Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b83b14cd4142fe10848741bb2a14c66b.jpg

ZWO ASI294MC

gary1968

By gary1968
in Imaging - Discussion

Recommended Posts

gary1968

gary1968

Posted
Posted

Howdy,

 

Not been on here in a long time, no time for astronomy due to family etc, and a dwindling enthusiasm, anyway........

I am now looking to get back into imaging and will be purchasing kit for this over the coming few months. I intend to drive the system with the new ASIair. It will be guided by a small scope and a ZWO120mc S

Imaging scope will more than likely be a SW130pds and I am torn between 2 cameras, the ZWO183mc or ZWO295mc. As I said I will be using the ASIair so it would have to be a ZWO camera, I have no interest in mono/rgb/narrow band imaging so it will have to be OSC camera.

I like the look of the 295mc over the 183 as it has a larger chip and bigger pixels, whats you guys thoughts on this? I am also undecided on the normal or pro version of the camera.... The 183mc pro is a similar price to the 295mc, the pro being cooled, but the 295 has the better(?) chip.

I look forward to yuor replys........

 

Gaz

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 26
  • Created
  • Last Reply
michaelmorris

michaelmorris

Posted
Posted

I'm not sure how much better an uncooled 294MC will be than an astromodifed DSLR camera (secondhand modified Canon 600D = £360)    The DSLR would certainly be much cheaper and given you a shed load of cash to spend on other stuff, (although you couldn't then use the ASIAir).  Personally, given the choice between a cooled 183 and an uncooled 294, I'd plumb for the cooled 183.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Adam J

Adam J

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, gary1968 said:

I could get a cooled 295, its just shy of a grand though........

The performance of the OSC version of the IMX183 is not all that great in my opinion and the pixel size is poorly matched to the 130PDS. Also you will have a really poor field of view working at 650mm focal length with a 1 inch chip. You will end up at about 0.8 pixels / arcsecond with the 183 and unless you have a serious mount you wont be able to guide to a suitable accuracy.  

Get the ASI294mc pro the pixel size is sensible at that focal length as is the FOV with the larger sensor, also in the end the IMX294 is much more sensitive than the IMX183 it has larger pixels and lower noise while still providing good resolution. 

As others have said, there is no real advantage to the ASI294mc over a modified DSLR when uncooled, as it has a higher dark current than most at ambient temperatures. 

Adam 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gary1968

gary1968

Posted
  • Author
Posted
3 hours ago, russp said:

Unless you only want to do lunar and planetary I wouldn't even consider the non cooled versions of either, you'll regret it if you don't go cooled. 

I bought the 120mc S for planetary and guiding

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Adam J

Adam J

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Thalestris24 said:

Why do you say that, Adam?

Louise

I have done the calculations when choosing sensors prior to getting my ASI1600mm pro, but for me its also clear to see real world in the comparison of IMX294 vs IMX183 images on Astrobin.

I like the mono version of the IMX183m at short focal lengths <400mm or for galaxy hunting on larger scopes.....although even then I might take the IMX178m over it in that role due to its lower noise and 14bit sensor.

But if I was starting out and I had a 130PDS and I was set against mono, I cant find any positives to getting the ASI183mc pro over the ASI294mc pro.

The 183c is a great camera for lunar and solar imaging though...just not deeps sky.

Adam

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thalestris24

Thalestris24

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Adam J said:

I have done the calculations when choosing sensors prior to getting my ASI1600mm pro, but for me its also clear to see real world in the comparison of IMX294 vs IMX183 images on Astrobin.

I like the mono version of the IMX183m at short focal lengths <360mm or for galaxy hunting on larger scopes.....although even then I might take the IMX178m over it in that role due to its lower noise  and 14bit sensor.

Adam

 

Certainly, the 183mc-pro is really only good for short focal lengths and also for eaa. But it has roi versatility and is only a bit more expensive than the 178mc-cool. Seems to have potential? I believe the 294mc-pro is essentially a replacement for the discontinued 1600mc-pro and is rather expensive... I was considering the 178mc-cool but the 183mc-pro seems better value for money even if it's only 12-bit? I don't think my ideal budget astro camera has been produced yet!

Louise

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Adam J

Adam J

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Thalestris24 said:

Certainly, the 183mc-pro is really only good for short focal lengths and also for eaa. But it has roi versatility and is only a bit more expensive than the 178mc-cool. Seems to have potential? I believe the 294mc-pro is essentially a replacement for the discontinued 1600mc-pro and is rather expensive... I was considering the 178mc-cool but the 183mc-pro seems better value for money even if it's only 12-bit? I don't think my ideal budget astro camera has been produced yet!

Louise

Not sure what you mean by ROI.

I dont think that they intended it as a replacement for the ASI1600mc-pro I just think that it sold better than the ASI1600mc-pro. Atik, QHY and Meade still sell the OCS version of that chip. Indecently I would also still take those over the 183mc too.

https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/meade-deep-sky-imager-iv-colour-imaging-camera.html

However in the end it depends on what you want to use it for. If you see images that people have taken using it that you like then go for it.

I like the mono versions, but I dont see images that I personally rate coming from the OSC version of the 178 or 183.

You have both the Atik 383l+ (I assume mono) and the QHY8L in your signature block. Personally I would take either of those ahead of a 183mc unless it was a very short focal length fast lens.

Adam

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thalestris24

Thalestris24

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Adam J said:

Not sure what you mean by ROI.

I dont think that they intended it as a replacement for the ASI1600mc-pro I just think that it sold better than the ASI1600mc-pro. Atik, QHY and Meade still sell the OCS version of that chip. Indecently I would also still take those over the 183mc too.

https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/meade-deep-sky-imager-iv-colour-imaging-camera.html

However in the end it depends on what you want to use it for. If you see images that people have taken using it that you like then go for it.

I like the mono versions, but I dont see images that I personally rate coming from the OSC version of the 178 or 183.

You have both the Atik 383l+ (I assume mono) and the QHY8L in your signature block. Personally I would take either of those ahead of a 183mc unless it was a very short focal length fast lens.

Adam

 

 

 

Yes, I do have the 383l+ mono and the qhy8l osc. Both are quite good. Both 16-bit ccd's. But both also quite slow. ROI lets you set the resolution. I use a small ROI with the Atik for focussing. You can set the 183mc to use the same resolution as the 178 albeit with only 12-bit. Do you have any links to the 183 Astrobin images? Yeah, I'm thinking of 200-480mm max and mostly eaa with live stacking which I've just started getting into. Although I try and try, long exposure dso imaging is always difficult here, not least because of Bortle 9 skies ,and rubbish weather and atmosphere!

Louise

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Adam J

Adam J

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Thalestris24 said:

Yes, I do have the 383l+ mono and the qhy8l osc. Both are quite good. Both 16-bit ccd's. But both also quite slow. ROI lets you set the resolution. I use a small ROI with the Atik for focussing. You can set the 183mc to use the same resolution as the 178 albeit with only 12-bit. Do you have any links to the 183 Astrobin images? Yeah, I'm thinking of 200-480mm max and mostly eaa with live stacking which I've just started getting into. Although I try and try, long exposure dso imaging is always difficult here, not least because of Bortle 9 skies ,and rubbish weather and atmosphere!

Louise

I would not really feel right linking someones images as examples of ones that I consider to be poor...for all I know they post on here.

I would be ok linking examples of what I consider to be good images from the 294mc pro though.

Some ASI294mc pro images.

https://www.astrobin.com/372424/?nc=all

https://www.astrobin.com/374817/B/?nc=all

https://www.astrobin.com/371025/B/?page=3&amp;nc=all

https://www.astrobin.com/375625/U/?nc=all

https://www.astrobin.com/370255/?page=3&amp;nc=all

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thalestris24

Thalestris24

Posted
Posted

Yeah, re: links, I can understand that. Anyway, I don't think Astrobin is of much use for comparing cameras - too many variables. However, I have seen some quite nice dso images made with the 163mc-pro on Astrobin which suggests there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it - at least, with the right combo. I couldn't get 1"/pixel here and for eaa not so important.

Louise

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Adam J

Adam J

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Thalestris24 said:

Yeah, re: links, I can understand that. Anyway, I don't think Astrobin is of much use for comparing cameras - too many variables. However, I have seen some quite nice dso images made with the 163mc-pro on Astrobin which suggests there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it - at least, with the right combo. I couldn't get 1"/pixel here and for eaa not so important.

Louise

Yes with the right optics there is nothing intrinsically wrong with it, that being short and fast optics. But to bring this back to the OP's question, its not suited to an inexperienced user on a 130PDS. Perhaps we can agree on that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thalestris24

Thalestris24

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Adam J said:

Yes with the right optics there is nothing intrinsically wrong with it, that being short and fast optics. But to bring this back to the OP's question, its not suited to an inexperienced user on a 130PDS. Perhaps we can agree on that?

Oh yes, of course :)  I wouldn't put it on such a long focal length scope!  A short frac and/or a decent lens - great!

M45 - 300mm lens: https://www.astrobin.com/373174/0/?nc=all (maybe dark skies too, though not specified)

Louise

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Adam J

Adam J

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, gary1968 said:

Thanks Adam, looks like I'll have to budget a bit more and go for the 294mc pro.....

Worth noting that they are on offer at the moment.

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

51 pounds less than normal.

Also they often do 10% off around Easter

Adam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gary1968

gary1968

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thanks for the informaion guys..... But you have sent me off on a tangent now, lol.... What if I were to change my choice of scope to a SW80ed? Would that then make the 183mc worth considering. (or any of the other 80ed's that are available)

That combo would cost a bit less than the 130pds/294mc combo?

 

Gaz

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thalestris24

Thalestris24

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, gary1968 said:

Thanks for the informaion guys..... But you have sent me off on a tangent now, lol.... What if I were to change my choice of scope to a SW80ed? Would that then make the 183mc worth considering. (or any of the other 80ed's that are available)

That combo would cost a bit less than the 130pds/294mc combo?

 

Gaz

 

Hi

An Evostar ED80 may be ok (there are other models/brands) - you'd definitely want the 0.85 reducer - that would bring your focal length down to 510mm - maybe still a leetle long for a 183 (less than 1"/pixel). It's worth checking your fov with a calculator such as  http://www.12dstring.me.uk/fovcalc.php It will show you the relative size of a selected target for your scope/camera combo and calculate the pixel scale. I've been thinking about getting an asi183mc pro myself but if I ever do I'd put it on a shorter frac with a reducer so shorter still - less than 400mm. Do take your time and don't spend anything until you're sure about what you want, why you want it and what you intend to do with it. A good refractor will cost more than an equivalent reflector but is likely to be less hassle and pretty much maintenance-free.

Louise

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gary1968

gary1968

Posted
  • Author
Posted
5 minutes ago, Thalestris24 said:

The evostar 72 a possibility? May not need a reducer.

Louise

Now that is a nice wee scope, and a good price.... definately a contender.... Going by what you guys were talking about up there it should go nicely with the ASI183MC Pro.....

 

Thanks, Gaz

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.