New Mono CMOS camera from Starlight Xpress based on IMX304

[Davey-T]

8 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

Lots of subs was a disadvantage when we were all running 32-bit Windows XP on Pentium Processors...

Not when they're only 709k Atik314L binned 2X2 

Dave

[JMDean]

On 13/03/2019 at 10:20, spillage said:

I would like to say in my experience that the extra cost of the SX kit is well worth it when things go wrong. The customer service they provide is some of the best I have come across. 

Agree wholeheartedly. They also use Grade 1 sensors, most don’t. Plus they don’t use desiccants, they use dry argon. Add in a triple usb hub which greatly reduces cabling, their cameras are exceptionally good. As is their customer service should you ever require it. 

[Adam J]

1 hour ago, JMDean said:

Agree wholeheartedly. They also use Grade 1 sensors, most don’t. Plus they don’t use desiccants, they use dry argon. Add in a triple usb hub which greatly reduces cabling, their cameras are exceptionally good. As is their customer service should you ever require it. 

Welcome to SGL.

I am sure that they make great cameras. Unfortunately they are out of my reach financially, hence why so much of my stuff is sourced second hand. My only point was that while my ASI1600mm pro may not be so beautifully engineered it has made mono imaging affordable to me and without it in the market I would still be using a DSLR.

People have grown to expect that CMOS will be cheaper than a CCD equivalent, so I just think that SX will have a hard time pitching it at the same price as their similar CCD products. Only time will tell.

Adam

 

Edited April 8, 2019 by Adam J

[DaveS]

They're Here

Plus other updated and new SX Trius cameras.

[Adam J]

4 hours ago, DaveS said:

They're Here

Plus other updated and new SX Trius cameras.

They dont give much away,I want to see some gain vs read noise vs dynamic range curves.

Also at 2200 pounds it had better be spectacular....3e is high read noise for CMOS.

 

Edited April 24, 2019 by Adam J

[fireballxl5]

2 hours ago, Adam J said:

3e is high read noise for CMOS

they do state that it decreases to 1.5e- at higher gains...is that good enough?

 

[Adam J]

2 hours ago, fireballxl5 said:

they do state that it decreases to 1.5e- at higher gains...is that good enough?

 

To be honest no it makes no sense,the IMX290 certainly does not have a 3e read noise at unity...they are implying that these are three almost identical chips in terms of read noise and that's just not the case. So when they say it reduces to 1.5e which one is that, all of them?

The information on @FLOs web site for this new camera is very poor in comparison to other CMOS sensor cameras that they also sell.

SX make claims about amp glow so a 15min dark frame to back that up would be great.

Also as above, at the very least I want to see some gain vs read noise vs dynamic range curves..etc.

I would also like a QE chart.

Its a specification that is almost identical to their CCD cameras, problem is that is not the level of information you require for a CMOS camera with variable gain etc.

Also at 2200 pounds it had better perform very favorably in comparison to the ATIK or ASI offerings. I just feel its asking a little too much when pitched against some of the competition. It may well justify its price if it performs but More information required to make that judgement.

Currently anyone buying this is buying it blind. If I could try before I buy then no problem but this is a totally new sensor to the astronomy market I will be wanting more than the basic information of FLOs web page to make a decision to jump in as a lead customer. For example If you look at Sonys tech documents then the max exposure for the IMX304 is 30seconds, at the moment they are implying at least 15 mins but there is no specification for max / min exposure even.

It always difficult with totally new products, someone has to take the leap first, but hopefully FLO can extract some more information from SX to help people make an informed choice.

Adam

Edited April 24, 2019 by Adam J

[cabfl]

ASI 290 - 1,4e Unity Gain.

QHY 290 - 1,3e Unity Gain.

CSX 290 - 3e Unity Gain ??????????

[Adam J]

3 minutes ago, cabfl said:

ASI 290 - 1,4e Unity Gain.

QHY 290 - 1,3e Unity Gain.

CSX 290 - 3e Unity Gain ??????????

exactly..

[FLO]

16 hours ago, Adam J said:

The information on @FLOs web site for this new camera is very poor in comparison to other CMOS sensor cameras that they also sell.

It is a new model so currently we have only the info provided to us by Starlight Xpress.

16 hours ago, Adam J said:

It always difficult with totally new products, someone has to take the leap first, but hopefully FLO can extract some more information from SX to help people make an informed choice.

We hope to meet with them to discuss how the new camera fits into the marketplace and perhaps play with assess one ? 

Steve 

[Adam J]

Thinking about it, one other thing that would be of use is to know the dark current.

Edited June 5, 2019 by Adam J

[giorgio_ne]

I’m interested to know if it is possible to use 1.25” filters with this camera.

[Laurin Dave]

2 minutes ago, giorgio_ne said:

I’m interested to know if it is possible to use 1.25” filters with this camera.

It will be..  its only slightly larger (at 14mm by 10mm) than the 694/814/834 chips (12mm by 10mm)  and smaller than the ASI1600 (17.7mm by13.4mm) which works with 1.25" so long as they're close enough

Dave

[PadrePeace]

Spec info and words on exposure times of 15mins on the 304 CMOS offering from SX.

http://www.iankingimaging.com/show_product.php?id=1858

Sorry, just noticed this data had already been posted by AdamJ. I hadn’t got to page 2 of the thread before diving in. 

Edited June 5, 2019 by PadrePeace
Addition

[Thommy]

On 25/04/2019 at 16:12, FLO said:

We hope to meet with them to discuss how the new camera fits into the marketplace and perhaps play with assess one ?

Steve, as I seriously consider the CSX249, I wonder if you have some more information by now from SX? 

[FLO]

1 hour ago, Thommy said:

Steve, as I seriously consider the CSX249, I wonder if you have some more information by now from SX? 

Not yet but I did recently ask them if they have a review/demo model they can make available. They haven't responded yet but I think that is only because the man I need to speak to is in the US. We haven't forgotten 🙂 

Steve 

[Adam J]

12 hours ago, Thommy said:

Steve, as I seriously consider the CSX249, I wonder if you have some more information by now from SX? 

What application do you have in mind for that camera / what scope are you thinking of matching it to? It's potentially a very sensitive camera. A replacement for icx825 based cameras like the atik 414ex, potentially as sensitive with a larger sensor and similar pixel size. 

Edited June 7, 2019 by Adam J

[newbie alert]

On 13/03/2019 at 16:34, Adam J said:

The problem with off the cuff remarks and the internet is that before you know it everyone quotes everyone else and a rumor becomes an accepted fact.

 

On 13/03/2019 at 16:34, Adam J said:

Personally I don't care what my ASI1600mm pro does with calibration or does not do with calibration, it works and works well. My impression is that it is more sensitive than my friends 460ex while having a larger sensor at a cheaper price.

Id agree with you there Adam on the first statement, sounds like a representative from another company ..id  like to know how you get dark current from a light frame and subtract it within capture..

When you say your 1600 is more sensitive than a 460ex, how are you measuring that, just curious..

[Adam J]

4 minutes ago, newbie alert said:

 

Id agree with you there Adam on the first statement, sounds like a representative from another company ..id  like to know how you get dark current from a light frame and subtract it within capture..

When you say your 1600 is more sensitive than a 460ex, how are you measuring that, just curious..

I said it is only an impression, due to its ability to work effectively with shorter exposures. However, I cant quantify that as I have done no like to like comparison.

I would not want to give the impression that I think that the ASI1600mm pro or any cameras with that sensor are perfect though. For one it benefits from dithering where as the 460ex or similar camera does not require dithering and with the ASI1600mm pro's short exposures that can actually harm your efficiency. To an extent you cant get away without dark frames with the 460ex due to its high degree of uniformity. The 460ex has a stable bias and so dark frame optimization is possible if you do use dark frames. But probably the biggest advantage of the 460ex is that it does not suffer from the micro lens diffraction effects that the ASI1600mm pro does suffer from.

For me there are reasons to chose either camera. But the larger sensor in the ASI1600mm pro is very compelling. 

Adam

[andrew s]

I have been pondering why SX would quote a higher figure for read noise than their competitors.

I have had several SX cameras and as with all new cameras I measure the gain, read noise and dark current along with checking the linear range. In all cases the SX figures are in agreement with their quoted specs.

Several thoughts come to mind.

It could be the measured value ex camera rather than ex chip or just quoting the chip manufactures figure.

It could be the effect of the custom re-clocking to remove/reduce amp glow

It could be a gain error. If you naively measure the gain (as I did on an ASI16000) you get a result about 1/16 of the manufactures figure as the former is reference the 16 bit camera output and the latter the 12 bit A/D output.

Not mutually exclusive but I suspect that if SX is true to form they are giving an honest figure for their product.

Regards Andrew

PS Why do magazine camera reviewers not do the same measurement? They are simple and require no special kit.

Edited June 8, 2019 by andrew s

[Adam J]

19 minutes ago, andrew s said:

I have been pondering why SX would quote a higher figure for read noise than their competitors.

I have had several SX cameras and as with all new cameras I measure the gain, read noise and dark current along with checking the linear range. In all cases the SX figures are in agreement with their quoted specs.

Several thoughts come to mind.

It could be the measured value ex camera rather than ex chip or just quoting the chip manufactures figure.

It could be the effect of the custom re-clocking to remove/reduce amp glow

It could be a gain error. If you naively measure the gain (as I did on an ASI16000) you get a result about 1/16 of the manufactures figure as the former is reference the 16 bit camera output and the latter the 12 bit A/D output.

Not mutually exclusive but I suspect that if SX is true to form they are giving an honest figure for their product.

Regards Andrew

PS Why do magazine camera reviewers not do the same measurement? They are simple and require not special kit.

The IMX290 is one of Sonys highest sensitivity cameras, it does not have 3e read noise at unity. If it did then at zero gain it would be more like 6e read noise, to put that into perspective that is worse that a Canon 1000D from 2008.

[andrew s]

55 minutes ago, Adam J said:

The IMX290 is one of Sonys highest sensitivity cameras, it does not have 3e read noise at unity. If it did then at zero gain it would be more like 6e read noise, to put that into perspective that is worse that a Canon 1000D from 2008.

So you think SX are deliberately exaggerating the read noise but why could it possibly be in their interest to do so?

Regards Andrew s

PS I have asked on the sx yahoo group why the difference in gain.

Edited June 8, 2019 by andrew s

[Adam J]

1 hour ago, andrew s said:

So you think SX are deliberately exaggerating the read noise but why could it possibly be in their interest to do so?

Regards Andrew s

PS I have asked on the sx yahoo group why the difference in gain.

I said no such thing. I just note it's inconsistent with other manufacturers measurements of the same chip. At any rate the important thing is how it performs in the real world. 

[andrew s]

10 minutes ago, Adam J said:

I said no such thing. I just note it's inconsistent with other manufacturers measurements of the same chip. At any rate the important thing is how it performs in the real world. 

Then I see no point in your reply as you just repeated what has been said before.

I was pointing  out SX seemed to be giving a real world figure and speculating why it  might be different to others. You never commented on this just repeated the "fact" that the chip did not have 3e read noise, maybe it does with the different clocking? Who knows. That's why I have asked SX.

Regards Andrew 

[Adam J]

2 hours ago, andrew s said:

Then I see no point in your reply as you just repeated what has been said before.

I was pointing  out SX seemed to be giving a real world figure and speculating why it  might be different to others. You never commented on this just repeated the "fact" that the chip did not have 3e read noise, maybe it does with the different clocking? Who knows. That's why I have asked SX.

Regards Andrew 

It's certainly worth asking asking SX due to the inconsistancy. With luck they will reply and we will find out. Can you provide a link to where you asked the question? 

Edited June 8, 2019 by Adam J