Zwo Vs altair

[Waynescave]

On 29/03/2019 at 14:41, wimvb said:

Yes, but since a buffer only needs to hold one image at a time, 4 GB is seriously overdimensioned. Normal memory size for a buffer is 128 or 256 MB. But the earlier remark that 4 GB modules may actually be cheaper than 256 MB is a valid one.

Did I read on rother Valley website that the 4GB is for buffering yes but also for stacking.. Or even live stacking was it... Will try and find said description.... 🤔

[JamesF]

ToupTek seem to be the OEM for a number of brands, though obviously it's never possible to know what exactly has happened.  As well as selling cameras themselves and their involvement with Altair, they have (had?) some sort of manufacturing arrangement with Mallincam as far as I'm aware, though Rock Mallin has said that he specifies higher quality components for his products and I think they re-work some of the hardware in Canada after delivery.  There's also another Chinese company called RisingCam who appear to re-brand Touptek products and I'm sure I knew of another whose name escapes me for the moment.

James

[Adam J]

22 minutes ago, Waynescave said:

Did I read on rother Valley website that the 4GB is for buffering yes but also for stacking.. Or even live stacking was it... Will try and find said description.... 🤔

I dont see any advantage in the larger memory.

Stacking takes place on the PC.

The memory these guys use is just that size because its the size of the memory chips that they could get readily as the cheapest price.

Adam

 

[JamesF]

29 minutes ago, Waynescave said:

Did I read on rother Valley website that the 4GB is for buffering yes but also for stacking.. Or even live stacking was it... Will try and find said description.... 🤔

I reckon you need a little under 40MB to store each frame from the 183.  Having enough space to store two frames would be good because it means one can be transmitting over the USB link whilst another is being read off the sensor.  Space to store a few more would give you a bit of breathing space if the host PC couldn't always accept data as fast as is required to avoid dropping frames.  If the PC can't keep up though, you're going to run into trouble at some point.  4GB seems a bit overkill in that respect, though if there were minimal cost difference it's not unknown for some hardware manufacturers (of any kind) to bump up the spec. in a way that's not actually likely to be useful just so it sounds better in the marketing blurb.  With the exception of some of the Mallincam models I'm not aware that any of these cameras do live stacking on-board, so my favoured explanation is probably just that 4GB chips were just the easiest and cheapest to get hold of.  I guess there might also be the consideration that it's cheaper to design one set of buffering hardware and use it across all cameras rather than have different hardware for each, so providing a larger buffer than necessary could just be a way of making sure it works for future models yet to be designed.

James

Edited May 10, 2019 by JamesF

[Waynescave]

On 16/04/2019 at 17:33, Adam J said:

The OSC camera I would be choosing would be the QHY168c or the QHY268c if its cheap enough when it comes out. The QHY168c has going for it: big sensor, no amp glow, calibrates perfectly, low dark current, reliable cooling (still not totally so for the ASI071mc pro i hear), large full well capacity with high dynamic range and a nice balance of read noise / pixel size.

But out of those though two I would go with the 294, its just more sensitive with the lower read noise and larger pixels. Sure its got some issues with background calibration but it makes up for that in sensitivity and sensor size.  I have always thought that the 183 is a reasonable mono sensor, but have never had a wow moment when viewing images from the OSC variant. On the other hand I have seen awesome images from the QHY168c.

Goto Astrobin:

http://www.astrobin.com/welcome/

In Search Type: QHY168c 

Look at the images, then type ASI183mc pro in search  and look at the images. 

Lots of different setups and other factors of course, but as a whole taken across many images, for me the winner is very clear.  

But even after saying all that....go mono.

Adam

Hi Adam, 

Was really interesting reading this.. Especially liked the last sentence........ Go mono! 👍

I am looking at the 183mono altair hypercam with tec cooling. 

I've done some research I to pixel size and matching with my f7 esprit apo, and in my good seeing conditions it seems the smaller 2.4x2.4 pixel is a good fit.. 

Although the larger pixel in the 1600mm (altair or zwo) is also a good fit especially when I introduce reducer etc.. I was under the impression I would potentially lose more detail? 

What are your thoughts on the two mono cameras.. _ altair 183mm Pro tec v altair 1600mm Pro tec considering I use 120mm f7 (currently) triplet apo...... 

Cheers in advance

[Anthonyexmouth]

2 hours ago, Waynescave said:

Hi Adam, 

Was really interesting reading this.. Especially liked the last sentence........ Go mono! 👍

I am looking at the 183mono altair hypercam with tec cooling. 

I've done some research I to pixel size and matching with my f7 esprit apo, and in my good seeing conditions it seems the smaller 2.4x2.4 pixel is a good fit.. 

Although the larger pixel in the 1600mm (altair or zwo) is also a good fit especially when I introduce reducer etc.. I was under the impression I would potentially lose more detail? 

What are your thoughts on the two mono cameras.. _ altair 183mm Pro tec v altair 1600mm Pro tec considering I use 120mm f7 (currently) triplet apo...... 

Cheers in advance

Pixel scale on the 183 is mighty small on that scope, even with a reducer. 

[Adam J]

3 hours ago, Waynescave said:

Hi Adam, 

Was really interesting reading this.. Especially liked the last sentence........ Go mono! 👍

I am looking at the 183mono altair hypercam with tec cooling. 

I've done some research I to pixel size and matching with my f7 esprit apo, and in my good seeing conditions it seems the smaller 2.4x2.4 pixel is a good fit.. 

Although the larger pixel in the 1600mm (altair or zwo) is also a good fit especially when I introduce reducer etc.. I was under the impression I would potentially lose more detail? 

What are your thoughts on the two mono cameras.. _ altair 183mm Pro tec v altair 1600mm Pro tec considering I use 120mm f7 (currently) triplet apo...... 

Cheers in advance

Get the asi1600mm pro due to the better pixel scale, larger field of vew and the ability to use 1.25 inch filters all the way down to F4 that Altair version can't do that. Only get the 183m if you are going to use a reducer and you want to focus on galaxy imaging. In the case of the 183 brand is less important due to the smaller sensor. 

Edited May 11, 2019 by Adam J

[FLO]

On 28/03/2019 at 19:01, FLO said:

It is not the same. 

ZWO does not make cameras for Altair Astro.

A Chinese company called ToupTek make Altair Astro's cameras.

 

23 hours ago, Waynescave said:

Are you sure about this? As in their description they state they are better than a lot of Chinese cheaper models... 

Yes. 100% sure. ZWO do not make Altair’s cameras. They are made by a company called ToupTek in China. We stocked Touptek cameras for a short period a few years back. They are best known for their cameras designed for microscopy and OEM (rebadged) cameras. 

HTH, 

Steve 

[Waynescave]

Just to clarify, I wasn't referring to zwo making cameras for Altair, on the contrary. I was asking if sure about ToupTek making cameras for Altair.. As altair state in some of their marketing that they are not like some of the cheaper known Chinese counterparts.. 

So I'd really appreciate it if you'd take your monkey off my back! 😜🙈

[Waynescave]

On 11/05/2019 at 17:01, Anthonyexmouth said:

Pixel scale on the 183 is mighty small on that scope, even with a reducer. 

Yeah, I believe its all part of the super sensitive design, allowing shorter exposures.... 

[FLO]

5 minutes ago, Waynescave said:

I was asking if sure about ToupTek making cameras for Altair.. As altair state in some of their marketing that they are not like some of the cheaper known Chinese counterparts.. 

Yes. I am sure.

I don’t think I should comment on claims made in their marketing so recommend you contact Nic or Ian (at Altair Astro) direct. 

11 minutes ago, Waynescave said:

So I'd really appreciate it if you'd take your monkey off my back! 😜🙈

There is no “monkey on your back”. You asked me a question here in this thread. I answered. That is all 🙂

Steve 

[Waynescave]

2 minutes ago, FLO said:

Yes. I am sure.

I don’t think I should comment on claims made in their marketing so recommend you contact Nic or Ian (at Altair Astro) direct. 

There is no “monkey on your back”. You asked me a question here in this thread. I answered. That is all 🙂

Steve 

No problem, it was just one line quoted and miss interpreted. 

Now tell me tho,.. 

Which camera do I get for my 120 apo? (£1000 ish) 

Are the OSC good enough for great detail in cropped and blown up images? Let's say in reasonable skies of bortle 4 where I am say? 

Or do I stick to my plan of mono as will be more options to image during moonlight etc, as well as the extra detail one may potentially gather...? 

I keep tooting and frowing..... 

😔😊

Wayne 

[FLO]

10 minutes ago, Waynescave said:

I keep tooting and frowing..... 

If you would like advice from FLO please drop us an email. Either myself or a colleague will then receive it and respond when we reopen tomorrow. But as you are here at SGL consider starting a new discussion where you detail your requirements and ask the SGL community for their advice and recommendations. There are a lot of knowledgable people here. 

HTH, 

Steve 

[Anthonyexmouth]

54 minutes ago, Waynescave said:

Yeah, I believe its all part of the super sensitive design, allowing shorter exposures.... 

My point about the pixel scale is more about guiding. Gonna take a something special when imaging at .69  with the 183.

[Waynescave]

25 minutes ago, Anthonyexmouth said:

My point about the pixel scale is more about guiding. Gonna take a something special when imaging at .69  with the 183.

I agree. But at the same time if you're binning 2x2 and using shorter exposures anyway, with good guiding I think that's how a lot of imagers with this cam go about it for reasonably good results.. 

[Anthonyexmouth]

36 minutes ago, Waynescave said:

I agree. But at the same time if you're binning 2x2 and using shorter exposures anyway, with good guiding I think that's how a lot of imagers with this cam go about it for reasonably good results.. 

I think the 183 is the choice for those with focal length 500mm or under. Anything longer than that the 1600 mono or 294 colour is a much better fit.