Most sensitive CCD?

[lukebl]

I'm thinking of upgrading my CCD. I'm keen on going fainter and deeper, for capturing really faint asteroids and supernovae.

I currently have a fairly elderly SXVF-H9 which has the Sony ICX285 sensor with 6.45 micron pixels.

If I got an Atik 490EX, which has the newer Sony ICX814 sensor with 3.69 micron pixels, and binned it 2 X 2, then I'd have a similar effective pixel size (7.38) and resolution. Would the Atik then be 'faster' than my existing cam? I like the idea of a finer sensor for more detailed images, but which can also be used binned for imaging fainter objects. 

... Or would the unbinned Atik 414EX, which is marketed as Atik's 'most sensitive camera', be faster? Or any others in a similar price range?

I'm not fussed about attempting exhibition-quality images. I know my limits!

[pete_l]

You could investigate the Trius sx825. This uses the successor to the CCD in your existing camera that has a higher QE - comparable to that of the ATIK. It has the same pixel size and pixel count as your existing camera and is considerably cheaper than the ATIK.

[stoffe]

How about these new ZWO cameras with CMOS sensor and cooling?

[ollypenrice]

How about a scientific camera without anti-blooming gate? These are used by the professionals who also want their greater linearity for photometry?

Olly

[theastrodragon]

I recently upgraded my old SX-9 to the Trius SX814. Binned its about the same resolution, and while (thanks to this winters wonderful weather) I haven't done a proper comparison test, it does seen quite a bit faster. Also its about 1/3 larger, which is helpful. The small pixels are useful for small things like planetaries. and for giving a good resolution with a small refractor, which is why I finally decided on it.

[Hibou]

On 3/21/2016 at 22:43, lukebl said:

If I got an Atik 490EX, which has the newer Sony ICX814 sensor with 3.69 micron pixels, and binned it 2 X 2, then I'd have a similar effective pixel size (7.38) and resolution. Would the Atik then be 'faster' than my existing cam? 

... Or would the unbinned Atik 414EX, which is marketed as Atik's 'most sensitive camera', be faster? Or any others in a similar price range?

The ICX285 in your current camera was a great CCD with a QE of ~55%. It has been replaced by the ICX825 in the Atik 414EX with a QE of ~75% but otherwise similar. So yes, the 414EX would be a little faster but perhaps not a significant upgrade.

The ICX814 in the Atik 490EX is a 1" chip so would give you a bigger FOV, and if you binned it 2x2 then it should be comparable in brightness and resolution. Note that with in-camera binning you would get a monochrome image. If you can change the focal length to get back to the same FOV, then 2x2 binning should give you a much brighter image. I would rather consider the 460EX which also has a 1" chip with fewer, bigger (brighter) pixels, or the 383L+ which is bigger again and also cheaper with bigger pixels than the 490EX (but more noise).

[Uranium235]

If youre thinking of binning, you may as well get a 383L+ (if your field if flat enough to support it comfortably). In the long run, what is faster (over a larger area)? It will probably be the big chip (fewer mosaics).

[NickK]

On 23 March 2016 at 13:24, Uranium235 said:

If youre thinking of binning, you may as well get a 383L+ (if your field if flat enough to support it comfortably). In the long run, what is faster (over a larger area)? It will probably be the big chip (fewer mosaics).

Hmm the Kodak 8300 isn't what you'd call sensitive! If you want really sensitive then you need to look at front lit rather than the cheaper backlit

[Uranium235]

14 minutes ago, NickK said:

Hmm the Kodak 8300 isn't what you'd call sensitive! If you want really sensitive then you need to look at front lit rather than the cheaper backlit

I know its a bit "deaf in its old age", but over a larger area an 8300 would be quicker overall than a camera that covers perhaps just one third that the 8300 does (or just 1/4 when it comes to the 314/414 cameras). Depends on what type of project youre doing I guess

The lack of relative sensitivity can also be offset to a degree by using faster optics.