ZWO ASI183MC

[Stu Wilson]

I' really interested in one of these.

So far I've only used dslr for our hobby.

Stupid question but what software is used for capture etc? And is there some form of live view for focus running some software?

I know daft questions but only info I can find is pixel sizes etc promoting the chip.

 

Cheers

 

:-)

[Merlin66]

SharpCap or FireCapture work well with the ASI cameras.

Yes, you can run effective "live view" - just change the exposure to show sufficient detail.

(I use an ASI 174MM with a SM60/ED80 for solar imaging, but about to buy a ASI 183MM)

[wimvb]

I use indi on a rock64 single board computer. Ekos/kstars on winows as a client. This works for me with an ASI174MM. AfaIk, all zwo cameras use the same type of drivers, ascom (windows) and indi (linux) compatible.

My solution for focusing is an arduino based SW motorfocuser that uses the moonlite protocol. Also controlled from indi & Ekos. Uses short exposures for focusing.

[Stu Wilson]

Do any of you guys have some images taken with this camera or similar so as what results to expect before I take the plunge.

Cheers

 

Clear skies :-)

[bobro]

It would be interesting to hear other experiences with this camera, especially as it is marketed as an 'alternative to a DSLR'.

It has relatively small pixels at 2.4um, which makes for good planetary imaging. Yet high Mpixels aren't needed for planetary as objects are small.

If, for example, DSO imaging is required with a 200mm aperture 1000mm fl scope, the resulting imaging would be at 0.5 arcsec per pixel, which may be a bit too precise for some setups. Larger pixels could make more sense for DSO imaging.

It is a colour camera - not so good if shorter exposure or narrowband work is the aim.

No cooling either, so no benefit of low temp noise reduction.

My interest is DSO and an ASI174 cooled mono camera seems to me to be better for DSO imaging, though filters would be required for colour.

So is the ASI183MC just a jack of all trades or is there a sweet spot for it?

 

Edited March 12, 2018 by bobro

[rigradio]

On 3/8/2018 at 05:33, Stu Wilson said:

 

Stupid question but what software is used for capture etc? And is there some form of live view for focus running some software?

 

SGPro + PlateSolve2, framing, centering, and start imaging less than 5min

[Adam J]

On 3/8/2018 at 11:03, Stu Wilson said:

Do any of you guys have some images taken with this camera or similar so as what results to expect before I take the plunge.

Cheers

 

Clear skies :-)

Honestly get the mono version not the OSC! 

The tiny little pixels on the 183 are mainly suited to short focal lengths unless you bin 2x2 and you can only do that with the mono really, what scope are you thinking of using this with?

Adam

[Merlin66]

I currently use the ZWO ASI 174MM for solar imaging, and I'm awaiting delivery (on back order) of an ASI 183MM to use on the shorter focal length scopes (to give easier full disk images)

I use FireCapture V2.6 for acquisition, AutoStakker V3 for quality stacking the AVI files and Registax 5 (I find it better than Registax6 at times) for the application of wavelets.

 

[Stu Wilson]

On 16/03/2018 at 23:30, Adam J said:

Honestly get the mono version not the OSC! 

The tiny little pixels on the 183 are mainly suited to short focal lengths unless you bin 2x2 and you can only do that with the mono really, what scope are you thinking of using this with?

Adam

My scope is skyeatcher 200p

[Allinthehead]

3 hours ago, Stu Wilson said:

My scope is skyeatcher 200p

This might suit your scope better with the larger pixels. 

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/zwo-cameras/zwo-asi-294mc-pro-usb-30-cooled-colour-camera.html

[Adam J]

5 hours ago, Stu Wilson said:

My scope is skyeatcher 200p

I would say its definitely unsuitable for that scope the pixels are to small.

Down size to a 130PDS and bin a mono 183 2x2 and you will have a good combo...or if you really want OSC I think you would be better off with a ASI294mc pro or better still a ASI071mc pro for the larger field of view...but ditch the 200p in any case.

What mount do you use?

Edited March 18, 2018 by Adam J

[Stu Wilson]

NEQ6PRO mount

[DaveS]

I've had a cooled mono version of this on my shopping list for a while now, as the tiny pixels are an ideal match for my 80mm f/4.4 at 352mm. For anything much longer I'd be looking at bigger pixels. As Adam says, the ASI294 is looking *very* attractive for an OSC.

[Adam J]

9 hours ago, Stu Wilson said:

NEQ6PRO mount

At 1000mm focal length it will be hit an miss on the tracking accuracy to support a 2.4um sized pixel. 

Ill be interested to know what you go with in the end. 

Edited March 20, 2018 by Adam J

[DaveS]

The 200P is a thumping great sail. Not unusable on a NEQ6Pro, but you'd be better off with bigger pixels. Use the Astronomy Tools resoursces ftom this site to look at suitability.

The ASI294 looks attractive.

[carastro]

Quote

The 200P is a thumping great sail. Not unusable on a NEQ6Pro

I have used a 200P on an NEQ6 with no problems, but it was inside an observatory.

Carole 

[Stu Wilson]

1 hour ago, DaveS said:

The 200P is a thumping great sail. Not unusable on a NEQ6Pro, but you'd be better off with bigger pixels. Use the Astronomy Tools resoursces ftom this site to look at suitability.

The ASI294 looks attractive.

Cheers for feedback.

[Stu Wilson]

1 hour ago, carastro said:

I have used a 200P on an NEQ6 with no problems, but it was inside an observatory.

Carole 

I'm quite lucky. Not in the point of field of view but rather where I setup the scope the garage (which hinders some objects obviously) shelters it from most breeze etc so I've never had many problems. She's out there now with DSLR capturing the horse for probably final attempt this year before it disappears.

[DCWZ]

Why is it that the 183MC is deemed to be unsuitable for longer focal lengths? I am currently looking at a 183MC to pair with lenses up to 300mm, but I would think that eventually, I would like to get a 200/800 or 200/1000 Newtonian to be used together with this camera. I perceive that the large crop factor with a decently long focal length should give me very good views of tiny objects, especially galaxies. Yes, my ultimate goal is galaxy chasing. 

 

So am I missing something out here?

[Adam J]

4 hours ago, DCWZ said:

Why is it that the 183MC is deemed to be unsuitable for longer focal lengths? I am currently looking at a 183MC to pair with lenses up to 300mm, but I would think that eventually, I would like to get a 200/800 or 200/1000 Newtonian to be used together with this camera. I perceive that the large crop factor with a decently long focal length should give me very good views of tiny objects, especially galaxies. Yes, my ultimate goal is galaxy chasing. 

 

So am I missing something out here?

You will end up with a pixel scale of <0.5 arcseconds per pixel. Along with the weight of a 200/1000 (don't go with the F4 for galaxies) you will be struggling to guide to the required accuracy without an extremely capable mount / probably in a obsy. Also you will be struggling to get sufficiently good seeing (atmospheric conditions) to enable you to resolve objects down to <0.5 arcseconds per pixel unless you are imaging from an elevated location.

Thats not to say you cant do it though, its actually potentially a very good galaxy combination, your just setting yourself up for a challenge. The 183 is useful as a pure galaxy imaging at between 750mm and 1000mm focal lengths and for wide field nebula imaging at focal lengths <400mm.  I would seriously consider the 183m though as opposed to the OSC if you want to image galaxies in any light pollution at all as using filters with an OSC will result in horrible colour balance.

Adam  

[DCWZ]

17 hours ago, Adam J said:

You will end up with a pixel scale of <0.5 arcseconds per pixel. Along with the weight of a 200/1000 (don't go with the F4 for galaxies) you will be struggling to guide to the required accuracy without an extremely capable mount / probably in a obsy. Also you will be struggling to get sufficiently good seeing (atmospheric conditions) to enable you to resolve objects down to <0.5 arcseconds per pixel unless you are imaging from an elevated location.

Thats not to say you cant do it though, its actually potentially a very good galaxy combination, your just setting yourself up for a challenge. The 183 is useful as a pure galaxy imaging at between 750mm and 1000mm focal lengths and for wide field nebula imaging at focal lengths <400mm.  I would seriously consider the 183m though as opposed to the OSC if you want to image galaxies in any light pollution at all as using filters with an OSC will result in horrible colour balance.

Adam  

Thank you for your input! I greatly appreciate it. Would you mind elaborating on why f/4 is not as ideal as f/5 for galaxies? Is it simply due to the shorter focal length?

[Demonperformer]

On 12/03/2018 at 20:29, bobro said:

No cooling either, so no benefit of low temp noise reduction. 

Not so, both of my 183 cameras cool very nicely.

[Adam J]

7 hours ago, DCWZ said:

Thank you for your input! I greatly appreciate it. Would you mind elaborating on why f/4 is not as ideal as f/5 for galaxies? Is it simply due to the shorter focal length?

F4 Newtonian are a pain in general in my opinion too hard to keep colimated and you are better off with a well colimated F5 with a bit more focal length than a poorly colimated F4 with less focal length. Also lots of galaxies are not so faint as you might think hence when imaging in luminescence you can accept the trade off in F-ratio / integration time for better real world optical quality and a flatter field. 

Edited July 24, 2019 by Adam J

[Adam J]

6 hours ago, Demonperformer said:

Not so, both of my 183 cameras cool very nicely.

That would be the pro model (with cooling) which was not the original subject of the thread. 

[rickwayne]

+1 on 183MM-Pro + ~350mm. I really like mine a lot. Resolves fine nebulosity detail visibly better than my DSLR. Confident it will do better still once my (*@&% guiding is sorted.