Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_android_vs_ios_winners.thumb.jpg.803608cf7eedd5cfb31eedc3e3f357e9.jpg

Sign in to follow this  
Dkblow

CCD Night Vision

Recommended Posts

Has anyone modified and used a car CCD reversing camera for use in a scope?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how successful it would be. The reversing cameras I have looked on ebay seem to be relatively low resolution, require an external 12v psu and are not usb devices so you will need a frame grabber. Will the lens unscrew and will a standard 12mm x 0.5mm webcam nosepiece adapter fit ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By masjstovel
      Hi,
      I bought my first telescope, SW 150pds about 6 months ago with the purpose of astroimaging "when i feel ready".  So far ive used my Nikon D810 for that, and I'm now  planning on taking the step buying my first AP camera.
      My targets would be DSO's, and not planetary. I want a mono-camera, not color. 

      I want to get away with a very good camera to a reasonable price (wouldn't we all...) and in this regard I've been drooling on the ZWO ASI 1600MM Mono for some time. The price for it is in the upper part of my budget, but I'm willing to if its worth it.  I've seen from other treads that sensor-size isn't everything, and dynamic range and gain and all is just as important, but i have trouble understanding it all 100% when it's all new to me, but in my experience i am a practical person who learns things much better and faster with the gear in my hand. So without getting to technical, and staying as objective as possible - please help me with; 

      1. Is this a good camera to go for?
      2. It's sold with options of filters 1.25", 31mm or 36mm - Why these options, and what determines what i would choose?

      3. Would you go for another camera in this price range, and why? - Or to rephrase it a bit; If you were in my shoes, which camera would you og for?

      I'd appreciate any help:)

      I might add, that i understand that with my lack of experience, buying a mono-camera with filters and all might seem premature, but for some strange reason. I enjoy these "way over my head"-projects and figuring  out things as time goes - I just need some guiding in the right direction. 
    • By Matt Dawson
      Hello I'm new to this forum, greetings from rainy Luxembourg.
      I see this subject has been well covered already but I have a specific situation I need help with. I have a f/3.67 20" (508mm) Newtonian,coupled with a TS-Optics Coma Corrector 0.73x Reducer,  and an Apogee U4000 CCD (chip size 15.2mm x 15.2mm). I understand I need an over sized secondary to take full advantage of this f/2.7 super fast setup, but exactly what size secondary should I order? This setup has disadvantages that I cannot change like unforgiving collimation and focus (and some coma), but this is the one thing I can change for optimum performance. Can anyone tell me how to calculate this or, better still, calculate it for me?
      Cheers,
      Matt Dawson, Luxembourg
    • By Gib007
      THIS ITEM HAS NOW BEEN SOLD.
      This listing is for my personal camera (Kayron from Light Vortex Astronomy). It is a QSI 660wsg-8 monochrome CCD camera with the onboard 8-position filter wheel and Off-Axis Guider (OAG).
      The camera has been extremely well kept and cared for. I am supplying them in the original QSI pelican case, alongside the power adapter (with EU and UK plugs), a new USB cable, the QSI Allen wrench set, the 2" adapter for the camera and the guiding cable. The camera's condition is as-new.
      The QSI 660wsg-8 requires a single USB connection to control both imaging and the filter wheel. It also cools to -45°C below ambient temperature. The CCD sensor is Sony's ICX694, which is extremely low noise requiring no darks whatsoever and having peak Quantum Efficiency of 77%. The readout noise is also extremely low at only 3.97e as per my own measurement. Its full well capacity is of 17,719e, also as per my own measurement. For more information, please see QSI's website:
      https://qsimaging.com/products/600-series/qsi-660/
      Please note that this camera currently retails at just over £3,700 from UK suppliers, €4,400 from European suppliers or $4,200 from US suppliers. Payment is preferred via bank transfer but PayPal is OK with an extra 2.9% to cover PayPal fees. I'll cover postage to you via tracked Courier.
      I welcome any questions you may have regarding this listing. Thank you for looking.





    • By Neiman
      Hiya, have absolutely no idea where to begin finding a camera for Astrophotography. And by that I mean - I know I want a canon but am unsure which to buy. It will be a second hand one. Does it need to be full frame ? Can any and all models be modified ? Is a higher pixel count the way to go ? What are the important things to look for in a DSLR ?
      any help would be great.
      Thanks
      Neil
    • By maxchess
      I have decided to buy an OSC CCD and have narrowed it down to a choice between AS129MC Pro and the ASI183MC pro.  I would welcome some advice and comments on my reasoning.
      First, I know there is a good argument for going mono, but that’s for the future. I want to take it one step at a time. I am just about getting my head round guiding.
      My kit is a HEQ5-Pro Rowan Belt modified with mainly Explore Scientific ED APO 102mm f/7 focal length 712mm permanently mounted on a pier.. I also have a Celestron C8 but that’s for later.  Until now I have been imaging with a Canon450D moded and a Canon 2000D.  I  have an ASI178MC (not cooled) that I bought to experiment with last year.
      I also have travel gear consisting of an AZ Gti WiFi on which I sit my DSLR with a Cannon 300mm lens, which is great for big targets like M31, Rosette Nebula etc
      After extensive reading on Forums etc I am leaning towards the ASI294MC-Pro.  (but tomorrow I might change my mind)
      My reasoning is that the ASI1294 has a larger sensor size, 14 bit ADC vs 12 on the183; and larger pixels, and a greater full well capacity. So this means that the FOV will be only just a bit tighter than the my DLSR so with my ES102 I can still get good images of larger targets like M42 especially if I add an FR.  Without the FR I can get smaller targets.  I should also be able to use it with my Canon 300mm lens when traveling. It should also work well with my C8 when I start using that.
      I have also read that the larger pixels at 4.63um are more forgiving than the ASI183 that has 2.4um pixels especially when focussing. The ASI294 also has a much greater full well capacity, in theory providing greater dynamic range and less chance of blowing out stars.
      But I have a nagging doubt, because the ASI183MC pro although it has a smaller sensor size, is still quite decent and the tiny pixels mean that it has a resolution of 20mp compared with the 11mp of the ASI1294. So am I turning my back on greater resolution for my shorter focal length scopes? In the world of DLSR 20mp beats 11mp any day. Plus the ASI183 has an 84% QE!
      What brought it home was a test exposure I did with the old ASI178MC that also has 2.4um pixels, but a much smaller sensor. Using the ES102 I took 50 x 30 sec exposures of M27 (dumbbell) and compared them with results from the 450D on the C8. The FOV is the same, but the 178MC results were so much better.
      Any views most welcome.
       
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.