Sony 814 to Kodak 8300

[zicklurky]

I was wondering if anyone has moved from the Sony 814 to the Kodak 8300? What are your thoughts? Regret the decision or haven't looked back?

I'm starting to image bigger areas of the sky, and the bigger sensor is very compelling. On my Star 71 I will move from 2.1"/px to 3.5"/px, which is ok with me.

I was having a look at the new 16200 sensor, but the price of 2" NB filters made my eyes water. 

[Physopto]

QHY and Moravian are now advertising that sensor. I looked at them out of interest. A set of Astrodons with narrowband would set you back something like £3/4000.

Still we can dream.

Sara went from a Sony (not sure which) to the QSI683wsg.

I have been using 583 and 683 from the start and like them.

Derek

[swag72]

Yes I went from the 814 sensor to the Kodak 8300.... Have I ever looked back? Hell no!!!

I listened to and read everything on the internet and forums about the Kodak 8300 chip a couple of years ago. I believed everything I read about the calibration of the Kodak and how noisy it is, how it's such a slouch compared to the Sony sensors with regards to QE...... and so I went for the Sony sensor. I'd used them before and felt that it was the best option for me ........... WRONG!!!

I was very lucky to get the chance to change my sensor for free and so jumped at the chance as I was sick to death of the smaller sensor by now. I LOVE the Kodak sensor. It's not a slouch in any way at all in my opinion, it picks up sufficient Ha and OIII for me. It's enabled me to get larger chunks of the sky! Regarding the noisy frames - Sure there's lots of hot pixels but NOTHING that can't be sorted.

I'm pleased that I have been in a position to try both the sensors. Many don't get that choice and just jump on the bandwagon regardless slating one sensor or the other because that's what they read. In my experience, field of view is the biggest consideration, and if you want a bigger size, Kodak is the only option out there. 

Now if Sony did a comparable size sensor then that would be an interesting comparison, but as it stands for me, field of view is the most important consideration at this time.

[zicklurky]

30 minutes ago, Physopto said:

QHY and Moravian are now advertising that sensor. I looked at them out of interest. A set of Astrodons with narrowband would set you back something like £3/4000.

Still we can dream.

Sara went from a Sony (not sure which) to the QSI683wsg.

I have been using 583 and 683 from the start and like them.

Derek

Haha yeah, when I saw the price of an astrodon 3nm filter, per one!! Literally jaw dropping.

[Zakalwe]

5 minutes ago, swag72 said:

Yes I went from the 814 sensor to the Kodak 8300.... Have I ever looked back? Hell no!!!

I listened to and read everything on the internet and forums about the Kodak 8300 chip a couple of years ago. I believed everything I read about the calibration of the Kodak and how noisy it is, how it's such a slouch compared to the Sony sensors with regards to QE...... and so I went for the Sony sensor. I'd used them before and felt that it was the best option for me ........... WRONG!!!

I was very lucky to get the chance to change my sensor for free and so jumped at the chance as I was sick to death of the smaller sensor by now. I LOVE the Kodak sensor. It's not a slouch in any way at all in my opinion, it picks up sufficient Ha and OIII for me. It's enabled me to get larger chunks of the sky! Regarding the noisy frames - Sure there's lots of hot pixels but NOTHING that can't be sorted.

I'm pleased that I have been in a position to try both the sensors. Many don't get that choice and just jump on the bandwagon regardless slating one sensor or the other because that's what they read. In my experience, field of view is the biggest consideration, and if you want a bigger size, Kodak is the only option out there. 

Now if Sony did a comparable size sensor then that would be an interesting comparison, but as it stands for me, field of view is the most important consideration at this time.

In qualification though Sara, you have access to lots of clear skies. So the reduced sensitivity is less important. 

Any one of your images has more integration time than I have managed in total for the last 12 months. #jealous!

[swag72]

1 minute ago, Zakalwe said:

In qualification though Sara, you have access to lots of clear skies. So the reduced sensitivity is less important. 

Any one of your images has more integration time than I have managed in total for the last 12 months. #jealous!

I can only speak of the experiences I have Steve and how I have found it ................Sadly I can't account for the great skies that you guys all seem to think I have (not had the scope out for over 10 days now  ).

[zicklurky]

1 minute ago, swag72 said:

Yes I went from the 814 sensor to the Kodak 8300.... Have I ever looked back? Hell no!!!

I listened to and read everything on the internet and forums about the Kodak 8300 chip a couple of years ago. I believed everything I read about the calibration of the Kodak and how noisy it is, how it's such a slouch compared to the Sony sensors with regards to QE...... and so I went for the Sony sensor. I'd used them before and felt that it was the best option for me ........... WRONG!!!

I was very lucky to get the chance to change my sensor for free and so jumped at the chance as I was sick to death of the smaller sensor by now. I LOVE the Kodak sensor. It's not a slouch in any way at all in my opinion, it picks up sufficient Ha and OIII for me. It's enabled me to get larger chunks of the sky! Regarding the noisy frames - Sure there's lots of hot pixels but NOTHING that can't be sorted.

I'm pleased that I have been in a position to try both the sensors. Many don't get that choice and just jump on the bandwagon regardless slating one sensor or the other because that's what they read. In my experience, field of view is the biggest consideration, and if you want a bigger size, Kodak is the only option out there. 

Now if Sony did a comparable size sensor then that would be an interesting comparison, but as it stands for me, field of view is the most important consideration at this time.

Good to hear from someone who has used both. I did exactly the same when buying the 814. It's my first CCD, and I was attracted with the talk of the sensitivity, and how the 8300 is so noisy. Now I've had it for about 2 years, and I think I understand imaging a lot more, and what I want out of it. I've really enjoyed this CCD, it's been awesome moving from DSLR, but I want more FOV.

I'm planning a wide HA mosaic of Cygnus in the autumn, and with my 814 it's looking at 15 panels or more, if I can cut that down I will be a happy camper.

I think my Atik is going up for sale

Thanks for the replies!

[Physopto]

2 minutes ago, swag72 said:

I can only speak of the experiences I have Steve and how I have found it ................Sadly I can't account for the great skies that you guys all seem to think I have (not had the scope out for over 10 days now  ).

Ooooh, is there a pill for that?

 

[zicklurky]

3 minutes ago, swag72 said:

I can only speak of the experiences I have Steve and how I have found it ................Sadly I can't account for the great skies that you guys all seem to think I have (not had the scope out for over 10 days now  ).

Sara, do you feel you need more integration time with the 8300 than the 814 to reduce noise, or are they similar?

[geoflewis]

I'm very interested in this thread as I also have my sight on the QSI683wsg if/when I ever complete my move to and build my obs in Norfolk....!! I love the FOV that it gives, so that is a major consideration for me.

[Zakalwe]

10 minutes ago, swag72 said:

I can only speak of the experiences I have Steve and how I have found it ................Sadly I can't account for the great skies that you guys all seem to think I have (not had the scope out for over 10 days now  ).

Come back to me when it gets to months!

[swag72]

3 minutes ago, zicklurky said:

Sara, do you feel you need more integration time with the 8300 than the 814 to reduce noise, or are they similar?

Honestly, I don't think I do. Allow me to quantify. 

Here's a couple of images of the Heart nebula  - The first one is a mosaic (that was taken with an 460 so slightly different Sony sensor) - But there were 12x1800s Ha subs in EACH pane (2 pane mosaic) If you scroll down there's a mono image there that was taken with the Kodak sensor. That was 9x1800s in total (4.5 hrs). 

[Physopto]

Very nice images Sara.

[zicklurky]

18 minutes ago, swag72 said:

Honestly, I don't think I do. Allow me to quantify. 

Here's a couple of images of the Heart nebula  - The first one is a mosaic (that was taken with an 460 so slightly different Sony sensor) - But there were 12x1800s Ha subs in EACH pane (2 pane mosaic) If you scroll down there's a mono image there that was taken with the Kodak sensor. That was 9x1800s in total (4.5 hrs). 

Cheers Sara! That's a very clean image indeed. I actually reckon it looks better than the 460! I've been looking at the Moravian 8300 which has cooling of 50 degrees below ambient which should definitely help reducing noise as well.

[swag72]

The only downside with the Moravian as I see it is that the internal filter wheel is only a 5 position one. The build quality of the Moravian is very solid for sure and in my opinion comparable to the QSI.

[Uranium235]

I woldnt worry about the sensitivity of the 8300. Im currently in the process of plate solving and annoting my Virgo SC image and there is some remarkably dim stuff in there which extends way beyond the usual NGC and IC items (ie: LEDA, 2MASX, UGC etc....).

[Physopto]

Watch out about the cooling.

 

Kodak in their literature for the 8300 chip only recommend -10 degrees Celsius as a minimum temperature! So why do QSI and others get away with running it at colder temperatures? I can only presume it is because of testing and careful control of the cooling.

 

QSI can cool well below that as can others, especially on a cold night. I use -20deg C. I would guess many others do as well. But I have seen warnings about the CCD cracking if the power fails and the chip warms up too rapidly. QSI in particular have a protection circuit that alarms when the camera supply voltage goes above 14 volts. In fact it needs a full reboot of the camera to get it working properly again. The camera has a very weak sonic alarm, but I cannot hear it from a few feet away.  That means power off as there is no control of the cooling after the alarm, until everything is reset. I use Maxim DL and it does not respond until reset. That can include restarting Maxim as well. I don't know why but it has caused me several problems.

I did see one post somewhere that you could cool the 8300 chip in the QSI to well below -35 deg C on a cold night or using water cooling. I do not recommend trying it. The camera is far too expensive.

Derek

 

[davew]

40 minutes ago, Physopto said:

Watch out about the cooling.

 

Kodak in their literature for the 8300 chip only recommend -10 degrees Celsius as a minimum temperature! So why do QSI and others get away with running it at colder temperatures? I can only presume it is because of testing and careful control of the cooling.

 

QSI can cool well below that as can others, especially on a cold night. I use -20deg C. I would guess many others do as well. But I have seen warnings about the CCD cracking if the power fails and the chip warms up too rapidly. QSI in particular have a protection circuit that alarms when the camera supply voltage goes above 14 volts. In fact it needs a full reboot of the camera to get it working properly again. The camera has a very weak sonic alarm, but I cannot hear it from a few feet away.  That means power off as there is no control of the cooling after the alarm, until everything is reset. I use Maxim DL and it does not respond until reset. That can include restarting Maxim as well. I don't know why but it has caused me several problems.

I did see one post somewhere that you could cool the 8300 chip in the QSI to well below -35 deg C on a cold night or using water cooling. I do not recommend trying it. The camera is far too expensive.

Derek

 

I've never known if Kodak mean that these chips shouldn't be used at below -10 ambient in an open chamber or not. With our cameras they do tend to be sealed against the damp and this may make all the difference. I've never heard of anyone with this chip having any problems in UK, or anywhere in Europe.

I've also heard that some say the cooling makes no difference at all and doesn't need much cooling ( !! ) but others say that the deep cooling makes all the difference in the world. I use -25 as a rule because the Moravian gets there and holds temperature very easily. I've run Bias frame downloads in excess of 100 frames with no big gaps and only twice seen the temperature rise above 0.1 degrees. I've never noticed RBI at those temperatures with the 8300 chip.

As for the number of filters in a Moravian it's 5 positions for the internal wheel with both the 8300 and 16200 chips. It goes up to 12 with the 8300 and 7 with the 16200 on external wheels.

I would have eyes for the 16200 as it's cheaper than the 11002 chip and is full frame rather than interline and with 6 um pixels. It's much bigger than either of the 2 chips being discussed but smaller than ( full format ) 35 mm. I haven't seen too many images with one yet though.

Dave

Edit - add the word " Much " to the cooling bit.

[Physopto]

I take your point about our CCDs being sealed in a chamber.  But as you know the seals are not perfect and over time moisture can get in. It is just a point that is worth thinking about. A camera  a few years old may be at that point when a power source fails or it is shut down from a low temperature suddenly. It is a pity that there are not more guidelines  available about the temperatures from the manufacturers. I have tried but manufacturers usually will not give out any details that they think will come back to bite them in the rear.

It maybe a good reason to recharge the silica dessicant pack every few years as a precaution. It is easy to do and you can easily get Argon gas to flush out the chamber. Argon is heavier than air (38% denser) and will displace the air if pumped into a plastic bag in which the camera is placed.

I love my QSI but you can always dream...... 16200  OOh.

Oh well back to reality.

Derek

 

[zicklurky]

Yeah I probably wouldn't go down past -25 degrees. That's where I set my Atik. A couple of times I've gotten a blue screen on my laptop, at which point it reboots and the CCD warms up very quickly. Thank goodness nothing has happened to the sensor.

16200 argh! If it weren't for those filter costs!! The Baader 3.5nm HA is a lot more reasonable than the Astrodon (although I haven't looked into performance of the Baader). If only Baader did narrower Sii and Oiii..

[swag72]

This thread has galvanised me to get out the Moravain and set it up from scratch as it's just sitting here waiting. So far all seems well... all the drivers loaded in and it's currently cooling and going to do some bias frames.

[zicklurky]

1 minute ago, swag72 said:

This thread has galvanised me to get out the Moravain and set it up from scratch as it's just sitting here waiting. So far all seems well... all the drivers loaded in and it's currently cooling and going to do some bias frames.

Which Moravian is this?!

[swag72]

The G2-8300 - Kodak sensor

[zicklurky]

Oh right, I thought you had a QSI?

[swag72]

I have... I have a QSI and a Moravian