Atik 460Ex or 383L?

[swag72]

I think the filters may be closer to the sensor on the QSI, Astrodon recommend 31mm unmounted but don't specify a scope focal length.

The filters are closer to the sensor on the QSI Dave, which is why, with QSI and Moravian, you can use 1.25" filters. Steve Richards swung it for me amongst a couple of others who use the 683 with 1.25" filters.......... If you are starting from scratch then I'm sure that unmounted filters as recommended would be more ideal......  but many of us already have 1.25" filters in the stable.

I am as sure as I can be that they will work fine with your system Dave - But you will need flats...... but they should be used anyway

[derrickf]

You can always check using the formula:

minimum filter clear aperture is approximately = CCDdiag + (DC/f), where CCDdiag is the length of the chip diagonal, DC is the distance between the sensor and the filter, and f is the focal ratio of your scope.

Note: the above calculates clear aperture of the filter so you will need to know this for your chosen filters (mounted 1.25" filters have a clear aperture somewhat less than 1.25").

HTH

Derrick

[Tony Rodda]

Hi, I know I'm late to this thread but it's still trending so...

No mention of comparable exposure times for these cameras?

Does the lower QE of the 8300 not result in longer exposures to register the same signal (for the same scope/focal-length)?  I can't recall the ADU conversion for each camera.

Is there any difference using narrowband filters (at the red end)?

I'm asking because I tried to use the 8300 for photometry and noticed a distinct increase in the 8300 exposure times to get the same 'counts'.

I have to say though that I really liked the greater fov and had no problem with 1.25" filters (albeit at f10).  Even so the 8300 (H18) is sitting on a shelf in my study!

Regards

Tony

[Tony Rodda]

Hi,

I just noticed the earlier discussion on sky-flats vs panel flats etc.  I got some A2 sheets of artist quality tracing paper (from Hobbycraft I think).

Add as many sheets as you need, to get the appropriate exposure, stretched over a simple foam board frame (again from Hobbycraft) on the end of the dew shield.  Just clipped on the frame with paper clips.

Work great for sky flats and inside the obsy. 

Regards

Tony

[MattJenko]

Lol! it might... I've taken a risk and not gone for Astrodon but for Chroma. Normally these would be similar in price to Astrodon but I got them at a substantial saving - there were no discounts available on Astrodons to be had. However, I can find little info on people using Chroma filters for astronomy, and even less for their 3nM offering. I was given to understand Chroma actually make/made filters for Astrodon at one point? Details are fuzzy, but if they don't work as advertised I'm stuffed. :-)

Chris

One person using Chroma filters to great effect is Jaspal Chadha with his RC. He is a user on SGL and has his images on FB and Flickr. Very good they are too.

[juliangeorgeshaw]

Are there no defenders of the Sony chipped cameras out there? I love my Atik 460 mono because it is so easy to use (though I have never actually tried a different camera!). 

Sara's image is a good argument in favour of the 8300 chip:  bigger chip and you can keep your 1.25" filters vs. the Sony chips which are so much smaller; I get it.

http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/250177-the-complete-veil-complex-in-mono/?hl=%2B%2Bsara+%2B%2Bqsi683#entry2725343

And yet, and yet, I can't get over the QE graphs which show the 8300 as hugely less sensitive. Surely it must make some difference. OK, perhaps on most targets the lower sensitivity won't matter but, by the same token, on a lot of targets the Sony's smaller chip doesn't matter either.

I would like to see a comparison of the performance on the same faint target of the two chips. For example I took this Oiii image of OU4 (the Squid) with a (Sony chipped) Atik 460ex, Tak Baby Q with reducer, Astrodon 3nm Oiii filter, between 13 and 20 x 20min subs (I can't remember how many I threw away), binned 2x2. On this target I didn't need a bigger chip, it's nicely framed already. Because it's so faint some imagers have had trouble getting much out of the Squid but with the 460 it was easy. I just aimed at the central star and blasted away.

http://www.astrobin.com/203894/

Question/challenge for 8300 enthusiasts: How does the 8300 perform on the same target?

[ChrisLX200]

Are there no defenders of the Sony chipped cameras out there? I love my Atik 460 mono because it is so easy to use (though I have never actually tried a different camera!). 

Sara's image is a good argument in favour of the 8300 chip:  bigger chip and you can keep your 1.25" filters vs. the Sony chips which are so much smaller; I get it.

http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/250177-the-complete-veil-complex-in-mono/?hl=%2B%2Bsara+%2B%2Bqsi683#entry2725343

And yet, and yet, I can't get over the QE graphs which show the 8300 as hugely less sensitive. Surely it must make some difference. OK, perhaps on most targets the lower sensitivity won't matter but, by the same token, on a lot of targets the Sony's smaller chip doesn't matter either.

I would like to see a comparison of the performance on the same faint target of the two chips. For example I took this Oiii image of OU4 (the Squid) with a (Sony chipped) Atik 460ex, Tak Baby Q with reducer, Astrodon 3nm Oiii filter, between 13 and 20 x 20min subs (I can't remember how many I threw away), binned 2x2. On this target I didn't need a bigger chip, it's nicely framed already. Because it's so faint some imagers have had trouble getting much out of the Squid but with the 460 it was easy. I just aimed at the central star and blasted away.

http://www.astrobin.com/203894/

Question/challenge for 8300 enthusiasts: How does the 8300 perform on the same target?

I use a 490EX but don't feel the need to defend it.  There are plenty of opinions out there and if you don't have one of your own then just choose someone elses' that you like most :-)

ChrisH

[juliangeorgeshaw]

To answer my own question: why don't you look on Astrobin? Doh!

OK, I don't know if these are fair comparisons but here goes:

This a nice image with a QSI 683:

http://www.astrobin.com/183481/D/

but for the Oiii it uses 35x60 minute subs (yikes!), albeit not binned 2x2 as in my case.

Another nice image with a QSI683:

http://www.astrobin.com/127624/E/

but his Oiii uses 20x1800 plus 7x3600 sec subs

(Perhaps 8300 users should factor in the price of a good, long exposure mount if they want to pursue faint targets!)  

I'm a newbie so I might be missing something but I think there is more detail in my image made using the Atik 460 with far less integration time than these two images. However my 2x2 binning and my drastic processing might be confusing things

[nightster]

Are there no defenders of the Sony chipped cameras out there? I love my Atik 460 mono because it is so easy to use (though I have never actually tried a different camera!). 

I debated the 383 vs the 460 for my first foray into CCD imaging back in the spring.  I was Very cost sensitive.  My research showed the 460 several hundred dollars cheaper when you account for the less expensive 1.25 filters. Many would suggest the QSI as they could use 1.25's but that camera/fw combo is a lot more expensive than the Atik.  In order to get a fully functionally LRGB-NB imaging system I had to make some compromises. I found a great deal on the SX FW and I went with the less expensive Astronomiks (I know they are not cheaper elsewhere in the world.)  Unfortunately weather and life have kept me from doing lots of images with the 460 but I did get one I'm happy with.

Here is my first light for the 460ex and my first CCD image. This should let a beginner understand what this camera is capable of.  Note: I'd only been imaging a little over a year when captured this back in the spring of '15.

http://stargazerslounge.com/uploads/gallery/album_3705/gallery_36993_3705_5424641.png 

[ollypenrice]

Are there no defenders of the Sony chipped cameras out there? I love my Atik 460 mono because it is so easy to use (though I have never actually tried a different camera!). 

Sara's image is a good argument in favour of the 8300 chip:  bigger chip and you can keep your 1.25" filters vs. the Sony chips which are so much smaller; I get it.

http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/250177-the-complete-veil-complex-in-mono/?hl=%2B%2Bsara+%2B%2Bqsi683#entry2725343

And yet, and yet, I can't get over the QE graphs which show the 8300 as hugely less sensitive. Surely it must make some difference. OK, perhaps on most targets the lower sensitivity won't matter but, by the same token, on a lot of targets the Sony's smaller chip doesn't matter either.

I would like to see a comparison of the performance on the same faint target of the two chips. For example I took this Oiii image of OU4 (the Squid) with a (Sony chipped) Atik 460ex, Tak Baby Q with reducer, Astrodon 3nm Oiii filter, between 13 and 20 x 20min subs (I can't remember how many I threw away), binned 2x2. On this target I didn't need a bigger chip, it's nicely framed already. Because it's so faint some imagers have had trouble getting much out of the Squid but with the 460 it was easy. I just aimed at the central star and blasted away.

http://www.astrobin.com/203894/

Question/challenge for 8300 enthusiasts: How does the 8300 perform on the same target?

Julian, your OU4 (Squid) is orders of magnitude better than mine in the Atik 11000, going far deeper and showing vastly more structure. I was a little slower at F5 but the other variable (I think a very big one) is that you were using the Astrodon 3Nm and I the Baader 7Nm. This is about the worst Baader filter I've ever tried, particularly halo-prone. It really is difficult to find a direct comparison but when Peter in our robotic shed is up and running again I think he has the Astrodon 3 in his Kodak QSI and he also has a Baby Q. Sounds like a head to head!

Having imaged with your camera some time ago when you were here I appreciate how good it is. It's as clean as a whistle and sensitive. I'd be the last person to knock it but also the last person to spend hours poring over chip statistics. It just isn't my way. In AP, though not in everything, I'm a pragmatist. And wide field junkie, of course!

Stunning OU4. Quite outstanding. As good as it gets, in fact. (But it has to be seen framed by the Flying Bat and, really, IC1396 is begging to join the party!      )

https://ollypenrice.smugmug.com/Other/Best-of-Les-Granges/i-ZwnMP5B/0/X3/TRUNK%20BAT%20SQUID%20WEB%20sRGB-X3.jpg

Olly

[johnrt]

It all makes very interesting reading. There has been a lot of "Sony bashing" on here recently (and I use that phrase very tongue in cheek ) and these older Kodak chips continue to produce amazing results even though they are a good few years old now.

If I were buying a new CCD tomorrow I really don't know where my money would go, I hardly ever do mosaics even with my 460ex, so such a difficult choice!!! Thank goodness I don't need to buy a new camera!!

[ollypenrice]

It all makes very interesting reading. There has been a lot of "Sony bashing" on here recently (and I use that phrase very tongue in cheek ) and these older Kodak chips continue to produce amazing results even though they are a good few years old now.

If I were buying a new CCD tomorrow I really don't know where my money would go, I hardly ever do mosaics even with my 460ex, so such a difficult choice!!! Thank goodness I don't need to buy a new camera!!

I don't know that there has been any Sony-bashing recently, so much as Kodak un-bashing, but your tongue in your cheek is noted! 

Here's a thought. Nobody (that I know of) with more than 40K to spend - dollars, euros, pounds - is using Sony chips. With the big money comes big aperture and with big aperture comes big focal length and with big focal length comes... the Kodak chip.

I look at Julian's OU4 and think, Yup. I look at the corrected circle of his Baby Q and I think Nope. I look at the corrected circle of his TEC140 and I think NO NO NO NOPE!!! 

Aaaarrrgghh why won't Sony make a big chip? Anyway it seems they will be quitting CCD altogether so maybe the geriatric Kodaks will pass into mummification? 

Olly

[steppenwolf]

Tongue in cheek very much noted but as Olly has said, this is more about Kodak de-bunking - this oft-used feeling that the Kodak chip is long in the tooth always makes me smile - it hasn't exactly been bettered no matter how 'old' it is!

40k is a lot of money to use as a reference point but I guess some people have spent that sort of money - not me I have to say although I did just spend £96.00 on the full version of PinPoint so maybe I am a little extravagant!

I ought to have one of those signs in my car's back window that says 'my other sensor is a Sony' cos it's true, I still love my old SXV-M25C OSC camera!


Sent from my iPhone from somewhere dark .....

[swag72]

I hope I have not come across as 'Sony bashing' - Al I have done is give an honest opinion between the two..... based on my experience so far. I even have some OIII data under my belt now and the 8300 is very insensitive in that bandwidth....... so I wonder if I have any data at all?

What I do think in all honestly is that having used the Sony chip for over a year (and always Sony chips prior to that) I do have an idea regarding how it works.

I found that darks for example DID decrease noise in my case (that was a fact that I looked very closely at) - In that case why wouldn't I take them? Ergo, one of the big things that everyone says about the Sony chip ..... for me ..... was defunct and blown out of the water.

I think that the Kodak chip suffers a lot from people on the net saying that it's old in the tooth and lacking in sensitivity............ Indeed, these doubts stopped me using a Kodak for well over 2 years .......... but, I honestly believe that much of these 'myths and legends' are regurgitated by people who have never used them and are only going on hearsay.

I'd like to think that I am balanced and I try very hard not to give opinions on things I've got zero experience of. Take the Sony chipped SX25C for example that Steve has mentioned above, what an 'interesting' camera I found that. To say that it sapped every ounce of enjoyment and enthusiasm out of me would be an understatement. But perhaps if I'd had a mono to go with it (which I didn't at the time) I would have found it less soul destroying. For me, it was demotivating.

Each camera and sensor will suit different people and different styles, which we all have. I found I was wanting a wider field and so the Sony was just too small, end of. Also the larger chip fits in better with the short focal length and longer focal length scope as well. It's all about compromises if you can't afford two totally separate systems.

So the Sony chip didn't suit me and my work - I'm sure that it will suit many others, but ...... from here on in I will certainly say things to try to get people to think about what will suit them and not make a costly mistake as I potentially could have done had QSI not been so very reasonable.

[johnrt]

Hee hee, well that woke everyone up on a sleepy Sunday night! I'm glad my comment was taken in the spirit it was meant  

I am not one to pour over statstical data on cameras but firmly believe in letting the images do the talking, and the 8300 chip certainly has a distinguished past. Just out of interest how is he cooling on the Atik 383l, or its QSI / SX cousins I know Sara you found the 460ex cooling to be a little under spec - last night was the first and perhaps only night in the year I couldn't get my 460ex under -10C.

[swag72]

I have found the QSI cooling to be excellent John - In about 32 degrees in daytime temps, I was able to take darks at -15 degrees using 70-73% power to the coolers. 

[Zakalwe]

Aaaarrrgghh why won't Sony make a big chip?

They do- they are making a 43 megapixel, back-illuminated full frame sensor. The ISO runs to 1 million! :eek:

http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/sony-unveils-full-frame-bsi-sensor-and.html

http://www.sony.jp/products/overseas/contents/pickup/contents/ExmorRCMOS_T_ver2.0/index.html

The question is, when will an astro camera manufacturer stick it into a body and cool it?

 Anyway it seems they will be quitting CCD altogether so maybe the geriatric Kodaks will pass into mummification? 

They are (fully shutting down in 5 years, I think) but will continue with CMOS production. Back illuminated CMOS will be the norm shortly I would think.

http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/sony-to-discontinue-entire-ccd-products.html

CMOS is the future, not CCD.

[Physopto]

Shutting down or not, I wouldn't be surprised to still see a good few of us using the 8300 chip.

Derek

[gnomus]

..... but the other variable (I think a very big one) is that you were using the Astrodon 3Nm and I the Baader 7Nm. This is about the worst Baader filter I've ever tried, particularly halo-prone. It really is difficult to find a direct comparison but when Peter in our robotic shed is up and running again I think he has the Astrodon 3 in his Kodak QSI and he also has a Baby Q. Sounds like a head to head!

...

Olly

I was thinking of getting the Baader NB set to go in my 36mm unmounted filter wheel.  Now what am I supposed to do? !!!     

Do the Astronomiks come in a 36 mm filter?

I cannot justify the insanity that is Astrodon.

[Physopto]

I was thinking of getting the Baader NB set to go in my 36mm unmounted filter wheel.  Now what am I supposed to do? !!!     

Do the Astronomiks come in a 36 mm filter?

I cannot justify the insanity that is Astrodon.

That is one reason I did not buy a CCD that could not take 1.25" filters. The Astronomik set I originally bought suffered from Halos. They were changed out under Astronomik's warrantee scheme. An excellent service.

I have not had the chance to try them out as yet, when I do I'll post an update.

They also have promised to change out my narrow band set under the same scheme when the new ones become available.

That is good service!

Astronomik, Astrodon and Baader are not the only filter manufacturers! But not sure what the rest are like.

Derek

[AusGuy]

I'm new to StarGazersLounge so I've just been having a look around and found this Marathon thread. What a read with so many topics covered! It particularly interested me as I have a 383L+ mono. It's my first CCD camera so I can't really comment on its relative merits but I am very satisfied with it. Being a bit of a Luddite I tend to use the software that comes bundled with any hardware that I buy and for the past year or so I have happily used Artemis Capture. But one point raised by ollypenrice way back in this thread (on page 5 I think) caught my attention as perhaps being worthy of mention now. In relation to Artemis he(?) said “I don't use the Camera Rotate 180 option because you can get in a pickle with upside down darks and flats. If I want to reframe after the flip I open the pre-flip image in whatever software and rotate it so I frame the flip to that.” It took me some time to work out why my darks and flats didn't work after doing a meridian flip and then using the camera rotate option so as to be able to use the same star map that had been constructed for the pre-flip images. The answer I found was to use ImagingMap, a free download from www.davesastrotools.weebly.com. Any star map created with this software can be rotated 180 degrees so the same map can be used both before and after a meridian flip without needing to rotate the camera's output image.

[Physopto]

Handy tool, thanks for the information.

Derek