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.

Welcome to Stargazers Lounge

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customise your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

  • Announcements

    SGL 2017 SP

kirkster501

Camera Upgrade Itch

35 posts in this topic

Hi all,

I have an itch to upgrade my camera to a QSI683 or maybe even something with the KAF 16600 chip.  What scares me with the big chip is the 2" filters requirement.  Also, appears to be no camera with built in filter wheel on cameras with that chip.

Someone please talk me out of it.......!  It's just an idea at this stage.  I have the money but, I dunno - I could alternatively buy a time trial bike as well that will get a lot more use in this country than yet more astro gear.  Hmmm, descisions!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you considered Moravian Instruments? Their 8300 CCD is a lot cheaper than the QSI, and their 16200 CCD can have a 5 position 2" filter wheel :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Considering you have the funds, you'd be crazy not to get it! I'm not helping am I? :D Second-hand 2 inch filters can be had for pretty reasonable prices; I managed to get an almost new Baader Ha 7nm for £116 and an almost new OIII 8.5 nm for £85 including postage. Hoping to get an SII for the same as the OIII, so that would be ~£270 for all 3! Considering a new set costs ~£420, that's pretty good; just need a bit of patience I guess. :)

Edited by SyedT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want 3nm Astrodons then the filters will cost you a pretty penny.... Far more than a few hundred pounds :)

I love the KAF8300 sensor..... I wouldn't change it.... I much prefer it to the two Sony sensors I've used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QSI is a lovely camera and you can use your existing filters unless you want to splash the cash on 3nm Astrodons.

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your thoughts.

Sara do you not get vignetting with 1.25 filters at such short FL?  I liek to use the reducer on my FSQ as well for stuff like NA and M31 which takes it to F3.8.

I do like the look of the 683 with the OAG option (although quite happy with guidescope).  I will see what bonus I get :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I do get vignetting - I always use the reducer on the FSQ85.... Nothing that a set of flats doesn't fix :)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. I need to do some thinking.  Selling my [superb] 460+EFW2 will part fund it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 8300 chip would be great with your Tec and Tak, I would think.  The larger size chip would (I am certain) be superb with the Tec, but you might be pushing what the FSQ 85 is capable of at the edges.  Two inch Astrodons (or Chromas) are a totally bonkers price - but hey - if you've got it, flaunt it, baby.  

The QSI 683 can be used with 1.25" filters I believe.  The Moravian with internal wheel might get away with 1.25", but I don't know.  The Moravian internal is only 5 positions, so I went for an external wheel (but it is still only one power cable and USB cable).  With the external wheel I decided it would be safer to have the 36mm unmounted.  (I'd have felt a complete eejit if I had taken delivery of my 3nms only to find that I could see the filter edges in my FOV.  I still wonder if I might have got away with 1.25" though.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, gnomus said:

The 8300 chip would be great with your Tec and Tak, I would think.  The larger size chip would (I am certain) be superb with the Tec, but you might be pushing what the FSQ 85 is capable of at the edges...........

The 8300 and Tak FSQ85 is fine  - I can say that with experience. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, swag72 said:

The 8300 and Tak FSQ85 is fine  - I can say that with experience. 

Yes, of course.  I meant a chip larger than the 8300 - Steve mentioned in his post that he was thinking about one of the larger 16xxx sensors.  (That is why I also touched on 2" filters.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Steve/Sara,

Yes I did indeed mention the 16600 sensor.  On reflection, I am not going there, it is too expensive in terms of filters and even my much loved FSQ may not work with it. There comes a time when we have to say enough is enough and there is a limit for us passionate amateurs; this is Steve's backyard setup, not a new version of the HST.... :)  The QSI 683, old in the tooth maybe, still appears to be the camera to go for, pricey though it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, swag72 said:

The 8300 and Tak FSQ85 is fine  - I can say that with experience. 

When you say 8300, which one do you mean Sara?  The QSI?  I think you mean both cameras but just clarifying.....  And both are OK with the 0.73 reducer too (?)  since I'd want that combo very much, it would be super with the 8300 chip on wide field subjects like California and M31.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I use the QSI683 on one FSQ85 and the Moravian G2-8300 on the other FSQ85 - Both reduced and both are fine with 1.25" filters.

Like you Steve I an sticking with the FSQ85's and so accept the compromise that brings with regards to sensor size. I know that the 11000 full frame chip doesn't work as that's why I ended up with Olly's scope :)

Edited by swag72

Share this post


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

When you say 8300, which one do you mean Sara?  The QSI?  I think you mean both cameras but just clarifying.....  And both are OK with the 0.73 reducer too (?)  since I'd want that combo very much, it would be super with the 8300 chip on wide field subjects like California and M31.

Hi Steve.  Take a look at this month's Astronomy Now.  You will see that Sara has an article in there where she talks about her dual set up using both a Moravian and a QSI.  I have a Moravian 8300 and a QSI 690.  The QSI is a sleek and classy bit of kit.  The Moravian looks a bit more ... well ... functional.  But it seems reliable so far.  All things being equal I'd take a QSI, but all things aren't equal.  There is the cost.  Also, if the camera has to go back to the manufacturer, it might be a bit of a pain having to ship to the US.  I believe that Ian King can do some QSI repairs, but if it needs regassing it has to go stateside.  (Someone please jump in and correct me if I am wrong about that.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, swag72 said:

I use the QSI683 on one FSQ85 and the Moravian G2-8300 on the other FSQ85 - Both reduced and both are fine with 1.25" filters.

Like you Steve I an sticking with the FSQ85's and so accept the compromise that brings with regards to sensor size. I know that the 11000 full frame chip doesn't work as that's why I ended up with Olly's scope :)

Now that's just greedy Sara..... :)

I do like the FSQ very much.  It is also a superb visual telescope as well.  Astonishingly so.  But that is another story :happy7:

@Steve, yes I have read Sara's article.  Very interesting but I have enough on my plate getting one combo up and working, let alone two.......  Are you trying to convince me to keep the Atik as the second camera? :evil4:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Just a thought, but I've recently splashed out on a used Atik 460 for the TEC. I already have an 11000. My thinking is that the 0.9 arcsecs per pixel from the 460 effectively doubles the focal length and should make the scope a useful galaxy hunter. I'm not fussed about the small chip because the 460 will be target-specific, small galaxies being the objective. I can also revert to the 11 Meg painlessly since I just need to leave a different USB in the loom. I suppose I'm wondering whether you could keep the 460 and go for something with a bigger chip and, perhaps, bigger pixels for targets which ask for them. A luxury, I know, but what are we like??

The 8300 is a good compromise but there is quite a difference in resolution on small scale targets between 5.4 micron and 4.5 micron pixels. 

BTW, I also bought a second filter wheel when I bought the 460. I'm not sure why I did that! Erm...??? I s'pose I'll think of something...

:icon_albino:lly

Edit. Another thought: the TEC with flattener can cover anything!  Even with full frame and restrictive 2 inch mounted filters there is next to no vignetting. Such a shame to waste it...

Edited by ollypenrice

Share this post


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

Now that's just greedy Sara..... :)

I do like the FSQ very much.  It is also a superb visual telescope as well.  Astonishingly so.  But that is another story :happy7:

@Steve, yes I have read Sara's article.  Very interesting but I have enough on my plate getting one combo up and working, let alone two.......  Are you trying to convince me to keep the Atik as the second camera? :evil4:

I would have thought that with a Mesu you might be thinking about a 'dual purpose' set up (if not quite a dual rig).  In your place I might have the Tec on one side with your 460, and your FSQ 85 on the other, with an 8300 (and it is obvious that you are going to get the QSI).  Or you could put the FSQ on top of the Tec.  That way you could switch between longer and shorter focal lengths without any effort whatsoever.  

It would be easier to keep a camera permanently attached to each scope - flats, balancing, etcetera.

:evil4::evil4:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, gnomus said:

I would have thought that with a Mesu you might be thinking about a 'dual purpose' set up (if not quite a dual rig).  In your place I might have the Tec on one side with your 460, and your FSQ 85 on the other, with an 8300 (and it is obvious that you are going to get the QSI).  Or you could put the FSQ on top of the Tec.  That way you could switch between longer and shorter focal lengths without any effort whatsoever.  

It would be easier to keep a camera permanently attached to each scope - flats, balancing, etcetera.

:evil4::evil4:

So true! But, as they say about Paradise Lost, 'The devil has all the best lines...'

Olly

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

5 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

So true! But, as they say about Paradise Lost, 'The devil has all the best lines...'

Olly

Ouch.  It is just as well that I edited my last post.  I was going to suggest a triple rig with Tec in the middle and an FSQ85 straddling either side, attached to a pair of QSI683s fully loaded with 3nm Astrodons.

:icon_biggrin:

[Oh. And a Lunt doble stack on top of the Tec.]

Edited by gnomus
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, gnomus said:

Ouch.  It is just as well that I edited my last post.  I was going to suggest a triple rig with Tec in the middle and an FSQ85 straddling either side, attached to a pair of QSI683s fully loaded with 3nm Astrodons.

:icon_biggrin:

An excellent suggestion!

:icon_mrgreen:lly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Just now, ollypenrice said:

An excellent suggestion!

:icon_mrgreen:lly

Over to you Kirkster!

Edited by gnomus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, gnomus said:

Ouch.  It is just as well that I edited my last post.  I was going to suggest a triple rig with Tec in the middle and an FSQ85 straddling either side, attached to a pair of QSI683s fully loaded with 3nm Astrodons.

:icon_biggrin:

[Oh. And a Lunt doble stack on top of the Tec.]

My oilfield is coming on stream anytime soon.  I'll put the order in after my first 10000000 barrels Steve ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you seen this on UKABS?

Just sayin'...:icon_biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, since I am hitting 50 this August I feel that another treat is in order.  It makes sense I keep telling myself and it is only right and proper :) I have enjoyed reading the KAF-8300 threads and the excellent advice from Olly, Steve (Gnomus), Sara and others.  Thanks!

(That said, the list of "treats for myself" is getting rather extensive with a 2.5L BMW Z4 and a three week Caribbean cruise with my GF Louise in a luxury suite as well :) ).

Anyway, back to the QSI 683.  Never done OAG as I always found a guidescope fine, I get on with it and the weight is no issue for a MESU :) But I want to be "OAG ready" I could buy the OAG version and not use the OAG capability for a while?  What OAG camera would I need please? Could I redeploy by QHY5 or would that be like putting £10 tyres on a E class Mercedes?  I see the Lodestar mentioned quite a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.