Jump to content

SkySurveyBanner.jpg.21855908fce40597655603b6c9af720d.jpg

CCD's .....Kodak KAF8300 v's Sony ICX814

swag72

By swag72
in Discussions - Cameras

Recommended Posts

davew

davew

Posted
Posted

I had assumed this too but the figures on the QSI website actually have the ICX814 with a higher dynamic range (73db) than the KAF8300 (70db) since the much lower read noise (3e- versus 8e-) more than compensates for reduced well size (dynamic range being calculated from full well capacity/read noise). Interestingly the Atik 383L+ (KAF8300) is quoted by the manufacturer as having a 7e- read noise despite being considerably cheaper than the QSI. Alas the Atik ICX814 camera (which I own) is quoted at 5e- giving it the lowest dynamic range of the lot. Still liking it for narrow-band though.

Paul

The only way to tell what your read noise is would be to test your particular camera. There seems to be a bit of rounding up and down going on :)

Dave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Ikonnikov

Ikonnikov

Posted
Posted

The only way to tell what your read noise is would be to test your particular camera. There seems to be a bit of rounding up and down going on :)

Dave.

Will have to try out the PI script some time when I can be bothered to make the right lengths of darks required....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
swag72

swag72

Posted
  • Author
Posted

This to me, is the embodiment of the 8300 chip.......

Last night I had a quick run (4.5 hrs worth) and I didn't really know what to do, I'd had nothing planned. So I pointed at the Heart nebula (IC1805) to see what I got. To say I had a big smile on my face is an understatement ..................... I could fit it all in :) :)

I know that the ICX814 chip would have taken two panes.

So this morning I quickly processed the data (9 subs) from a camera with low QE in Ha, using 1.25" filters and an outdated sensor, oh and lets not forget the imaging resolution of 3.39" - In my opinion this stands up pretty well......... I'd welcome any thoughts.

Of course, this larger sensor will not suit everyone - I get that........ but lets stop focusing on anything other than real estate when looking at a camera. You either want a larger chip or a smaller chip .......... the rest is academic in practice........ in my opinion and experience :) ...... which isn't vast I'll grant you that :D

post-5681-0-32207000-1440489342_thumb.jp

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Robp

Robp

Posted
Posted

Thanks for the interesting thread Sara and I am glad the 8300 chip is performing well for you.

I'm on my first foray into CCD imaging and picked the Atik 314L+ with a tiny Sony sensor.

The reason for my choice was down to budget more than anything else with the camera around £700 second hand.

It does frustrate me sometimes having to do multiple panes for mosaics but we sometimes have to make the best of what we have.

In the future I will be moving to a bigger chip and the 8300 is top of my list, (unless something else appears of course!) mainly because of the great images Uranium235 produces using it. Looks like you are enjoying it as well :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
swag72

swag72

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I hope that by posting some of my thoughts and comparisons I can stop people making costly mistakes and buying the wrong camera, because they are too scared of the Kodak chip due to the internet comments etc. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
libraryman

libraryman

Posted
Posted

I hope that by posting some of my thoughts and comparisons I can stop people making costly mistakes and buying the wrong camera, because they are too scared of the Kodak chip due to the internet comments etc. :)

I for one appreciate this reasoning, the web is full of mixed advise, some good some perhaps not so useful but probably most is well meant.

The choice of filter width is another area of difficulty when faced with budget concerns.

It's a great post Sara and backed up with good examples from a talent.

Ray

Link to comment
Share on other sites
swag72

swag72

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The choice of filter width is another area of difficulty when faced with budget concerns.

While I can't speak for any other 8300 chip, I can categorically state that the 1.25" filters (cheap ones!! :D ) work fine in a QSI with an integrated filter wheel.

I am waiting to see if the same can be said about Moravian as a friend has just got one - These things are good to know for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChrisLX200

ChrisLX200

Posted
Posted

I had the same thought process with the 'archaic' 16803 sensor for which you can make the very same criticisms as the 8300, it's old tech, not particularly sensitive, has more noise than the Sony sensors etc., - and to add insult to injury it's not cheap either (especially when you add in the cost of filters). Do I really want to pour a load of money into this thing? Well just look around on the 'net and you can see the great results other people have been getting over the years and it has one overwhelming advantage - it's big! It would have done me no good canvasing for opinion as I'm sure many experts would slate it as being yesterday's technology. I hope I can make it work for me as well as you make the 8300 work for you Sara :-)  I think the trick is being able to take long subs, if you can do that you'll get good data.

As an aside there are some interesting new QHY cameras on the horizon ( http://www.qhyccd.com/IC16200A.html) with big sensors but unknown price point at this time...

ChrisH

Link to comment
Share on other sites
johnrt

johnrt

Posted
Posted

Excellent Sara, the 8300 chip based cameras are still a viable alternative to the Sony's, and will be for some time to come.

Wouldn't this all be so boring if everyone went out and bought the same "best" camera, OTA and filters and then trotted out a procession of similar images of all the same objects.

The beauty of astrophotography is the different ways and views which can be taken of every object, from wide-field vistas of huge nebula and galaxy chains to up close and personal shots of rising gas pillars and individual galaxies.

vive la difference!!

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
StuartJPP

StuartJPP

Posted
Posted

If it wasn't for the cloudy UK skies people would actually be out there imaging for real instead of comparing spec sheets, trawling forums and throwing wild accusations about.

I like these threads...proving that things can be done, despite so many graphs, formulae and opinions speculating that it isn't possible.

Nicely done Sara!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
martin_h

martin_h

Posted
Posted

I cant compare as Ive only ever used the 8300 chip, if people only chose their camera based on noise readout then there wouldn't be an awful lot of cameras sold, camera noise is easily removed in processing and is not a problem at all and only adds one step over so called noiseless chips, and if you are not stacking 100's of frames only adds a minuet or so to the process.

I never look at the numbers because quite frankly i dont understand them, but I do look at what a bit of kit can do, and more importantly, what it can do for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
swag72

swag72

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Great comments folks - Really enjoyed reading them.

I hope this is an image that will speak very clearly for itself. 

This is a faint object. 12x1800s (6 hours in total) during a very bright moon.......... The fov would benefit from a pane beneath, but that's possible if I decide to keep this and work on it. Not bad data I think...... Lets forget the figures and look at the actual evidence :D

post-5681-0-01535000-1440586662_thumb.jp

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ollypenrice

ollypenrice

Posted
Posted

My feeling on all of this is that the sky's a big place...   :grin:

11%20meg%20chip-M.jpg

But that old chip's so slow that you'll never pull out the faint stuff,

LEO%20TRIPLET%20TEC140%202015%20web-M.jp

...and  you'll never get any kind of resolution from 9 micron pixels in a mediuml FL like a metre with it...

https://ollypenrice.smugmug.com/Other/Best-of-Les-Granges/i-kNjFmJW/0/O/M42%20TEC140%20LRGB%20V3.jpg

I love the theory. Well, I love ignoring it!

:evil: lly

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ollypenrice

ollypenrice

Posted
Posted

It's interesting that this topic is so much in the air at the moment.

What I have thought about, I must admit, is getting a 490 to run in the TEC for the galaxies. Those do benefit from the resolution and since I don't have a galaxy FL scope I could attack the problem from, literally, the other end - the camera end.

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChrisLX200

ChrisLX200

Posted
Posted

It's interesting that this topic is so much in the air at the moment.

What I have thought about, I must admit, is getting a 490 to run in the TEC for the galaxies. Those do benefit from the resolution and since I don't have a galaxy FL scope I could attack the problem from, literally, the other end - the camera end.

Olly

The only issue is getting the exposure just right - they usually have a bright core and you may end up using two different exposures and merging them (HDR). There isn't a lot of leeway...

Not a great example these (because the background is a bit clipped) but it does show the burned core issue:

Markarians%20Chain%20LRGB%20001%20ST_zps

M106%20Final%20HaLRGB_zpsmm7drht4.jpg

ChrisH

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.