Atik 16IC for H-alpha?

[Ben Ritchie]

How would the 16IC do for medium-resolution H-alpha imaging?

I'm interested in something for use with the 130EDT (1040mm focal length, f/8) for H-alpha imaging of things like the Horsehead, M1, M27 etc., and for service as an autoguider at other times. Looking to do something like 600s subs through a 6nm/7nm filter.

The 16IC looks pretty good for that, and fits my rather limited budget at the moment. Would any of the assorted QHY CCDs be any better?

[CELESCOPE]

Hi ben, no reason to think that this would not keep you happy ,,and would be perfectly ok for what you are wanting, although if i was on a limited budget , i would try and squeeze that bit extra and go for the larger resolution with the 16ICS.

Both CCds will produce very good results with the Ha filter.

Rog

[Helen]

I've had some good results with the 16ic and Ha Neat little camera, and I really should sell mine now that I've got the SXV H9 and guider, but I like it

Helen

[Ben Ritchie]

Rog - I thought that the 16ICS had lower H-alpha sensitivity than the 16IC? It's possibly worth saying a little bit more about my short-term and long-term plans. Short-term i've cut back hard on imaging kit, my work's rather uncomfortably exposed to any downturn (...especially in finance... ), so there's little money to spend right now. Longer term i'd pair this purchase with a big chip CCD on the Borg 77ED to cover widefields, so a big chip isn't a particular priority here, but good quality H-alpha is. Longer-term this would also spend more and more of its time autoguiding, so I probably don't want to spend a lot of money here.

Helen, if you do consider selling it...

[Ben Ritchie]

Plugging in the numbers, the 16IC would give me 16"x12" at 1.5"/pixel, which looks to be quite a nice scale for the sort of target I have in mind. No room to hide the errors by resampling though...!

[bern]

What about the QHY6, which has high Ha sensitivity and makes a fine guider?

bern

[Ben Ritchie]

Oddly enough Bern my browser is just pointing to http://www.modernastronomy.com/camerasQHY.htm

Do you mean the QHY6, or 6Pro? I think the 6Pro uses the same CCD as was used in the Atik 16/DSI Pro II (??) which I know is good for just the sort of task I have in mind, what does the '6' use?

[CELESCOPE]

Ah right should have read your post better Ben , yes the 16ics is not as good in the HA region , i just would have liked the higher Res with less noise in there , but ok as its long term ,then yup taking it over as a guider i see ok.but i see Bern has you on the QHY6 heheheh ,always hard decisions here .

Rog

[Ben Ritchie]

It would still get used long-term Rog, just not as my primary CCD - just when I wanted to image something small at higher resolution than I could get with the Borg. So i'm looking for that difficult balance of 'cheap but not too cheap'...!

[bern]

Oddly enough Bern my browser is just pointing to http://www.modernastronomy.com/camerasQHY.htm

Do you mean the QHY6, or 6Pro? I think the 6Pro uses the same CCD as was used in the Atik 16/DSI Pro II (??) which I know is good for just the sort of task I have in mind, what does the '6' use?

Ben,

Both the QHY6 and QHY6 Pro use Exview chips, which as you know are very Ha sensitive.

The Pro uses the 429 chip whereas the standard QHY6 uses the 255 chip.

The other things to look at are the difference in pixel size and that the QHY6 has an St4 port but the Pro doesn't.

Bern

[Ben Ritchie]

Cheers Bern - the plain vanilla QHY6 might be just what I need.

The ExView's are indeed great CCDs for H-alpha, daydreaming about kit would be much easier if only they'd made larger ones than the 285! Of course we're a zillionth of their overall market, but a multi-megapixel chip with the sensitivity and (lack of) noise of the 285 would be great...

[bern]

Ditto, a super 285 would be excellent!

bern

[narrowbandpaul]

agreed, but wouldnt mind some bigger pixels, for greater well depth. i feel the dynamic range is a touch low