...so I'm not sure this is a worry.

The Sony covers half the size (area wise) of the Kodak and it seems a shame to waste the wide field of the FLT98.

The other thing is that the Sony has a 140% (77%) higher peak QE than the Kodak (55%) so is apparently more sensitive - but the Kodak has 140% bigger pixels - so does this mean that the Kodak will "see" 140% more light? If so does this make the light collection of each pixel on the two chips comparible? (Does that make sense?)

The sampling rates of the cameras with the FLT98 are 1.89"/pixel for the Sony and 2.25"/pixel for the Kodak - so they're in the same "ball park".

The Kodak cameras are c£500/600 cheaper than the Sonys - but the Kodaks need more expensive 38mm filters against the 1.25" for the Sony - so the Kodak is probably £300 cheaper overall.

On the basis that it's bigger, seems to have similar overall light collection abilities and is cheaper - I'm tending towards the Kodak but any advise / comments would be appreciated please.

Many thanks in advance

Steve

[jjongmans]

The Kodak cameras are c£500/600 cheaper than the Sonys - but the Kodaks need more expensive 38mm filters against the 1.25" for the Sony - so the Kodak is probably £300 cheaper overall.

Can't advise you about the Sony because I only used the Kodak so far, but you don't need 38mm filters for the KAF8300. I have a QSI with WSG body (One body for CCD, FW en OAG) and I can use 1.25" filters without any problems, no vigneting or whatever. You just need to make sure that your filterwheel is close enough to the sensor.

Good luck with choosing!

[Martin-Devon]

Steve, both are excellent cameras, and it's swings & roundabouts as to which one may be better. I'd encourage you to have a phone call with Ian King to discuss which one may suit you best - he helped me a lot in my decision. Remember that the 383 has a manual shutter, this may not be a big deal, but it is a factor - make sure you know the pros/cons of this. You do get a bigger capture field with the 383, but also more noise, although as you point out good darks should get around this.

[Steve 1962]

Thanks Martin and jjongmans.

The consensus seems to be that you can get away with 1.25" filters with an integral filter wheel and OAG like the QSI, but if you have a camera with a external FW and OAG the resultant spacing of the filters away from the sensor means that some vignetting does occur . I'd love a QSI but the budget limits me to Atik or SX.

[Coco]

8300 has mechanical shutter , needs bigger filters, less sensitive, my 8300 had shutter failure issues which were resolved as have others.

The 8300 is still a wonderful chip and the 694 too but if I was buying into Mono again I'd buy an ATIK 4000 ... ie none of the above

[Steve 1962]

Guy - would you mind explaining why you'd choose a 4000 please?

Thanks

Steve

[Coco]

Guy - would you mind explaining why you'd choose a 4000 please?

Thanks

Steve

Big fat pixels for one Steve..

Atik 4000 7.4 x 7.4 gets to -40 below ambient

vs

Atik 460 4.54 x 4.54 struggles to -25 below ambient ( poor body design?)

I liked my 383L+ but dont want another camera with a shutter, I wish I'd held out for the 4000 OSC but didnt, yet I don't regret buying the 428 OSC over saving £800 more for the 460 OSC.

2.5K in my pocket now I'd buy the Atik 4000 OSC or SXVR-M25C

Tonight has been a rare occasion Ive managed over 4 hours of data, all colour, had I been imaging LRGB I might if lucky have done 11/2 of Lum and binned the RGB 1 hour each, the rest of the week is uncertain. Since moving to OSC I've actually managed to enjoy myself again, imaging has become fun and less stressful.. I may treat myself to a Ha filter now who knows

[JacobvonChorus]

I am going to get a CCD and have done a good amount of research. For a while I considered the 383 but have changed my mind to the 314L+. The reason being the number of problems I have seen with the 383. You have already heard of the problems with the shutter. The other problem I have seen is with getting the electrical input just perfect. A bad power supply or too low a voltage (something that happens after a while in the field) will result in a huge amount of extra noise. That's not to say it is a bad camera, I am just saying from what I have seen, it requires more work to make it function properly. After spending $1800, is that really worth it? The 314L+ on the other hand has all positive reviews and virtually no noise (and what there is stacks out nicely). It does not have the same field of view as the 383, not by a long shot but it seems to come down to quantity versus quality. I spent hours on CCDCalc and determined that at 400mm focal length, most objects would fit on the smaller sensor just fine. I also considered the 428EX but a recent increase in price has rendered that too expensive. The 460 and the 4000 both look very attractive. Both are out of my price range but if they are options for you, then from what I have seen, I would recommend both and let the decision fall to the resolution you want. With the 500mm focal length you specified earlier, then it is a hard decision since both camera would probably work just fine.

Jacob

PS. In reality you would probably be happy with any of these fine cameras, it depends on many factors and at the end of the day, I would just say to figure out what suits those needs best (though it can be a real toss up at times) and buy it and enjoy it.

[FLO]

Remember that the 383 has a manual shutter, this may not be a big deal, but it is a factor - make sure you know the pros/cons of this.

Comparing the 314L+, 383L+ and 460EX for use with a FLT-98. The 460EX has the highest resolution and lowest noise so wins in those areas, but the 383L+ does have a larger sensor.

some consider the 383L+'s mechanical shutter to be an Achilles heel. They might be right because it is too early to assess the camera's long-term reliability. But reports saying the 383L+ suffers from a faulty shutter are misleading. Shutter design and manufacture is highly specialised so Atik have chosen to buy a shutter from an established shutter manufacturer. We think this was a good move and they deserve kudos for recognising their limitations and spending extra for a proven shutter. Unfortunately the first batch of 383L+ had shutter-timing issues but it was not a mechanical fault. It was a software timing algorithm so was easily fixed via a firmware update. Firmware tweaks and updates are not unusual, particularly during the first few weeks after a product is launched and Atik did the right thing by replacing the dozen or so cameras purchased by early adopters. The shutters have been reliable but the timing issue with the first batch was used by one or two retailers to switch-sell a cheaper or more expensive camera. So the faulty shutter reputation has stuck. We sell more Atik than any other UK retailer yet have not seen a single faulty shutter (posting this on a public forum means we'll soon hear if someone has had a faulty one). And we haven't heard of power supply issues but that might be because we recommend using a good quality dedicated supply (that powers only the camera) whenever possible.

Personally, if I had an FLT-98 I would favour the 460EX. Or if that were over budget then the 314L+. But that is only me, someone else might give sensor size higher priority so choose a 383L+.

Jacob is right, all three will perform well so whichever you choose you can look forward to some great images

HTH,

Steve

[Steve 1962]

Thanks for taking time to post your comments guys.

Thanks also for a very thorough run-down Steve - oh yes, by the way, thanks for the coffee and mints too!

[FLO]

... oh yes, by the way, thanks for the coffee and mints too!

That'll be Nette and Lisa in dispatch, they are infected with Christmas spirit!

[swag72]

I had a 4000 v's 460 dilemma Steve and was wanting to add a larger sensor to my existing 314L+ setup. I have to say that I love the 314L+, it's a great camera, very sensitive and works a treat. It worked faultlessly for me.

Widefield the 4000 was a real beauty, the fov on the CCDCalc programme stole my heart. I exchanged many emails with Olly and watched with interest a thread that he did about comparing the 4000 and the 460.

In the end, the sensitivity won it for me. I spent a lot of time in CdC and decided that there wasn't many targets that would fit in the 4000 fov and not the 460. Also as I enjoy doing narrowband the 460 was much better. I didn't consider the 8300 chip as I didn't want to have to change my 1.25" filters.

I've had some teething problems with the 460, but I'm not convinced now that it wasn't a software issue. I think that it's going to be a cracking camera and when coupled with a reducer that I hope will work, imaging at about f4.7 will be fantastic.

I agree that the Atiks are a quality product and whatever you decide to get will serve you well.

[Earl]

Im in the FOV camp hence the 383 I see fantastic quality images from all the cameras, id actually like more FoV as I have a 42mm imaging circle on the baby Q

[FLO]

I had a 4000 v's 460 dilemma ...

The 460EX wins there too. It has smaller pixels with higher density so greater resolution, yet is more sensitive and less noisy than the 4000. In the real world you can acquire an image considerably quicker with a 460EX and it requires less processing. And having a Sony sensor it has similar characteristics to the venerable Sony 285 sensor (Atik 314L+).

It is also an excellent match with 1.25" filters whereas the 4000 can struggle with 1.25" unless they are mounted close to the sensor.

Can you tell I have chosen a 460EX for myself?

Seriously, the Atik 4000 is a good camera, Olly has demonstrated that, but it is looking a bit tired alongside the 460EX.

HTH,

Steve

[Steve 1962]

So , to summarise - four great cameras - all with strengths and "weaknesses" - thanks the advice everyone - watch this space.

[rfdesigner]

I have the 383L+

It doesn't like a saggy supply voltage. must be kept above 12V, otherwise extreme noise will result (I image with mains to hand.. so no problem)

Also the KAF8300 chips are noisier than they say on the tin.. expect 10e readout noise, not 7e. you might be lucky and get 9 or 8e... almost all other cameras on the market seem to be able to meet their noise specs, the comments about noise on this camera do not refer to this, most people would do well to just spot their camera is 10e not 7e noise.

RE: how low-noise to go. Olly Penrice will tell us that the 383 is very noisy and the Sony chips are so much quieter. However he images at I think F7 under very dark skys. I image at F5 under relatively-dark skys and I don't yet do narrowband. So readout noise isn't as big an issue for me as I get so much more skyglow per pixel than olly does, it's easy for me to swamp my readout noise.

I did a big comparison exercise going through the effect of bigger chip vs noise vs QE (and QE at differnt wavelenghts) and I settled on the 383L+. A month later and the 460EX came out, although it got a better mark in theory it fell down for me anyway as I image at 1500mm fl, so its pixels are just too small, and as I said I image at F5, so that swamps the readout noise somewhat.

If I were imaging below 1200mm fl I would be more interested in the 460EX, especially if I had supreme dark skys or long focal ratios

Derek

[Steve 1962]

Thanks Derek - I really appreciate the feedback.

So my decision is to go for the........ 460ex.

Reasons - lower noise, no manual shutter, reasonable sampling rate at c.2"/pixel, hyperstar compliant form factor (in case I go that way in future with my c9.25) and as Sarah has pointed out - I wouldn't gain much in the way of targets with a bigger chip. Maybe.

Thanks again all

Steve

[LDUNN1]

Steve, I went for a 460EX mono when I went from DSLR to astro CCD.

I had a difficult job deciding between the larger kodak chips on the one had, & the better noise control & sensitivity on the other, Sony hand.

I had read that folk with the latest Sony sensors were getting away without having to shoot dark frames - that appealled to me, & the 694 chip in the 460 appeared about a third more sensitive than the already sensitive chip used in the Atik 314 to high aclaim. Basically, the need to collect as much data as possible in the brief cloudless nights we get in this country weighed greater for me than the larger sensor size.

I also figured that Sony might come out with a bigger chip based on the same tech some time soon, & I may upgrade then.

As it happens, it looks like I might take the other route & by a scope with less focal length to gain FoV, & this will probably end up being a faster scope too.

I don't have much to go on to compare the 460EX mono too, as it is my first astro CCD, but I like it!

Rightly or wrongly, I also settled on -10c as my set point cooling - Atik claim the cooling is capable of -25c below amibent, I live on the South Coast of the UK, so I figured that settling on -10c, I can hit that on practically any night of the year, so I 'standardise' all my imaging at -10c. I also read some more experienced folk than me suggest that on the Sony sensors, as they are so great for noise control anyway, that there is little to gain cooling much beyond -10c .......but I have not bothered putting this to the test.

Good luck with you choice, I hope you are happy which ever way you go.

[Coco]

Rightly or wrongly, I also settled on -10c as my set point cooling - Atik claim the cooling is capable of -25c below amibent, I live on the South Coast of the UK, so I figured that settling on -10c, I can hit that on practically any night of the year, so I 'standardise' all my imaging at -10c. I also read some more experienced folk than me suggest that on the Sony sensors, as they are so great for noise control anyway, that there is little to gain cooling much beyond -10c .......but I have not bothered putting this to the test.

Ditto..

[Steve 1962]

Thanks Lawrence and Coco.....guess what arrived in the post today from IKI!

[LDUNN1]

Steve, now you just need to add some clear night skies - Congrats, looking forward to reading how you get on with your new toy ;-)

Coco - it's good to hear that I am not alone in the practice of standardising at -10c.......I read comments like "the Atik's only cool down to -25c below ambient", & feel bad that I am often not even using most of what coolings on offer when others feel restricted by it. My plan was to have one set of darks at -10c & be done with that, but the noise is so well controlled, that I don't think I've even collected those darks at -10c properly yet! ......must do that over xmas while I have some time.

[ollypenrice]

I have the 383L+

It doesn't like a saggy supply voltage. must be kept above 12V, otherwise extreme noise will result (I image with mains to hand.. so no problem)

Also the KAF8300 chips are noisier than they say on the tin.. expect 10e readout noise, not 7e. you might be lucky and get 9 or 8e... almost all other cameras on the market seem to be able to meet their noise specs, the comments about noise on this camera do not refer to this, most people would do well to just spot their camera is 10e not 7e noise.

RE: how low-noise to go. Olly Penrice will tell us that the 383 is very noisy and the Sony chips are so much quieter. However he images at I think F7 under very dark skys. I image at F5 under relatively-dark skys and I don't yet do narrowband. So readout noise isn't as big an issue for me as I get so much more skyglow per pixel than olly does, it's easy for me to swamp my readout noise.

I did a big comparison exercise going through the effect of bigger chip vs noise vs QE (and QE at differnt wavelenghts) and I settled on the 383L+. A month later and the 460EX came out, although it got a better mark in theory it fell down for me anyway as I image at 1500mm fl, so its pixels are just too small, and as I said I image at F5, so that swamps the readout noise somewhat.

If I were imaging below 1200mm fl I would be more interested in the 460EX, especially if I had supreme dark skys or long focal ratios

Derek

No, I image regularly at F3.9/328mm, F5.3/450mm and F7/980mm with the Atik 4000s. I use F7 the least of the three. At F3.9, when the seeng is very stable, I get slightly blocky stars which I process out reasonably easily. On nights of average seeing the sky does it for me! I also use Yves' SXVH36 with the full frame version of the 4000 chip at F6.8 and FL 2.4 metres. This camera can't be used in Bin2, which is a blow.

I don't consider the 8300 particularly noisy by Kodak standards, I just think it's slow. The OSC version is a disaster. As for filter size, the QSI has an internal wheel which cannot be duplicated by an external one. The QSI also has electronics and cooling to match its price. I'd consider one myself, certainly, and have used one in my Tak. But otherwise I'd call it a shoot out between the 4000 and the 460. I'm not enamoured of the 383 chip, really, and the shutter can be a pain. I recently had an SX one here which was full of black paint shed by the shutter, a problem (aren't they always?) now rectified. Only it wasn't and had to go back again.

My feeling is that I'd rather have the 460 chip quality and the 4000 chip size. It's that simple. I don't think the 4000 is long in the tooth, I think it's under rated. The square chip makes the most of the cheapest filter size and the light cone of any scope with a limited flat field. The TEC can almost cover the 4000 without flattener (at lord knows what price from TEC, bless'em, and you'd need a medium format Hasselblad to exploit it!)

When I imaged with the 460 I thought it was a real beauty, sensitive, quiet and well designed. The removable dessicant plug is likely to be a boon in the UK. It's first light for its owner contributed to a Pic of the Month in Astronomy Now which was a nice start. So, good decision. Have fun!

Olly

[Steve 1962]

So, good decision. Have fun!

Thanks Olly.

First impressions - the 460EX in the flesh is bigger than I anticipated but lighter in weight - it is a beautifully finished peice of kit. Mrs L thinks it's a lovely colour.

The weather here is rubbish - fog, low cloud etc. , but I've plugged the camera into my FLT98 in the observatory and it cooled from 0c ambient to -10c in about 2 minutes. The fan is quiet and inobtrusive sounding.

All I've done so far is one 10 minute dark at -10c.....and here's the centre of the very stretched dark @ 100% size in PS. I'm slightly surprised by the number of hot / saturated pixels, but then I have no idea what to expect - it certainly seems a lot quieter than my DSLR. Is a standard deviation of 4.37 OK?

Anyway - that's "first dark" out of the way - now then where's that clear sky for "first light"??

[Coco]

Thanks Olly.

First impressions - the 460EX in the flesh is bigger than I anticipated but lighter in weight - it is a beautifully finished peice of kit. Mrs L thinks it's a lovely colour.

The weather here is rubbish - fog, low cloud etc. , but I've plugged the camera into my FLT98 in the observatory and it cooled from 0c ambient to -10c in about 2 minutes. The fan is quiet and inobtrusive sounding.

All I've done so far is one 10 minute dark at -10c.....and here's the centre of the very stretched dark @ 100% size in PS. I'm slightly surprised by the number of hot / saturated pixels, but then I have no idea what to expect - it certainly seems a lot quieter than my DSLR. Is a standard deviation of 4.37 OK?

Anyway - that's "first dark" out of the way - now then where's that clear sky for "first light"??

Thats fine, they will disappear in the stack, Kodak chips are far worse.. I never use darks, only bias and flats.. treat yourself to a copy of Astroart V5 .

[Steve 1962]

treat yourself to a copy of Astroart V5

Thanks Guy - I'm going to take a rain check on Astro Art - I've already got an under-used Pixinsight license!