My first M42 and first time with KAF 16200 sensor

[Xplode]

A couple nights ago i got first light with my new CCD camera, a Moravian G3 16200.

It's taken with an old EQ6 through an 100mm f/5.8  flatfield refractor.

Total time ~1h 15 min

Baader L: 16x120" -30C bin 1x1
Baader R: 14x60" -30C bin 2x2 
Baader G: 14x60" -30C bin 2x2
Baader B: 14x60" -30C bin 2x2

 

I'm pretty happy with this being from the night of first light with this camera and setup 

 

 

[Uplooker]

Well done, very impressive. It is a great shot, almost wide field, with that sensor. Very well processed.

[Xplode]

Thank you Ian.

There is some noise in it that i want to get rid of so i hope to add a few more hours on it soon.

[simmo39]

The colour is fantastic. Lovely image.

[swag72]

Looking good so far - Congrats on the camera

[gorann]

Really nice Ole Alexander, you clearly have got yourself a wide photon catcher there!

I realize you are the kind of guy that goes for more data rather than noise reduction so I am looking forward to see what you will accomplish with your new stuff!

[ChrisLX200]

Interesting choice of camera Ole, and a great 'first light' for it. Impressive field of view too.

ChrisH

[PatrickGilliland]

Very impressive work, have been considering that camera myself but so tempted by the 29050. Super image on those sub lengths.

Paddy

[Xplode]

On 29.11.2016 at 23:31, gorann said:

Really nice Ole Alexander, you clearly have got yourself a wide photon catcher there!

I realize you are the kind of guy that goes for more data rather than noise reduction so I am looking forward to see what you will accomplish with your new stuff!

Yeah i prefer to no not do noise reduction as it often will make the image get a vaseline effect which i think is worse than a little grain from noise.

18 hours ago, PatrickGilliland said:

Very impressive work, have been considering that camera myself but so tempted by the 29050. Super image on those sub lengths.

Paddy

Thank you.

Last year i was looking at a Moravian camera with 29050 sensor, but from the info i got from TS they had some problems with the sensor so it never made it to production.

I've read elsewhere about the 29050 astro images looking very flat so i'm not sure how well it's suited for our use.

Because of the problems with that sensor i waited for a while and ended up with the 16200 sensor which is almost as big and with just a little larger pixels.

Perfect for my 12" newtonian at 1120mm which gives me a resolution of 1.1 arcsec/pixel.

 

Compared the 6D i used earlier i loose around vertical 10% and 25% horisontal. I already had to crop the vertical around 10% because of the mirror shadow so the real loss is horisontal.

[PatrickGilliland]

3 hours ago, Xplode said:

Yeah i prefer to no not do noise reduction as it often will make the image get a vaseline effect which i think is worse than a little grain from noise.

Thank you.

Last year i was looking at a Moravian camera with 29050 sensor, but from the info i got from TS they had some problems with the sensor so it never made it to production.

I've read elsewhere about the 29050 astro images looking very flat so i'm not sure how well it's suited for our use.

Because of the problems with that sensor i waited for a while and ended up with the 16200 sensor which is almost as big and with just a little larger pixels.

Perfect for my 12" newtonian at 1120mm which gives me a resolution of 1.1 arcsec/pixel.

 

Compared the 6D i used earlier i loose around vertical 10% and 25% horisontal. I already had to crop the vertical around 10% because of the mirror shadow so the real loss is horisontal.

Yes, I have heard of same issues but camera provider ensures me that there version is OK.  May wait for some more evidence to be out there before I part with cash.  16200 may yet be an option may be going on a 400mm scope so bigger pixels not going to really bother me, thanks for the info.  Paddy

[Xplode]

With some more data i'm able to get out more of the dust.

Total time is still only 3.1 hours so i'd like to get a few more hours L and Ha as there's still no Ha added.