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_2019_sp_banner.thumb.jpg.a0ff260c05b90dead5c594e9b4ee9fd0.jpg

tomato

Moravian G2-8300 vs QSI 683

Recommended Posts

I have to use Maxim DL in order to run Pin-Point which Sequence (Part of the ASA software suite) needs for plate-solving and model making. I would prefer to use AstroArt 5 for my capture, but there it is.

The Moravian camera has been attracting my attention, and I've been giving it serious thought, but as my ASI covers a similar FoV I've decided to stick with it for the moment as I don't want to spend any more money on astro kit for the time being. I don't get enough use from the kit I *do* have. I know the 8300 is a better camera than the 1600 but unless I sold it (Cam and wheel) getting a third camera seems a little extravagant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll take a look at SGP, it does  seem to have a majority of  positive reviews on SGL. A big learning curve for me, moving away from OSC, but hopefully the image processing will be more straightforward.

I'll be doing LRGB to start with so I'll  have a bit of time to sort out the camera control while the Earth moves along on it's orbit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/05/2017 at 20:47, DaveS said:

The Moravian camera has been attracting my attention, and I've been giving it serious thought, but as my ASI covers a similar FoV I've decided to stick with it for the moment as I don't want to spend any more money on astro kit for the time being. I don't get enough use from the kit I *do* have. I know the 8300 is a better camera than the 1600 but unless I sold it (Cam and wheel) getting a third camera seems a little extravagant.

I am in the same place Dave.  Money ready to go on a 8300 chip camera (QSI for me I think though) but I feel it a bit extravagant at the moment given the sky conditions of late.  I have to think hard and question if that sort of outlay can be justified as I hardly use the stuff I already have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, kirkster501 said:

.... I have to think hard and question if that sort of outlay can be justified as I hardly use the stuff I already have.

As I've said before, Steve, if you need to 'unload' any of that stuff ......  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even with the U.K. weather, I'll still use the camera more than another carefully considered purchase, namely my mountain bike....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm also going round and round this loop too.  One moment I am going for QSI the next the Moravian, then back again.  And now I got looking into the QSI690 as well to make it more complex!  Indeed why not the G3-16200.... Doh!

MI G2-8300 gets a very good press and looks a fine package at a reasonable cost.  But a little monkey is on my back saying get the QSI and spend the extra and get what you really want right now Steve.........!

How would a QSI or MI  connect to the FSQ 85 reducer anyone know?  I asked Ian King today and waiting for him to reply but wondered if anyone knew?

Edited by kirkster501

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, kirkster501 said:

.... And now I got looking into the QSI690 as well to make it more complex!  Indeed why not the G3-16200.... Doh!

...

I like my 690 with my Esprit 120 (f/l 840 mm).  It gets me imaging at 0.9" per pixel which I am comfortable with.  With your Tec (f/l 980 mm) you would be imaging at 0.78" - perhaps that is starting to become a bit of a tall ask.  Your Baby Q is a intended to be a 'widefield' scope - why then use it with a smaller chip?  On the other hand, are you certain the Baby Q would give a flatfield right out to the edge of the 16200 chip?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, kirkster501 said:

How would a QSI or MI  connect to the FSQ 85 reducer anyone know?  I asked Ian King today and waiting for him to reply but wondered if anyone knew?

Easy! Ian will sell you an adapter for the QSI that gives you the correct spacing from the reducer to the chip. With the Moravian you will have to get your own made.... easy enough as there's a couple of good guys out there who will make what you want that I can recommend. The QSI requires NO input from you! The Moravain will require measuring and then getting someone to make it. I have a picture of the adapter I had made so that there's no ambiguity about what you'd need with regards end threads that I can send you if you go down that route.

If you get the Moravian with the internal 5 wheel carousel then I can even give you the measurements that I used to get the spacing :) 

Edited by swag72

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, gnomus said:

I like my 690 with my Esprit 120 (f/l 840 mm).  It gets me imaging at 0.9" per pixel which I am comfortable with.  With your Tec (f/l 980 mm) you would be imaging at 0.78" - perhaps that is starting to become a bit of a tall ask.  Your Baby Q is a intended to be a 'widefield' scope - why then use it with a smaller chip?  On the other hand, are you certain the Baby Q would give a flatfield right out to the edge of the 16200 chip?

Assuming Steve's using the TEC flattener the FL of the TEC will be more like 1015mm. It's also worth noting that the TEC flattener almost certainly improves the colour correction in the blue for CCD imaging. I'm convinced mine does, having imaged with and without it, and there was a CN discussion suggesting the same. It was OK without it but there was sometimes some blue bloat on bright hot stars.

I'm also enjoying 0.9 "PP with my TEC/460 combination. It seems like a sweet spot and is getting me into the galaxies.

On the Moravian/QSI decision I'd be very surprised if you noticed any difference in use.

Olly

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am keeping my 460, as you have suggested Olly, for use exclusively on the TEC and small galaxies.  I do not have the flattener Olly, I don't think I need the flattener though with the small chip of the 460?  A flattener would imply spacing issues again.....  I did the maths on this prior to ordering the TEC last year and I -and Yuri - said it was not needed with that small chip.

Sara, I spoke to Ian King this morning and, exactly as you say, he has a customer adapter for use with the FSQ/QSI.

I think i am going to sell some premium bonds (that have won jack all in seven years) to buy the QSI (I think).  Ask me in a hour's time and you may get a different answer!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kirkster501 said:

I am keeping my 460, as you have suggested Olly, for use exclusively on the TEC and small galaxies.  I do not have the flattener Olly, I don't think I need the flattener though with the small chip of the 460?  A flattener would imply spacing issues again.....  I did the maths on this prior to ordering the TEC last year and I -and Yuri - said it was not needed with that small chip.

Sara, I spoke to Ian King this morning and, exactly as you say, he has a customer adapter for use with the FSQ/QSI.

I think i am going to sell some premium bonds (that have won jack all in seven years) to buy the QSI (I think).  Ask me in a hour's time and you may get a different answer!

You won't need the flattener for the small chip but the colour correction is better with it. On most targets I don't think this will matter.

Olly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/06/2017 at 14:59, ollypenrice said:

You won't need the flattener for the small chip but the colour correction is better with it. On most targets I don't think this will matter.

Olly

I think the focus drifts slightly with the blue channel with the TEC on Baader filters, fractional but it does drift off a little.  I think the FSQ85 is parfocal with LRGBHa from Baader.

When I get it I am thinking of stuffing the QSI683 with Gen2 E series LRGB 31mm Astrodons and also a Astrodon 3nm HA.  The Astrodon LRGB's are double the cost of Baaders but what the hell with an expensive new camera.  This all depends on my tax return this week and if HMRC are kind to me......!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phase two of project complete, camera delivered?

However note the wet patio outside, it has rained all day.

I guess it will be imaging wet chimney pots in LRGB......

 

image.jpeg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/8/2017 at 07:23, swag72 said:

Easy! Ian will sell you an adapter for the QSI that gives you the correct spacing from the reducer to the chip. With the Moravian you will have to get your own made.... easy enough as there's a couple of good guys out there who will make what you want that I can recommend. The QSI requires NO input from you! The Moravain will require measuring and then getting someone to make it. I have a picture of the adapter I had made so that there's no ambiguity about what you'd need with regards end threads that I can send you if you go down that route.

If you get the Moravian with the internal 5 wheel carousel then I can even give you the measurements that I used to get the spacing :) 

Hi Sara,

I'm going for the G2 8300 with my SW 80 ED,Flattener/reducer.

Do you know what the correct spacing would be? I don't understand how to measure the distance necessary! Also, dose the internal filter wheel accepts 1.25 filters? If so why all the images of the camera shows the 2 sized slots? 

Do you recommend Badder LRGB filters? 

Thanks in advance 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The spacing requirement depends on the flattener used and so that should be easy to find on the retailers website...... something tells me for the ED80 it's 55mm, but DO check it. Then you need to find out where the necessary spacing starts from (probably the lens facing the camera) and then measure the correct distance from there to the sensor on the camera.... there's a marking on the camera case for where the sensor is...... Then you just make sure that the distance is correct between those two points.... as well as allowing a distance for the filters, but I can never remeber if you have to add or take that distance away, so you really do need to confirm that as I can't!

Yes the internal wheel takes 1.25" filters, but I guess you'll need to specify what carousel you want in the wheel when you order. The Baader LRGB filters are fine :)

Hope that helps :) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So after all the work and saving to get the QSI 683 I can no longer get one.  Back Square 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kirkster501 said:

So after all the work and saving to get the QSI 683 I can no longer get one.  Back Square 1.

You could probably get a new Moravian with the same chip, the external 7 position filter wheel, OAG and a whole host of new 31 mm filters for less than the cost of a new QSI!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, MrsGnomus said:

You could probably get a new Moravian with the same chip, the external 7 position filter wheel, OAG and a whole host of new 31 mm filters for less than the cost of a new QSI!

Yes indeed. Thanks.  I'm looking into that option.

Another thought is to go with the a 16200 chip camera and maybe upgrade the scope to the FSQ106 with its larger imaging circle since I don't think the baby-Q will cut it with a sensor that size.  That starts getting very expensive since the delta to upgrade my 85 to the 106 will be in excess of £1500 on the used market - and that's before I bought the camera/filters.  I was also going to go with the Astrodon filters 31mm filters with the 8300 chip options but that starts getting pricey at the 2" filter sizes.

Decisions, decisions....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kirkster501 said:

Yes indeed. Thanks.  I'm looking into that option.

Another thought is to go with the a 16200 chip camera and maybe upgrade the scope to the FSQ106 with its larger imaging circle since I don't think the baby-Q will cut it with a sensor that size.  That starts getting very expensive since the delta to upgrade my 85 to the 106 will be in excess of £1500 on the used market - and that's before I bought the camera/filters.  I was also going to go with the Astrodon filters 31mm filters with the 8300 chip options but that starts getting pricey at the 2" filter sizes.

Decisions, decisions....

If you were happy with your QSI decision I can't see that it differs significantly from switching to the same chip from Moravian...

Olly

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

If you were happy with your QSI decision I can't see that it differs significantly from switching to the same chip from Moravian...

Olly

I agree.... the Moravian is a good bit of kit ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s as maybe, but haven’t you guys heard of dithering?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why make a snap decision Steve?  Why not dither for six months? ;)

In all seriousness I had made my mind up to get the QSI a while ago and was awaiting the funds.  As soon as I got them and pressed the go button QSI stop selling them for reasons we all know.

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.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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