Best planetary imager

[Analysis Paralysis]

Hello fellow SGL members,

Please advise on the best imaging camera for planets/moon for use with 180 mak. It must cooperate with Windows 10. 

Thank you

Mark

[Stu]

5 minutes ago, Analysis Paralysis said:

Hello fellow SGL members,

Please advise on the best imaging camera for planets/moon for use with 180 mak. It must cooperate with Windows 10. 

Thank you

Mark

Can you give an idea of budget Mark? Might help with recommendations.

[vlaiv]

In my view Mak180 being F/15 instrument is going to be best paired with ASI224 - no barlow needed, just shoot at native.

[Analysis Paralysis]

11 minutes ago, Stu said:

Can you give an idea of budget Mark? Might help with recommendations.

Hi Stu

£200-300. 

Cheers

Mark

 

[Chris]

Here you go:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/offers/zwo-asi224mc-usb-3-colour-camera.html

[Analysis Paralysis]

32 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

In my view Mak180 being F/15 instrument is going to be best paired with ASI224 - no barlow needed, just shoot at native.

Hi Vlaiv, thank you. Can good images be obtained when I only have 2.0 usb connection on my computers. The website selling this suggests fast frame rate not compatible unless usb 3.0, even though back compatible with 2.0..

Thank, Mark

[noah4x4]

Hi Mark,

I have a Celestron Neximage Burst. It is fantastic for the Lunar surface, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn but pretty useless for anything else. You will soon get fed up with such limited targets and the FOV is so incredibly narrow the Moon will require a mosaic or focal reduction to embrace it all. The same is true of most dedicated 'planetary imagers'. Whilst inevitably the "best" solution, I would avoid if your budget is limited.

A far more versatile option is a ZWO or Atik CCD where budget will dictate the choice, but most of the entry level models do a decent job on both planets and DSOs. ZWO produce an excellent comparison guide on its website. It is true that you get what you pay for. 

 

 

 

 

 

[vlaiv]

3 hours ago, Analysis Paralysis said:

Hi Vlaiv, thank you. Can good images be obtained when I only have 2.0 usb connection on my computers. The website selling this suggests fast frame rate not compatible unless usb 3.0, even though back compatible with 2.0..

Thank, Mark

Ideally you want to get as much frames as possible. USB3.0 is preferred in this case as it allows you to get more frames than USB2.0.

But this also depends on seeing. To "freeze" the seeing you want your exposure to be around 5ms (2-10ms range). You want longer exposure to get good SNR per frame, but you also don't want too long exposure where atmosphere smears image. If you "freeze" the seeing - you will get distorted image but not "smeared" - algorithms can deal with distortion when stacking, but not so much with smearing.

In a very good to excellent seeing, when 10-20ms exposures are possible, USB2.0 is ok, because it will let you capture 50-100fps. But if you want frame rates in range 100-200fps (and even higher, like 300fps) you will need USB3.0 version (both camera, and computer with 3.0 usb port).

Difference between USB 2.0 and USB 3.0 translates roughly to: 4 minutes of Jupiter imaging at 60fps (low fps with usb 2.0) will get you 14400 potential frames to choose from, if you for example have 4% good frames, that will get you 576 "stackable" frames. With USB 3.0 and lets say 200fps, you will be able to capture 48000 frames in same time, again assuming 4% good frames that will give you 1920 frames to stack. So much higher SNR can be obtained with USB 3.0 speeds just because more frames can be recorded.

So while you can use USB 2.0 to do decent images in very good seeing, USB3.0 is always better option, and you should go for it if you have the means.

[Analysis Paralysis]

18 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

Ideally you want to get as much frames as possible. USB3.0 is preferred in this case as it allows you to get more frames than USB2.0.

But this also depends on seeing. To "freeze" the seeing you want your exposure to be around 5ms (2-10ms range). You want longer exposure to get good SNR per frame, but you also don't want too long exposure where atmosphere smears image. If you "freeze" the seeing - you will get distorted image but not "smeared" - algorithms can deal with distortion when stacking, but not so much with smearing.

In a very good to excellent seeing, when 10-20ms exposures are possible, USB2.0 is ok, because it will let you capture 50-100fps. But if you want frame rates in range 100-200fps (and even higher, like 300fps) you will need USB3.0 version (both camera, and computer with 3.0 usb port).

Difference between USB 2.0 and USB 3.0 translates roughly to: 4 minutes of Jupiter imaging at 60fps (low fps with usb 2.0) will get you 14400 potential frames to choose from, if you for example have 4% good frames, that will get you 576 "stackable" frames. With USB 3.0 and lets say 200fps, you will be able to capture 48000 frames in same time, again assuming 4% good frames that will give you 1920 frames to stack. So much higher SNR can be obtained with USB 3.0 speeds just because more frames can be recorded.

So while you can use USB 2.0 to do decent images in very good seeing, USB3.0 is always better option, and you should go for it if you have the means.

Thank you Vlaiv for taking the time to give a very comprehensive and useful reply! I will take this into account. I think having to get a computer as well as camera, is main cost issue. But I have some time to think about this.

Mark