CCD at 600mm Fl

[Anweniel]

The savings pot is officially initiated for a move to CCD from DSLR.

After some initial research and a few plays with the numbers and penciling a £1500 (ish) budget I came to the conclusion that an Atik 383L would be a splendid choice.

Numbers are one thing though and rarely things add up as you may envisage or hope. So I took stock from others real life experience of the 383L and am now reconsidering the choice and look maybe at the 428EX or 460EX.

I have a long while to think on it though and the 460EX is a much longer stretch at over a third extra over the budget!

My question really is if you were to make the choice to upgrade from DSLR to CCD with an (approximately) 600mm fl frac, 90mm aperture and were hoping to get working on some widefield DSO, what camera would you be considering? ( at a reasonably close to budget price range ofc!)

[Mike Hawtin]

I have the 428EX and it is a good camera but at 600mm focal length it would be working at 1.5 arcsec/pixel so you would also need a capable mount to image successfully at that image scale. In addition your maximum field would be only 37 x 50 arcmin, not really a very wide field. I think I would give serious consideration the the QHY9, not too expensive and you have the option to use the mono camera binned and still have a reasonable pixel count.

Mike

[Anweniel]

Thanks Mike.

I like the FOV of the DSLR and that was partly my initial reason for liking the 383L and the chip sizes are not too disimilar. I used the term widefield very very loosely I admit.

I see the QHY9 sports the same KAF-8300 chip as the 838L but at a good £300+ cheaper. So whats the difference? I am a little confused by the bold claim of a deltaT on the QHY of -50C but I would assume that this would correlate to a noise reduction whereas the Atik is slightly more modest boast of deltaT at -40C with a lower noise readout

This CCD lark doesn't appear to be so clear cut!

As I said if I punch in the numbers the 383L and presumably therefore the QHY9 fits the bill nicely. Its a lot of money to be putting into a bad decision so glad I got time on my hands as I await the funds to start accumulating!

You are right ofc about the 428EX and for that matter most of the Atiks until I reach a chip the size of the 4000 but that is blowing the budget right out of the water! Need to keep a sensible reign on that otherwise I'll just be having a pipedream

Think to be honest I've pretty much talked myself into the KAF 8300 unless anyone convinces me otherwise! Long way to go yet.

Think the guiding is close to sorted although as always a few things that can be improved - the scope is quite light and as long as the camera doesn't weigh too much the CG5 is capable.

[AlistairHowie]

Are you thinking mono or OSC?

[sloz1664]

The QHY9 has a good following. I know in the past QHY had some teething problems with quality & dewing issues but these are now well & truly sorted.

The quality of my QHY8 Pro is as good as the SX I have and has never let me down. On the contrary I let the camera down on many occasions.

cheers

Steve

[Anweniel]

Mono Alistair

And thanks Steve

[dmahon]

I have a 500 and 900 mm scope, both reduced slightly with the flattener.

I went for the SXVR-H694.

[Anweniel]

Quite a way over budget though

[Mike Hawtin]

I see the QHY9 sports the same KAF-8300 chip as the 838L but at a good £300+ cheaper. So whats the difference? I am a little confused by the bold claim of a deltaT on the QHY of -50C but I would assume that this would correlate to a noise reduction whereas the Atik is slightly more modest boast of deltaT at -40C with a lower noise readout

This CCD lark doesn't appear to be so clear cut!

I sometimes think we get too fixated on the capabilities of one piece of kit versus another, I know I have for sure but in my experience it's not the kit which dictates the quality of the final product but the capabilities of the person using it and my gear is most definitely operator limited, so my advice is not to get too hung up on cost and specs but just go for what you can afford and rest assured that if you are anything like the rest of us you will probably never be able squeeze it hard enough to see any meaningful difference.

Mike

[Anweniel]

in my experience it's not the kit which dictates the quality of the final product but the capabilities of the person using it and my gear is most definitely operator limited

Mike

Actually this rings quite true! Although I do like stuff that just works without me scratching my head for weeks!

[Uranium235]

If youve got 1500 quid then you may as well save up a bit more and get the Atik 490ex, that will suit 600mm very well. It has the latest and best CCD chip Sony has to offer and it will also allow you to 2x2 bin your data without it all going horribly blocky.

If you want a larger FOV using this camera, just get a smaller telescope (it works out cheaper than a bigger chip).

There is a thread regarding this camera in the sponsor announcments section if youre interested.

[Anweniel]

Thanks Rob I'll take a look

[ollypenrice]

I have my own ideas as to why QHY cameras are cheaper and I wouldn't buy one. I don't want to upset anybody (since in saying this I've done so already on previous occasions) but in my defence one of the best imagers on SGL recently described it as the worst camera he'd ever bought.

The chip is not the camera. The 8300 chip is especially sensitive to electronics so if you fork out for a QSI or an FLI you may expect to out perform a budget camera with the same chip. And you will.

The equation is fairly simple. For around the same price you can have the rather sluggish but large 8300 or you can have one of the much smaller, quieter and more responsive Sony chips. Personally I would factor in F ratio. The slower te F ratio the more my mind would wander from the 8300 and head towards the Sony.

I wouldn't consider the 8300 in one shot colour mode. I've seen one in action, though action is not the right word since there wasn't any!

Olly

[Anweniel]

Thanks Olly I've seen some of your comments on the 383L and the KAF 8300 although I have seen some good results from it. Again it may be a good or bad camera but in my hands it will be inevitably below potential as Mike describes. I hadn't questioned swapping out the telescope for something with less Fl - maybe even a telephoto lens? Until Rob mentioned it just.

This adds more meat to the debate I now have in making a decision! I guess it opens up the possibility of smaller chips.

Looking at the 490EX atm, certainly in my case, the extra money is a significant deal from £1600 to nearly £2200 - I want this to remain firmly in reality and not mere fantasy. This is something I will need to save and research for I don't have the luxury of just clicking buy when the notion takes me.

Certainly mono/osc is no debate for me I wish to go mono (for my sins!) this make a lot of sense to me. Being limited to moonless nights is another restriction I could well do without although I do understand the argument OSC I don't think its for me at least I am clear on one thing - hurrah

In some respects its better the devil you know and having got used to the frac I am still tempted to stick with it and try to match the ccd to this rather than vice versa - but I shall not rule that out.

[Earl]

Id look at the QSI options, with built in OAG, Filter wheel, yes it gets more expensive but its all in one package. they do a few 8300 based cameras, I personally like the chip as its is well suited to small refractors .

[davew]

I think a few people need to take a very cold shower here !

If a 490 is £ 600 over budget then a QSI camera costing a mere £ 3400 is a veritable bargain and we haven't even factored in a filter. I say " A " filter because they aren't cheap are they ? Then there's the price of the cellotape to hold that filter onto the front of the 490.

That said, I was sent a test image from a 490 yesterday and it's a lot nicer than the 8300 chip, at a price. It all depends on what level of financial ruin you can stand.

Dave.

[ollypenrice]

Yes, the QSI is very expensive and approaches the full frame Atik 11000. I don't think it's relevant to the OP this time, though it is beautifully made.

You can certainly take lovely pictures with one of the cheaper 8300s. Pieter Van de Velde does it all the time! (He uses fast F ratios, though. As I say, I think this matters with this chip.)

There are so many interdependent factors with CCD setups but, in truth, you can get great results when well wide of the theoretically optimal configuration. Our Atik 4000s were hugely over sampled in the Tak FSQ85 but I still like the results they gave.

Olly

[Anweniel]

This concerns me a little as I am imaging at F6.9.

[ollypenrice]

This concerns me a little as I am imaging at F6.9.

Well, F6.9 would be a vote in favour of the Sony chip but it wouldn't have to be a casting vote...

Olly

[RAC]

Astrofoto_Stefan On here does very well with the Atik 383L. He does have one AWESOME scope but its not fast!

http://stargazerslou...4565-1-tec-200/

http://www.astrobin....users/Stefan_S/

[ollypenrice]

Astrofoto_Stefan On here does very well with the Atik 383L. He does have one AWESOME scope but its not fast!

http://stargazerslou...4565-1-tec-200/

http://www.astrobin....users/Stefan_S/

This is certainly true, though Stefan often uses colour from elewhere. I don't know, but this may be because hauling in the data is a slow process. Certainly his 8300/TEC200 images are magnificent in the extreme.

The resolution of the TEC/Camera is incredible, especially for its aperture.

Olly