1600 or Atik 460

[steviemac500]

Ok, I'm desperate for a wider FOV than my 414 but cant decide between the 2. The 1600 has been out a while now and there are lots of images being posted, the price is very attractive too and I believe it cabn take 1.25" filters? I wonder if anyone could give me some pros/cons of the 2 cameras? I did have a 383 but couldn't really get on with it. Thanks in advance,

Steve

[swag72]

Here's my immediate thought.............. There's such a huge difference in the FOV of the 460 and the 1600 that I don't know how you can be considering between these two in the same post  ..... I guess that you've spent time with the FOV calculators out there so that should be a simple decision to make based on FOV alone! Yes the 460 is wider than the 414........ but answer this simple question......

Based on the FOV Calculator which do you prefer? the 460 or the 1600?

The 460 will happily run with 1.25" filters and from what I have read on the 1600 threads, that camera will too..... any vignetting will be taken out by flats. It's a shame that you couldn't get on with the 383 as that is a great sensor and that would actually be my recommendation  

The 460 is a decent enough camera, and I speak from experience. But for me the small size of the chip was just unbearable and that's the long and the short of it. I can't compare it with the 1600 I'm afraid as I've not used one. 

Based on the chip size difference, that would be my bigger factor at this stage. Hope that helps

[Demonperformer]

1 hour ago, steviemac500 said:

I believe it cabn take 1.25" filters?

It can. It comes with a ring that fits inside the nosepiece or will run with a filter wheel.

HTH

[Gina]

 I have "upgraded" from Atik 460EX mono to ASI1600MM-Cool and very pleased with the results   And yes, continuing to use 1.25" filters, no problem.

[brrttpaul]

Same boat, is the 1600 an upgrade? I cant get my head around you need lots more subs  and a lot more stacking processing etc and then the vignetting, from a pretty much beginner it would be nice to see pros and cons with both cameras

[swag72]

21 minutes ago, brrttpaul said:

Same boat, is the 1600 an upgrade? I cant get my head around you need lots more subs  and a lot more stacking processing etc and then the vignetting, from a pretty much beginner it would be nice to see pros and cons with both cameras

Personally I wouldn't see the 1600 as an 'upgrade' - It's just a different take on an astro camera...... CCD v's CMOS.

For me the large amount of subs and the file size would be a killer. I'd have to get a PC upgrade to cope with it. I think that's another thing to consider too.

[ollypenrice]

I'm not convinced that the 1600 is a fully mature product as of now, but I do think it will get there.

What was wrong with the 383? I think this is a good chip.

Olly

[brrttpaul]

1 hour ago, swag72 said:

Personally I wouldn't see the 1600 as an 'upgrade' - It's just a different take on an astro camera...... CCD v's CMOS.

For me the large amount of subs and the file size would be a killer. I'd have to get a PC upgrade to cope with it. I think that's another thing to consider too.

Well that's what I was thinking tbh, my comp can just about cope now, 

 

[Andyb90]

4 hours ago, brrttpaul said:

Same boat, is the 1600 an upgrade? I cant get my head around you need lots more subs  and a lot more stacking processing etc and then the vignetting, from a pretty much beginner it would be nice to see pros and cons with both cameras

You could go for longer subs say 3 to 5 minutes and reduce the gain on the 1600 if lots of shorter subs would not suit you. You'll get some amp glow, but from what I've seen that calibrates out.

Andy.

[brrttpaul]

Prob a stupid question but why would reducing gain increase amp glow? I was under the impression gain was like ISO, and the lower the ISO the less noise, I'm just wondering why making it less sensitive increases the glow

[Filroden]

4 minutes ago, brrttpaul said:

Prob a stupid question but why would reducing gain increase amp glow? I was under the impression gain was like ISO, and the lower the ISO the less noise, I'm just wondering why making it less sensitive increases the glow

Reducing gain allows longer exposures (though I'd argue not by much). Longer exposures result in more glow. 

[Gina]

The upgrade is in resolution - nearly twice in each axis.  The other improvement is in read noise which lets you increase the gain though the does mean shorter exposures except for very faint DSOs.  Yes, admittedly a lot more data to handle.

[MattJenko]

I sold a 694 chip (Starlight version) to buy my 1600. Don't regret it. For me it is significantly more flexible in that I can do lunar imaging with minimal mosaicing, can do planetary, all at USB3 speeds as well as the DSO capability. A significantly bigger field of view at better resolution than the 460 at a much smaller cost. I wanted to match it to a very small focal length refractor, so the combination of large chip size and small pixels made it a winner for me. It may not suit all setups. Truth be told, as with all things, it is not perfect, with some artifacts on bright stars, some glow at longer exposures, but all in all, it is a swap I would do again.

One thing which does needs serious consideration is that because it has a large number of pixels, this means very big fit files, which means epic processing after the fact if you are doing short exposures. I have a beefy spec processing laptop, and would be struggling without it.

Having said all that, I am looking at a camera to permanently pair with my little RC, and want a 8300...

[MattJenko]

Its a lot quieter than my SX 694 as well :).

Re-reading your post, you want experiences of both, so here goes. There was nothing wrong with the SX694 at all. It was clean, worked well and did exactly what was asked of it. I would liked to have kept it, but money is not bottomless with me and I wanted to 'upgrade' to a shorter focal length setup from my ED80. The field of view/resolution argument was pretty dominating in the end for that use case. You say you didn't get on with the 8300 chip. Was that with the sensor, or just a particular brand of camera one? 

[brrttpaul]

So again, it needs a good pc to run it and thats my problem with it, it all adds up

[valefor]

I guess the thing to ask too is. Do you need the extra size? Will you be imaging the 20 or so objects that are bigger than the 460 will image or are you in to smaller dsos? For me i want to image things like stephans quintet with my ed80 or 150mak so im set on the 460. It seemed to be the best option for me. Big price tho. I must admit a cooled zwo did really tempt me for a long time. 

Dave

[Sp@ce_d]

As has been said there's rather more to think about than just FOV when comparing these particular 2. You'll need to feed back a bit more info of what you're expectations are from them?

It does take a lot to beat "tried & tested" kit when it comes to this game, I've learnt!.. I fancy another larger FOV camera (than my 314's) to have another go at a dual setup & I've been following the 1600 for a while with interest, come close to getting one to see what its like. However, I'm not sure it will "just" fit into my setup. The extra overhead of usb bandwidth, amount of subs, file sizes, storage etc. Let alone the processing. I'd be interested in why you didn't get on with the 383? I think for myself I'll probably follow Sara's lead with a Moravian G2 8300 to go with the QSI. I've learnt lessons from my previous attempts at trying to use "bleedin" edge technology for imaging .. You may of course have many more usable clear nights in Cyprus to test this stuff out but here under UK skies !!  

[Adam J]

Its a tough one, I have been thinking this through myself for a long time and like you have also narrowed it down to a ASI1600mmc or QHY163m, a KAF8300 based camera and a SX694 based camera. I have also seen a KAI4022 based camera second hand that is in the same price range and have wondered about that too, maybe not a good chose compared to newer chips? I have never owned any of the sensors discussed, but this is a summary of what I have found when researching them. 

 

KAF8300 - Very good images being produced, good dynamic range, 16-bit, requires long exposures to get past the read noise, requires very good guiding, readily available second hand and in good condition nice pixel size and FOV with my 130PDS, requires dark frames, good chip size, 1.25 inch filters are ok but will cause some issues that can be corrected.  

ASI1600mmc - Good images being produced, however in my view CCD images still look more contrasty, low dynamic range, 12-bit,  probably over sampling for my scope, its cheaper when new than any of the CCD options, short exposures so lower guiding requirements, large number of images / high resolution so higher processing and storage requirements, amp glow (I cant believe a modern chip has amp glow, even if you can process it out) I assume that the chip was designed with low light video in mind rather than longer exposures so amp glow was not a design consideration and assuming it was not designed for Astro work, can be used as a planetary camera, requires dark frames, good chip size, 1.25 inch filters are ok but will cause some issues that can be corrected.  

SX694 - Very good images being produced, very high QE, good dynamic range, 16-bit, requires longer exposures but not so long as KAF8300, requires good guiding,  no dark frames required, small sensor size, poor FOV with my 130PDS, can easily use 1.25 inch filters, you have to muck about with mosaics to cover all but the smallest targets. 

All in all, I find non of these solutions to be ideal but I will most likely go with the KAF8300 when I can afford one.  All I have to go by is what I have seen produced from the two sensors. My personal conclusion is that its easier to get a high quality image with a ASI1600mmc but that the image quality ceiling is ultimately lower than that of the KAF8300 if you are able / willing to work with it. Part of me suspects that at my skill level / uk weather I would do better with a ASI1600mmc mind you.   

My dream sensor would be a mono version of a full frame CMOS sensor like the one in the Canon 6D or Sony A7s with cooling. Short ish exposures, large pixels, no amp glow, large sensor. The technology is out there but I think I will most likely be dreaming on for some time, or until there is a commercially viable reason for them to make a mono version of such a sensor at any rate.  

Adam

[Barry-Wilson]

Interesting read.

I have used both the Atik 460 and 383L+ in the past, I eventually moved onto a QSI683 for its integrated OAG, FW and improved electronics.  The KAF8300 chip is a cracker and well tried and tested as we all know.  Like Sara found, I'm not sure of the oft repeated noisy comparison and whether it actually matters - I would posit it does not.

Out of frustration at the endless cloudy weather, last night I processesed the 4 x 600s Luminance at F7 (yes, that's 4 x 600s at F7 ) of M81 & M82 I had captured late February with my WO FLT132 just to see what I had.  I appreciate I have reasonably dark skies, it is a 5.2" scope, and I have a good library of calibration files, but here is the result after a quick process - nothing extravagant.  The KAF8300 chip holds its own I believe alongside the newer less noisy Sony chips.  I would focus less on noise and think about what you want to achieve with your image scale, FOV and resolution with your scopes. .

 

[Davey-T]

12 minutes ago, Barry-Wilson said:

Interesting read.

I have used both the Atik 460 and 383L+ in the past, I eventually moved onto a QSI683 for its integrated OAG, FW and improved electronics.  The KAF8300 chip is a cracker and well tried and tested as we all know.  Like Sara found, I'm not sure of the oft repeated noisy comparison and whether it actually matters - I would posit it does not.

Out of frustration at the endless cloudy weather, last night I processesed the 4 x 600s Luminance at F7 (yes, that's 4 x 600s at F7 ) of M81 & M82 I had captured late February with my WO FLT132 just to see what I had.  I appreciate I have reasonably dark skies, it is a 5.2" scope, and I have a good library of calibration files, but here is the result after a quick process - nothing extravagant.  The KAF8300 chip holds its own I believe alongside the newer less noisy Sony chips.  I would focus less on noise and think about what you want to achieve with your image scale, FOV and resolution with your scopes. .

 

Been doing something similar Barry with WO110FLT and QSI683 been resisting doing any processing 

Dave

[steviemac500]

Thanks for all the advice but after all that I think I'm going with the Moravian G2 8300!

[toxic]

i only own 1 ccd camera and it is the Atik 383l+ so i can't compare to other makes but i have noticed that i did use darks but they sometimes tended to leave black dots around the picture. i now dont use darks and hey presto not black dots and less noise ? but that aside ,the detail that can be pulled out of this camera is astounding to me.

[Sp@ce_d]

One thing I found that makes a world of difference with cleaning up, is dithering..