The new Atik camera compared against a good Canon

[DrRobin]

Hi,

I have an Atik16HRC and bought a Canon 600D last year. Since that time the Atik hasn't been used, I think it is mostly down to the number of pixels than anything else, so I have been thinking about one of the new Atik's, E.g.

Atik 428EX

Atik 450L

Atik 460EX

Atik 490EX

I should say I am looking at OSC and know the 490 is really new.

I was wondering how these models compare against each other for sensitivity and noise and also a comparison against my DSLR. Clearly, I won't get the same resolution or even chip size (therefore FoV) as the Canon, but I am hopeful of shorter exposure times or less noise. Has anyone any experience, before I shell out on a new camera?

Robin

[pete_l]

I've yet to be convinced that more pixels is a good thing. Even with a "full size" HD monitor, the screen only has a measly 2 megapixels, so for a camera to have more than that - sometimes many, many times more - seems a waste. I realise that you can crop a large image down and with (say) 6 or 10 MPix that still gives you a good sized image, but most astronomical targets aren't that small so even when cropped, the image is still pretty large.

I tend to place more importance on other factors: noise, pixel size and OSC vs Mono than on raw pixel counts.

[Uranium235]

Maybe I could just nudge you back in the direction of mono? As you will gain resolution being as you are using every pixel (and it means you can do narrowband).

In regard to senisivity, any decent CCD would easily beat a DSLR without breaking a sweat in terms of sensitivity, but more importantly - there is a lot less noise. Noise is the enemy, and the tool for the job is a cooled CCD camera. And in the summer it will be a massive help, you can run the Atik at -10 or -15 while the DSLR would be sweating its taters off at about +20 (and generating loads of noise in the process).

To find more in depth information, you should be able to find the datasheets for each chip via google. Apart from the 490, there isnt that much "real world" information about it yet.

[riklaunim]

For color QHY8L is the king. You get the APS-C sensor size (like in a DSLR) while cooling and a quite good Sony CCD gives you low noise, and good sensitivity. Other option is mono - Atik 314L+ or something bigger from the Atik line. 383 with the KAF sensor is bigger, but not as good as 314L+ (so you pick either frame size or sensor performance). Some of the latest 4XX Atiks have biggest Sony mono CCDs that are also good, but usually much more expensive than 383

[Steve 1962]

For me, stepping up from a modded Canon 1000d to a mono 460ex has been an absolute revelation. Matched to right scope you can image small galaxies at reasonable resolution in lrgb and fit most of the bigger dso's in narrow band - even in almost full moon .... And if you fancy even more of a challenge with bigger targets - mosaics.

To me ; mono gives so much flexibility and the low noise and sensitivity of these Sony chips makes them just a joy to use.

[ollypenrice]

How are you defining resolution? The only useful formal definition in astronomy is arcseconds per pixel and going below 2 is unlikely to bring any benefit because it will be smeared out by the atmosphere on most nights. Many UK imagers say that 2.5 is nearer the mark. There is a price to pay in going below these limits; small pixels don't collect as much light as big ones so you are losing on the critical issue of signal to noise.

Then there is sensor size. Bigger is better if the target demands it and the telescope can iluminate the FOV without distortion.

My own overriding (but informal!) definition of resolution is 'how much can I see in the picture?' and here a CCD will totally outperform a DSLR. How big or small the pixels are will be trivial in comparison with the improved sensitivity and S/N ratio of a proper astronomlical camera.

I haven't used all the cameras on your list but I've used the Atik 16ic, mono and colour, the 320E mono, the 16HR mono, the 4000 mono and OSC, the 460 mono and the 11000 mono. Not surprisingly the Sony chips are far cleaner and more sensitive but calibration does clean up the Kodaks. The 460 is a real stunner in my book. It has a decent chip size, the pixels can handle most focal lengths (you can bin at very long FLs even in luminance), it is physically small and the build quality distinguishes it very clearly from QHY offerings. I don't have a 460 but I've used three brought here by guests and I'd have one like a shot for smaller targets. I'm trying to put this idea out of my mind!!!

In the UK, when half the relatively few nights will be moonlit, are you sure you want OSC?

Olly

[DrRobin]

Thanks everyone for all the good advice.

I started just looking at OSC as that is all I have had experience with, but can see the attraction of mono. The only real difference between a mono camera and a OSC is the Bayer matrix and the software, but I appreciate that taking in LRGB gives finer detail and probably faster exposures, certainly for the luminance.

So if I go the mono route then I need a filter wheel and filters. I am guessing you can use a manual filter wheel, or is a USB one really required? I am assuming you generally shoot say an hours luminance and then 20 minutes in each colour, so changing the filter round by hand wouldn't be such an ordeal, or am I wrong?

I use an IDAS filter at the moment, do you still use this for all LRGB, or just some of them? I.E, do you fit it in front of the filter wheel, or put it in the L filter slot only?

I have seen some bundled offers on Atik + filter wheel + filters, are these worth going for or is it better to select everything separately?

Sorry for all the questions, it is a new area for me and mistakes could be expensive.

Robin

[ollypenrice]

If the budget runs to it the Atik EFW2 is nice - but it is a luxury rather than an essential. (If you are mobile a manual would mean one fewer cable.) I used manual until very recently when I switched to 2 inch filters. The bundled deals are good. The better Baader LRGB and Ha filterset is superb.

Olly

[DrRobin]

Thanks Olly, very sound advice.

I have always like Baader gear and did see those alongside Astronomik, which I also like. I will need to have a look round the dealers to see what might be in budget in terms of camera plus filter wheel. I might even have a sale of stuff I haven't used in the last 12 months to help soften the blow.

Robin

[Uranium235]

You could save a bit of cash by just using the manual FW. Its good practice to re-focus after filter changes, so you will be at the scope anyway to do it (unless you have remote focus too).

First filter to get? Ha of course it will be your most used filter by far.

[DrRobin]

Thanks.

I don't mind getting up out of my chair to spin a filter wheel round now and again, so will probably opt for a manual in the first instance. I do have a USB focus for both of my scopes, it is a home built Sharpsky unit, works very well, and has both ASCOM and small handset on a long cable.

With my LRGB and Ha for that matter do I fit my IDAS LP filter in front or is not required?

Robin

[earth titan]

Started looking at mono, then ISC then back to mono. I wanted to buy a CCD to combat the noise from my Canon, which was holding back my imaging.

I went for the 314 mono in the end and I have to say, I would rather sell my 1st born, rather than go back to a DSLR.

As for OSC? I did consider long and hard but went for mono in the end so I could do narrowband. Having tried it I can report that it is much faster than DSLR, as the camera is soooooo quick and virtually noiseless.

I have fitted a light pollution filter in the end of the camera adaptor nose piece. It had made a big difference, reducing down the reds and keeping a good signal balance.

Typed by me on my fone, using fumms... Excuse eny speling errurs.

[Uranium235]

Is your IDAS filter 1.25"? If so, then you can use that as your L filter. RGB filter sets (like Baader) have a green/red gap which cuts out the most common forms of LP (Hg, Na), so you dont really need an additional filter in the imaging train. The transmission curves for Baader RGB filters can be found here:

http://www.baader-planetarium.de/sektion/s43c/download/Baader_Anti-Reflexions_LRGBC-Filter_0508_en.pdf

If its 2", then you will have to think of a different way of using it - probably on the nosepiece of a 2" adapter, or scope side of any reducer/flattener you may be using.

[RikM]

I have a 2" light pollution filter on the front of my coma corrector and leave it in place for everything LRGB+Ha. It doesn't seem to hurt much at all and I actually get better contrast in the colour subs. I use the Baader CCD filters.

[Gina]

Looking at the transmission curves I think the RGB will benefit as well as the Lum if you have bad LP from street lights. The IDAS LPS filter cuts more emission wavelengths from Na and Hg thn the Baader do with their RGB filters. OTOH with relatively little LP I think you might not notice the difference. I haven't tried the IDAS filter but that's the way the theory looks to me - HTH

I'm considering buying an IDAS LPS myself for objects low in the south where there is some LP here. Elsewhere in the sky there's very little LP. I've yet to decide if it would be money well spent Most of the DSOs I image are in NB so it's questionable - an IDAS LPS would only benefit LRGB.

[DrRobin]

Thanks everyone, your help and experience is invaluable.

My IDAS is a 2", but I also have an Astronomik light pollution filter in T thread and an older Lumicon Deep Sky in 1.25". I think I should be able to mount either the IDAS or Astronomik on the scope side of the filter wheel. I appreciate I won't need it for narrow band, but then again it won't do any harm if it is in the imaging train.

My two scopes are basically 2" focus tube, so a filter wheel that has a T thread on the scope side would be ideal as I have T thread to 2" adaptors.

Now just to put together a budget and work out which camera will suit me best, I like the idea of a 1/2" chip to keep some sort of reasonable FoV in my C11.

Robin

[steppenwolf]

I am quite in favour of using the IDAS LP filter for LRGB imaging and some narrowband imaging but SII will be attenuated by the filter. Ha and OIII, which are the most important NB wavelengths and can be used to generate false colour images in their own right or used to enhance your LRGB images, will not be adversely affected.

[kirkster501]

I am going through this thought process too. Seems mono is the way for me. In my case it's a choice between the 314 or the 460, I am changing my mind every day.....! I also need filter wheel and at least RGB filters to get going. I gave a 2" IDAS already. Not buying until end of July when nights start getting a little longer so plenty of time to think

Steve

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Richie092]

I am going through this thought process too. Seems mono is the way for me. In my case it's a choice between the 314 or the 460, I am changing my mind every day.....! I also need filter wheel and at least RGB filters to get going. I gave a 2" IDAS already. Not buying until end of July when nights start getting a little longer so plenty of time to think

Steve

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep, me too. Have been following this thread closely. Am probably gonna go for the 314L+ but there is a lot of enthusiasm on here towards a larger sensor.

[swag72]

Here's an interesting one for those looking at either a 314L or a 460.

I have taken M101 with the 314L+ and the 460EX to look purely at image scale. Would I gain from having both camera's. Well I think that the answer is no. The 460 gets you far wider AND you can crop to exactly the same scale as the 314L+ would give you and there's no discernible difference.

Thanks to AndyUk for doing all the PS comparison for me. The 314L+ image has FAR more subs about 7 hours worth at 900s compared to 3x300s with the 460EX. Also, the 460EX image has the reducer on the scope, so I can actually get an further 1.37x image scale to get the same size image as the 314L+.

Comparing these at this stage, I don't know what benefits there are for me and my setup to not use a 460EX, I get the best of both worlds.

[Coco]

Here's an interesting one for those looking at either a 314L or a 460.

I have taken M101 with the 314L+ and the 460EX to look purely at image scale. Would I gain from having both camera's. Well I think that the answer is no. The 460 gets you far wider AND you can crop to exactly the same scale as the 314L+ would give you and there's no discernible difference.

Thanks to AndyUk for doing all the PS comparison for me. The 314L+ image has FAR more subs about 7 hours worth at 900s compared to 3x300s with the 460EX. Also, the 460EX image has the reducer on the scope, so I can actually get an further 1.37x image scale to get the same size image as the 314L+.

Comparing these at this stage, I don't know what benefits there are for me and my setup to not use a 460EX, I get the best of both worlds.

Apples and oranges surely? would a comparison of the 314 vs 428 be fairer? if you had no camera and could afford either then the 460 would make sense keeping both would be great if you wanted to shoot RGB with the 314 and Lum with the 460 at the same time, only in your case a second Tak might be a little greedy

If you couldn't justify a 460 then a 314 would make sense over the 428.

[Tim]

I've just bought a 460ex colour version, i'll be posting a couple of images from it soon in the Imaging > Deep Sky section. See what you think

[Helen]

I love my Atik 460 colour

Helen

[Tim]

Yes, Helen has some excellent results from it

[Tim]

If you couldn't justify a 460 then a 314 would make sense over the 428.

Why so Guy?

I've had cameras with both chips in , the 285 of the 314L+ and the 674 in the 428ex. They are both superb sensors, and yield great results, but the 674 is bigger and better than the 285 IMHO. (I'm not just saying that because I got first prize in the Atik imaging competition with my 428ex )