mono ccd question 414ex quality???

[iwols]

any thoughts and comments on this ccd,promise last question on ccds

[graemlourens]

Hi.

I don't have the 414ex, but the 460ex. The only difference i know of is that the pixels are larger on the 414ex, but the chip is smaller.

The quality and reliability of the atik 460ex in my opinion is phenomenal. I use it in an unmanned remote observatory, and that camera has never let me down.
As both have the same sensor, i can comment on the sensitivity that is very good of those pixels, and noise is so controllable its the smallest problem of my whole post-processing...

I can not compare to other similar cameras though.

Just my experience with the 460.

Kind regards, Graem

[D4N]

As with Graem I don't have that model camera I have an Atik One 9, it is very good quality with very little noise and no problem with image acquisition. 

Just check that the 414 has a suitable pixel size to give a good pixel scale on your setup.

[iwols]

3 minutes ago, D4N said:

As with Graem I don't have that model camera I have an Atik One 9, it is very good quality with very little noise and no problem with image acquisition. 

Just check that the 414 has a suitable pixel size to give a good pixel scale on your setup.

thanks is that the same as fov cheers

[MattJenko]

I have the mono 414ex. Lovely little thing. It has treated me very well. Most of the DSO images on the site in my link are with it, apart from the huge FoV ones, which are a canon 450d.

[D4N]

Nope, fov is based on focal length and chip size. Pixel scale is based on focal length and pixel size.

Getting a reasonable pixel scale is important, if the pixels are too small you are losing sensitivity and well depth for no reason (there is an upper limit of resolution that your setup can achieve in means of optical resolution and tracking accuracy) if they are too big you lose out on fine detail and in the extreme end up with square stars.

Too small pixels can be countered somewhat by binning but it would be better to have the right size to start with, there isn't much you can do about pixels that are too big, other than adjust the focal length of your setup.

 

You can use this calculator to work out your pixel scale:

http://astronomy.tools/calculators/ccd

[iwols]

9 minutes ago, D4N said:

Nope, fov is based on focal length and chip size. Pixel scale is based on focal length and pixel size.

Getting a reasonable pixel scale is important, if the pixels are too small you are losing sensitivity and well depth for no reason (there is an upper limit of resolution that your setup can achieve in means of optical resolution and tracking accuracy) if they are too big you lose out on fine detail and in the extreme end up with square stars.

Too small pixels can be countered somewhat by binning but it would be better to have the right size to start with, there isn't much you can do about pixels that are too big, other than adjust the focal length of your setup.

 

You can use this calculator to work out your pixel scale:

http://astronomy.tools/calculators/ccd

thanks not sure how to use that looking at a 414ex on a ed80,if anyone can work it out for me ide be grateful,also a c8 edge hd

[iwols]

think its 2.2 for the ed80 and 0.65 for the c8 but what does that mean

[D4N]

32 minutes ago, iwols said:

think its 2.2 for the ed80 and 0.65 for the c8 but what does that mean

Well you would be slightly under sampled on the ED80 and over sampled on the C8.  If you get a reducer/flattener for the ED80 you will be further under sampled.

The C8 you can bin to bring your pixel scale to a level your mount can actually track at but there isn't much you can do about under sampling, it may well be fine at that focal length, I would suggest looking at images people have made with that setup.

 

I image at 1.5 arc seconds per pixel with my setup, that is right up to the limit of what can be achieved with my equipment.

 

I probably should have given this link, it is more self explanatory.

http://astronomy.tools/calculators/ccd_suitability

[KyleStoke]

I have certainly seen other people on this forum with this combination of scope to camera, your best bet is to search the combination and see what results are out there.

[KyleStoke]

Just to add that if you took the numbers for the pixel scale as mustard then the ED80 and 1000D would also be in the same boat, there is plenty of good images around with this combination.

[iwols]

19 minutes ago, KyleStoke said:

I have certainly seen other people on this forum with this combination of scope to camera, your best bet is to search the combination and see what results are out there.

 

16 minutes ago, KyleStoke said:

Just to add that if you took the numbers for the pixel scale as mustard then the ED80 and 1000D would also be in the same boat, there is plenty of good images around with this combination.

i hope your right guys, been looking at ccd for 3 months now and ready for pulling the trigger,maybe time to start a new thread

[D4N]

Try looking on astrobin, there are a few for the 414ex and ED80/C8;

Astrobin ed80 & 414ex

Astrobin C8 & 414ex

Note that some of these will have been taken with a reducer.

[iwols]

8 minutes ago, D4N said:

Try looking on astrobin, there are a few for the 414ex and ED80/C8;

Astrobin ed80 & 414ex

Astrobin C8 & 414ex

Note that some of these will have been taken with a reducer.

thanks for that 

[KyleStoke]

One thing I would add is check out your field of view see if you are happy with that for the targets you most want to get, no matter what the field of view there will be good targets its just if you want them particular ones

[ollypenrice]

The 414/ED80 would be fine. 2.2" P/P is nice. You'll find the field of view very tiny with the C8 but binning 2x2 would make the pixel scale reasonable. 

Very good camera. Your alternative would be more real estate in terms of chip size from the 383. 

Olly