ZWO ASI 1600 mono pro vs Atik Horizon

[Aidan]

So, I’m on the verge of getting a new camera and have narrowed it down to these two.

im after a camera with a larger sensor than my current Atik 460ex mono to use with my 70mm quad and Esprit 120.

Price is a consideration, but I could afford the Atik.  What’s pushing me towards the 1600 is it seems very popular already, seems reliable.   Both my scopes have an OAG and I battled last year with spacing.  At least the zwo fw I have will actually need spacers rather than trying to find space!  The USB ports could be useful, but as I use a Pegasus power box, they are not so important.

The Horizon on the other hand would make spacing for my ff change, but I can handle that.  And, I’ve owned a couple of other Atik Cameras so trust their build and have only heard good things about after sales service etc.

Feom what I have read., both perform very well.  

Why shoukd I consider one over the other?

Rgds

Aidan

[GuLinux]

I never heard about the Atik Horizon, but having a look at the specs, they use exactly the same sensor, so image wise, I'd say none of them is better than the other.

You might just look at the (relatively minor) differences in features/accessories, spacing as you said, and price, and then do your choice

[hughgilhespie]

Hi Aidan

Useful info about this on this Cloudy Nights thread.

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/623254-asi1600-versus-atik-horizon/page-2?hl=%2Batik+%2Bhorizon#entry8672223

HTH

Regards, Hugh

[Aidan]

Thanks for the link.  Seems the bottom line is each are much of a like capability wise.  And price seems to be the main difference.

as I’ve continued reading, the asi seems to be the more favourable option at the moment.

[RayD]

An interesting read that CN thread  Somewhat focused on sensor and sensor glass, though.  Last time I looked there was an awful lot more on my Atik and ZWO cameras, including some chip like things with software and memory etc.

I don't have an opinion on either as I don't use CMOS but do have CCD versions of both cameras, both of which work great.  However, I would say there is an lot more to a camera than just a sensor and the glass that covers it.

I would think Atik is commercially aware, and is pricing the camera at a point where it makes a profit when taking in to account the cost of components used, software development and firmware and manufacturing costs.  I imagine much of the savings that ZWO make are in manufacturing, but not all, and having used and owning both, I just think the Atik kit is generally better made.  As I've said before, the ASI1600 is on iteration 4 now, so you could argue that they didn't quite get it right the first 3 times.  This is something you don't normally see from Atik unless it is an entirely new camera. (No this isn't me knocking the ASI before those with them decide this is an open invitation to attack; it is simply me noting that it isn't ideal to have so many versions of the same camera as it massively degrades the resale value of the one before).

[GuLinux]

23 minutes ago, RayD said:

An interesting read that CN thread  Somewhat focused on sensor and sensor glass, though.  Last time I looked there was an awful lot more on my Atik and ZWO cameras, including some chip like things with software and memory etc.

I don't have an opinion on either as I don't use CMOS but do have CCD versions of both cameras, both of which work great.  However, I would say there is an lot more to a camera than just a sensor and the glass that covers it.

Well, partially true... Sure there might be some features that do help you getting the ideal conditions for your shots (form factor for cooling, for instance), but I doubt there are gonna be massive differences from one camera to another, given the same sensor.

Even that discussion about the glass was actually a misunderstanding, the glass on the sensor is still the same, as it can't be customized by camera makers.

I'm not totally disagreeing with what you said, it's just that the extra features that, say, the Atik camera can offer might be very subjective. In the CN thread they mention that a lot of it is the bundled software, but for myself, hardcore Linux user, is hardly gonna make a difference (I'm pretty sure it won't be available for Linux, and even if it was, I'd prefer using open source solutions).

23 minutes ago, RayD said:

I would think Atik is commercially aware, and is pricing the camera at a point where it makes a profit when taking in to account the cost of components used, software development and firmware and manufacturing costs.  I imagine much of the savings that ZWO make are in manufacturing, but not all, and having used and owning both, I just think the Atik kit is generally better made.  As I've said before, the ASI1600 is on iteration 4 now, so you could argue that they didn't quite get it right the first 3 times.  This is something you don't normally see from Atik unless it is an entirely new camera. (No this isn't me knocking the ASI before those with them decide this is an open invitation to attack; it is simply me noting that it isn't ideal to have so many versions of the same camera as it massively degrades the resale value of the one before).

Totally agree with that (I should know, since I would like to sell mine, but I'm afraid it's not gonna have a good market value), but why do you say 4?

I see iteration 1 as the one with 1600MM/MC, in cooled and not-cooled version, and then iteration 2, with the "Pro" versions. What are the others?

[Allinthehead]

27 minutes ago, RayD said:

it massively degrades the resale value of the one before).

Agreed. I have version 2 and although it works flawlessly i hear people saying they wouldn't touch anything other than the newest version. The main reason i would choose the zwo is the usb hub which works very well. 

[Allinthehead]

7 minutes ago, GuLinux said:

I see iteration 1 as the one with 1600MM/MC, in cooled and not-cooled version, and then iteration 2, with the "Pro" versions. What are the others?

Version 1 didn't have the hub.

Version 2 had the hub

Version 3 

extra screws used for front panel - ensuring the camera body cannot be accidentally unscrewed.

improved heat dissipation - less prone to dew!

dessicant chamber

Version 4 is the pro with the memory buffer and dew heater.

[RayD]

9 minutes ago, Allinthehead said:

Agreed. I have version 2 and although it works flawlessly i hear people saying they wouldn't touch anything other than the newest version. The main reason i would choose the zwo is the usb hub which works very well. 

Exactly that, Richard.  I like ZWO, have dealt directly with Sam, and use them myself, but I do feel the pain for people that were early adopters only to find that they will struggle to sell their camera and, if it was you buying one now, you would probably be looking for the latest version (I certainly would).

The USB hub idea is superb, and I wished all camera manufacturers would adopt this for OAG's and filter wheels.  I have a huge Atik16200 which has nothing, yet all the space in the world to fit one.

Oddly enough I am considering a CMOS camera myself, and these are the 2 which are on my shortlist, so I am watching this thread with interest.

[GuLinux]

I wouldn't take into account the hub as a major iteration, that's really just a minor improvement, however iteration 3 (which I didn't know) is surely an important one.

I got mine back when I was short of money, so I got the mono non-cooled version. I really really would like to switch to the Pro now, as I use it with embedded systems (rasberry pi), and the DRAM buffer would really really be useful! But again, selling the mono non-cooled one is gonna be tricky

 

 

[Allinthehead]

7 minutes ago, RayD said:

The USB hub idea is superb, and I wished all camera manufacturers would adopt this for OAG's and filter wheels. 

Indeed. That's exactly why i find it great.

5 minutes ago, GuLinux said:

I wouldn't take into account the hub as a major iteration, that's really just a minor improvement, however iteration 3 (which I didn't know) is surely an important one.

I got mine back when I was short of money, so I got the mono non-cooled version. I really really would like to switch to the Pro now, as I use it with embedded systems (rasberry pi), and the DRAM buffer would really really be useful! But again, selling the mono non-cooled one is gonna be tricky

 

 

Hub is vital for me using a filter wheel and Oag.

I went from an Asi 071 without the buffer to one with and i've noticed no difference. The dew heater would be more important in my view, although one can be retro fitted for £20.

Unfortunately i think you're correct re selling uncooled version. 

[Allinthehead]

14 minutes ago, RayD said:

Oddly enough I am considering a CMOS camera myself, and these are the 2 which are on my shortlist, so I am watching this thread with interest.

Have you seen this? https://www.astrobin.com/362666/?nc=iotd

[GuLinux]

What I find a bit odd is that for CMOS mono cameras, the choice is pretty much limited to these two only.

Shouldn't it be about time for manufacturers to release something else? They're still nice camera of course, but surely we could use an improved sensor and 14bit ADC, for instance..

[Adam J]

I think i spoke my mind on this when it first came out. The price differential is ridiculous, much higher than for example the difference in cost between say the QHY9 and the ATIK383l+, while the price of the 460ex vs the QHY22 is virtually identical. So I just don't see how they can justify 300 pounds more for the horizon over the ASI1600mm pro. 

I would be willing to pay about £150 more for the UK product no doubt, but £300 is a joke. 

[Adam J]

Just now, GuLinux said:

What I find a bit odd is that for CMOS mono cameras, the choice is pretty much limited to these two only.

Shouldn't it be about time for manufacturers to release something else? They're still nice camera of course, but surely we could use an improved sensor and 14bit ADC, for instance..

Altair are making TEC cooled 183 based cameras now with Panasonic based cameras to follow. Also don't forget QHY. 

[RayD]

6 minutes ago, Allinthehead said:

Have you seen this? https://www.astrobin.com/362666/?nc=iotd

Holy cow that is seriously impressive and certainly confirms CMOS has arrived!  That is an insanely large amount of subs though, and I think still the only thing that scares me, but the short subs appeal.

[Allinthehead]

2 minutes ago, RayD said:

That is an insanely large amount of subs though, and I think still the only thing that scares me, but the short subs appeal.

Yes, however he used gain 100 and with gain 0 you could stretch out the duration of subs to a more sensible level.

[Adam J]

1 minute ago, Allinthehead said:

Yes, however he used gain 100 and with gain 0 you could stretch out the duration of subs to a more sensible level.

Yes 100 gain makes no sense I like to keep it to multiples / whole fractions of unity gain. I would have thought something like 75 is the next obvious value below unity. 

However, that is probably one of the best images I have ever seen so who am I to tell him he is doing it wrong.  

[RayD]

3 minutes ago, Allinthehead said:

Yes, however he used gain 100 and with gain 0 you could stretch out the duration of subs to a more sensible level.

Ah I see.  I can see this being a whole new learning process!!

[GuLinux]

6 minutes ago, Adam J said:

Altair are making TEC cooled 183 based cameras now with Panasonic based cameras to follow. Also don't forget QHY. 

Well, I was mainly referring to something more "appetible" for deep sky... the 183 has a much smaller sensor than the ASI1600 (which itself is even smaller than an APS-C). Same for QHY, I don't see many other alternatives.

I would gladly upgrade my 1600mm with a *much* better camera, swapping it for the 1600MM PRO, or a similar camera by altair or qhy doesn't really make sense...

[RayD]

9 minutes ago, Adam J said:

Also don't forget QHY. 

I think @RichLD from memory uses and highly rates the QHY.  Really don't know how they differ from ZWO, but they certainly seem to work well.

[Aidan]

some very good information  coming in this thread, thanks to all who have posted.   I think i am at a point where the ZWO vs Atik has come to a head.   And it comes down to the price.   I tend to agree that £300 more for pretty much the same capablity is quite a lot.   The added hub is good, but not a biggie for me as both my scopes have the Pegasus UPB.  All it would do for me is having a shorted USB cable.

I guess my next endevour (either pre or post purchase) it to get a better understanding of gain settings (which i am not used to having only used CCD's). 

[Adam J]

1 minute ago, GuLinux said:

Well, I was mainly referring to something more "appetible" for deep sky... the 183 has a much smaller sensor than the ASI1600 (which itself is even smaller than an APS-C). Same for QHY, I don't see many other alternatives.

I would gladly upgrade my 1600mm with a *much* better camera, swapping it for the 1600MM PRO, or a similar camera by altair or qhy doesn't really make sense...

The 183 is the same size as the ATIK460 sensor in as much as makes no difference. I think people would definitely call that a deep sky sensor. However I know what you mean an APS-C sensor would be nice, but don't hold your breath. 

[Adam J]

2 minutes ago, Aidan said:

some very good information  coming in this thread, thanks to all who have posted.   I think i am at a point where the ZWO vs Atik has come to a head.   And it comes down to the price.   I tend to agree that £300 more for pretty much the same capablity is quite a lot.   The added hub is good, but not a biggie for me as both my scopes have the Pegasus UPB.  All it would do for me is having a shorted USB cable.

I guess my next endevour (either pre or post purchase) it to get a better understanding of gain settings (which i am not used to having only used CCD's). 

Just use unity gain at first, 60seconds for LRGB and 4mins for narrow band at F5 and you cant go wrong. Frankly I cant be doing with taking 60 seconds narrow band subs at 200 gain anyhow, its just too much data. 

[RichLD]

1 hour ago, RayD said:

I think @RichLD from memory uses and highly rates the QHY.  Really don't know how they differ from ZWO, but they certainly seem to work well.

Hi @RayD, well remembered! I rate the camera, it has great build quality and works very well. The downside vs the ASI is the longer back focus, although there are adapters available from QHY and it is possible to use the camera with a FW and Canon/Nikon lenses.