Astrophotography camera table

[Space Oddities]

Hello everyone!

I was prospecting mono cameras, when I realized it's quite a jungle. So many brands, cameras with exotic names, sensor sizes, megapixels count... Not to mention that a lot of these cameras use the same sensor, in a slightly different package. 

So, since it's cloudy, and since I love playing with Microsoft Excel, I started some kind of database that compiles some available, just to see how it looks. I think I just scratched the surface, and it's probably a lot of work compiling everything available today. But actually, not that much, since lots of cameras share the same sensors, and thus the same specs. 

I like the fact that with a few filters, you could find out everything you want to know about a camera. And also be able to quickly compare your favourite cameras, similarly to what's offered by websites like DPReview. And why not, a link to Astrobin with sample pictures taken with this camera, using Astrobin's API? 

I'm also into web programming, and I thought it could be interesting to propose a simple platform to host and display all this data.

I just wanted your opinion first: do you think that's an interesting idea? As astrophotographers, have you ever been in this situation where you spend a lot of time looking for scattered information? If yes, would a tool like this be helpful?

Thanks for your feedback!  

[Xiga]

Hi Pierre

I think it’s a great idea. You’re right that there are so many options available these days, so having somewhere to easily view all the statistics in one place would definitely be useful. If it was online somewhere I’d browse through it! ?

I like spreadsheets too ? A couple of years back I was thinking of getting a cheap camera for doing lunar mosaics with my C8, but I really wanted to keep the number of panels to a minimum. So I put together a spreadsheet that would work out how many panels it would take to cover a Full Moon (or any % coverage I chose) given certain parameters (pixel size, sensor size, FL, % overlap). It didn’t go anywhere really, but it was fun to put together ?

 

[ollypenrice]

On 05/04/2019 at 16:46, Space Oddities said:

I like the fact that with a few filters, you could find out everything you want to know about a camera. 

 

Stop! This is a million miles from the truth. The only way to find out everything you want to know about a camera  is to take a lot of pictures with it. If you want to know all about what the manufacturers claim then all you need to do is read their claims. If all you want to do after reading them is believe them then simply disconnect your brain. 

As an astrophotographic provider I get to use a lot of cameras. I can read the specs of all these cameras. What I cannot do is find the slightest useful relationship between the specs and the reality. The devil is in the detail. My worst camera is by far my best, a lousy old school Atik 11000. Why is it my worst camera? Read the spec sheet. Why is it my best? Process the data from it. Gorgeous! Star colour, background sky - it's a pleasure all the way.

Sorry, I take pictures and my opinions follow from that.

Olly

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Space Oddities]

14 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

 

Stop! This is a million miles from the truth. The only way to find out everything you want to know about a camera  is to take a lot of pictures with it. If you want to know all about what the manufacturers claim then all you need to do is read their claims. If all you want to do after reading them is believe them then simply disconnect your brain. 

As an astrophotographic provider I get to use a lot of cameras. I can read the specs of all these cameras. What I cannot do is find the slightest useful relationship between the specs and the reality. The devil is in the detail. My worst camera is by far my best, a lousy old school Atik 11000. Why is it my worst camera? Read the spec sheet. Why is it my best? Process the data from it. Gorgeous! Star colour, background sky - it's a pleasure all the way.

Sorry, I take pictures and my opinions follow from that.

Olly

Hey Olly,

Thanks for your feedback!  Of course, a specs table will never replace user experience. But that's also very subjective: for the same camera, the experience will differ, depending on a lot of parameters: what scope you're using, what software program, your acquisition & processing techniques, your personal tastes, perhaps your level of experience as well (a good picture for a beginner might be a very bad one for an experienced photographer).

Though this is very interesting data, the fact that it's 100% subjective means that it can't really be easily synthesised in a table. And initially, the goal of this table wasn't to present 100% of the available information on a given camera (that was a poor choice of wording, sorry!). I saw it more as a first step, an entry door to selecting the best tool for the job. Besides, most of the specs are factual (physical dimensions, sensor size, features...), some are more theoretical (read noise, full well, dynamic range). 

But now that you mention it, a table like this could also be some kind of bridge, linking a comprehensive overview of what's available (with "official" specs), to more subjective and real world user feedback/reviews. Just like specs are scattered across a lot of websites, user feedback is scattered in a lot of forums, blog posts, comments, Youtube videos...

I like seeing this from the perspective of a "customer journey". You're looking for a new deep sky camera, but you're not sure what are your options. You might have initial requirements (e.g. mono sensor, at least 10 megapixels, TE cooling). The table could give you an overview of cameras that falls into this, and refine your requirements with parameters you perhaps didn't think of.

Then, you'll want to know more about a potential model, so you'll probably spend hours on Google trying to find pictures made with this camera, user reviews, comments, pros and cons. I think it'd be much more convenient to click a link in this table, showing you a list of interesting links, reviews, discussions, videos talking about that model   Perhaps a list of known issues as well (e.g. camera subject to amp glow)?

Your post makes me realise (thanks!) the importance of incorporating real world feedbacks, and though I just imagined it as a consolidated specs table initially, perhaps providing links to more subjective analyses could increase the overall added value of this table. 

Hell, it could also hosts some kind of review platform, either with predefined axis of analysis (like IQ, ease of use, features, compatibility and whatnot), or just a free text, or even both. I guess everything is possible!

What do you think?  

[ollypenrice]

I think the table has its place but it really does need to be observed with caution. For instance, there are some unexpected side effects cropping up with CMOS cameras. I host one here which produces stars which are green on one side and red on the other, despite being a mono camera used with filters. And it has done this in two entirely different instruments, one a reflector and one a refractor. It would be good to see these oddities and many others  collected alongside the raw specs, certainly.

Olly

[pete_l]

59 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

I host one here which produces stars which are green on one side and red on the other, despite being a mono camera

I used to have a TV like that. Have you tried degaussing it. Wave a large magnet at it and see if the effect changes

[ollypenrice]

2 minutes ago, pete_l said:

I used to have a TV like that. Have you tried degaussing it. Wave a large magnet at it and see if the effect changes

Thanks, that's worth a try!

Olly

[Stub Mandrel]

I think it's a good idea - trying to understand what you actually get when people use stupid things like TV videcon tube measurements to make their sensors sound bigger (for example) are a right pain. Probably the main barrier to me actually buying a large sensor dedicated imaging camera. The ASI1600 C appeals, but is expensive. What gets me most of the way there without the price tag? Impossible to tell, really.

Its the basic data that interests me, like:

• Chip dimensions
• Pixel size
• Total pixel count
• speed (for planetary imaging)
• Bit depth
• Maximum exposure time
• Price

I need an easy way around these that lets mesee what is most likely to meet my needs for a given budget.

You can then shortlist and read up reviews etc to see which of them is best.

20 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

The only way to find out everything you want to know about a camera  is to take a lot of pictures with it.

A mere mortal like me can't afford to buy two to compare, let alone try out loads of different sensors to find the one that best suits. I doubt any retailer is going to lend me a bagful...

[andrew s]

4 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

I think the table has its place but it really does need to be observed with caution. For instance, there are some unexpected side effects cropping up with CMOS cameras. I host one here which produces stars which are green on one side and red on the other, despite being a mono camera used with filters. And it has done this in two entirely different instruments, one a reflector and one a refractor. It would be good to see these oddities and many others  collected alongside the raw specs, certainly.

Olly

I doubt a magnet will fix it. Is this experience of one or more CMOS camers? 

Not clear how you know it is the CMOS chip could you explain more please.

Regards Andrew 

[ollypenrice]

12 minutes ago, andrew s said:

I doubt a magnet will fix it. Is this experience of one or more CMOS camers? 

Not clear how you know it is the CMOS chip could you explain more please.

Regards Andrew 

I don't know for sure that it's the chip. It may be the chip window because these have been causing other issues with internal reflection etc. for some CMOS users. The camera is the only common factor between the setups in which it has been used.

Olly

[fireballxl5]

Great idea? Before purchasing stuff I often collect key technical details for a number of possible options and put them in a spreadsheet?. I've done it for CCD cameras in the past as well.

One useful camera parameter that I've had to become more familiar with and check is Back Focus Distance (BFD) - please add this to your database.

CS, Andy

[Space Oddities]

Thanks Andy! That's indeed very important, I'll add this.