Jump to content

SBIG QSI AND MAC OSX

Liquid360

By Liquid360
in Discussions - Cameras

Recommended Posts

Liquid360

Liquid360

Posted
Posted

I'm looking to purchase a new, my first, CCD camera for DSO's. The salesperson is very fond of QSI. My strict requirement is that it must play well with MACs. SBIG is the only line I've found that offer MAC drivers. QSI plays well with Nebulosity and SkyX, but that's all. I've read enough to know that QSI and SBIG are both makers of very good hardware and that I'd likely be happy with either.

My problem lies in whether or not I yield to the expert salesperson, who isn't a MAC user, or do I just go with SBIG? Any other Mac people here? Please chime in!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 25
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Sp@ce_d

Sp@ce_d

Posted
Posted

I'd love to be able to run everything "Native" on Mac but sadly not found enough supported kit.. yet. So I had to give in & resort to running the Obsy on Windaes and remote in/ process on Macs.  :sad: 

StarlightXpress run on Macs too, although I've personaly ony used the CoStar autoguide cam on Mac. There are Mac drivers that NickK on here has developed for Atik too..  http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/192900-atik-osx-drivers-r100-example-app/page-3#entry2323410

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Liquid360

Liquid360

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I was advised to avoid ATIK cameras. I love the look of the new starlight express cameras, but despite the fact that my guide camera is one, I've been advised against them as well. For my setup he advises SBIG or QSI... I don't have enough experience to not follow his advise... but for good or bad the MAC aspect is VERY IMPORTANT to me, otherwise I'd just go with QSI. Sigh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NickMorris

NickMorris

Posted
Posted

The QSI will work with the Camera Add On that should be part of The Sky X Professional which will be included in your Paramount order (Im pretty sure anyway but please check).  Also as you mention, Nebulosity 2/3 will work with QSI.  There is also 2 apps on the Mac App store by QSI called QS Eye and QS Eye Lite which also work fine.

hope that helps,

Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites
thanders

thanders

Posted
Posted

If there's a MAC user here who uses QSI equipment happily using native Mac software, I'll go QSI.

Here I am!

I use a QSI583wsg-8 with Nebulosity on a Mac (OSX 10.9).  

I also use SkySafari Pro and EQmac to control the mount, PHD2 and a Loadstar or SSAG for guiding and the Rigelsys nStep motor focuser.

Everything works absolutely flawlessly.

Go for QSI, you won't regret it.

/Thomas

BTW, there is also an App for QSI on  App Store. Works but have not tried it IRL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Liquid360

Liquid360

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hope I don't hurt anybody's feelings but they're just opinions! Larry at OPT said as far as build quality goes they are at the bottom. They make decent enough cameras but not anywhere near the quality of SBIG/QSI. I REALLY don't wanna start anything so again this was just his opinion. I have no experience at all so I can't speak to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JamesF

JamesF

Posted
Posted

Never having had a QSI or SBIG camera in my hands I couldn't possibly comment on the comparison to be honest.  Olly P is very happy with the Atik cameras as far as I'm aware though and he probably works his far harder than most people get the opportunity to.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JamesF

JamesF

Posted
Posted

Perhaps it was unwise of me to make that post... but again it's just one guys opinion. I've seen some brilliant images taken by them! He might have meant simply that it was the wrong camera for my equipment.

I don't think it particularly unwise.  People have all sorts of different opinions about imaging cameras and if you're in the market for one it's useful to know.  I have a couple of Atik cameras and it's never struck me that the build quality wasn't great, but if someone reckons SBIG and QSI are significantly better then I shall take the time to compare some if I get the opportunity and see what I think for myself.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sp@ce_d

Sp@ce_d

Posted
Posted

I've got 3 Atiks. I've been very happy with them so far. I know some people find cooling may be an issue if you're in a hotter climate as they don't go down as low as the QSI for instance. An Issue I'd like to have... living in Scotland :grin: :grin: :grin:.

I've heard it from members that have had Atiks & moved on to QSI that build quality is better. I'd like try one with integrated FW & OAG.  It's on my list as my next CCD.

It's a bit like anything though that's built to a price. A Tata Nano and a Lamborghini Veneno will both get you from A to B. It's how you want to be got from A to B that counts. :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Liquid360

Liquid360

Posted
  • Author
Posted

What you said makes sense. I mean their cameras are a lot less expensive so of course they'll have lesser build quality. The goal I suppose to get what you pay for. I think the sales person was assuming that because all of the other equipment I was buying was top end that I'd be disappointed with anything less. That's not really true. I'm new at CCD imagine and I'm not looking to drop 10k on a camera. I want one that I'll grow into not out of and a top end CCD isn't necessary for that goal. He recommended the

QSI 640WSG-8, but I've been looking at the models both above and below as well. It's just so very difficult and complicated to purchase such expensive equipment having never seen, handled, or used it prior. All I have to go on is what I read here. The astrophotography "community" here in Birmingham, AL is... Well it hardly qualifies. I've never met anyone who's heard of a QSI CCD much less used one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sp@ce_d

Sp@ce_d

Posted
Posted

I HATE that I can't edit these posts! My typos bother me greatly! [emoji57]

 You will once you pass a certain number of posts.. it used to be 50.. not sure what it is now... 200 maybe? just keep posting :grin:

I think the QSI 640WSG-8 uses the same chip as the now discontinued Atik 4000 did? It's a square chip so is handy as you'll not be fussing too much for orientation. Its been around for a little while now. Thing is it's a Kodak chip. Not sure how much you know re differences between Sony & Kodak? Basically, Sony tend to make quieter chips but not that big. Kodak makes bigger chips but not as quiet. The upshot is that if you want sensor real estate then Kodak is your choice. Now its not just the chip to think about as the electronics behind it are key especially with Kodak. So that IS where it's pretty much general conciseness that you get what you pay for.

I like Sony chips as I never bother with darks. You will have to use calibration with Kodak. So with Sony you may have to consider doing mosaics where you may not have to with a Kodak.

Of course there's more to it matching your scope to the CCD too. If you go for a large chip will the scope cover the whole of the sensor for instance.

Checking your intended kit against the targets you want to image is a good idea.

There's some FOV calculators here:

http://astronomy.tools/

http://www.12dstring.me.uk/fovcalc.php

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kingboya

kingboya

Posted
Posted

The other option of course is to buy a cheap windows lappy for imaging outside. I run my deep sky rig (maxim, focusmax, cartes du ceil, eqmod etc) with Atik_314L and filter wheel and focuser all fine on an old i3 Sony.

Well worth considering if you want more brands available to you. Just my 2p's worth. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NickK

NickK

Posted
Posted

Hmm I suppose people would call be biased :) So probably can't give you a direct objective comparison :D

Every camera has it's price points and in the end it's the value it means to you. 

I have an 16IC, 383L, Titan and I've also had the use of a 11000, 4000, One 6.0, 314, ..... although I don't work for ATIK, it's my code that seemed to be the root of the OSX and Linux work.. I use a mac with OSX..

I've seen the QSI and it's nice looking - at the end it's all down to the performance. Not many people can give an unbiased deep and wide review on that unfortunately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.