AS1294MC Pro vs ASI183MC Pro

[maxchess]

I have decided to buy an OSC CCD and have narrowed it down to a choice between AS129MC Pro and the ASI183MC pro.  I would welcome some advice and comments on my reasoning.

First, I know there is a good argument for going mono, but that’s for the future. I want to take it one step at a time. I am just about getting my head round guiding.

My kit is a HEQ5-Pro Rowan Belt modified with mainly Explore Scientific ED APO 102mm f/7 focal length 712mm permanently mounted on a pier.. I also have a Celestron C8 but that’s for later.  Until now I have been imaging with a Canon450D moded and a Canon 2000D.  I  have an ASI178MC (not cooled) that I bought to experiment with last year.

I also have travel gear consisting of an AZ Gti WiFi on which I sit my DSLR with a Cannon 300mm lens, which is great for big targets like M31, Rosette Nebula etc

After extensive reading on Forums etc I am leaning towards the ASI294MC-Pro.  (but tomorrow I might change my mind)

My reasoning is that the ASI1294 has a larger sensor size, 14 bit ADC vs 12 on the183; and larger pixels, and a greater full well capacity. So this means that the FOV will be only just a bit tighter than the my DLSR so with my ES102 I can still get good images of larger targets like M42 especially if I add an FR.  Without the FR I can get smaller targets.  I should also be able to use it with my Canon 300mm lens when traveling. It should also work well with my C8 when I start using that.

I have also read that the larger pixels at 4.63um are more forgiving than the ASI183 that has 2.4um pixels especially when focussing. The ASI294 also has a much greater full well capacity, in theory providing greater dynamic range and less chance of blowing out stars.

But I have a nagging doubt, because the ASI183MC pro although it has a smaller sensor size, is still quite decent and the tiny pixels mean that it has a resolution of 20mp compared with the 11mp of the ASI1294. So am I turning my back on greater resolution for my shorter focal length scopes? In the world of DLSR 20mp beats 11mp any day. Plus the ASI183 has an 84% QE!

What brought it home was a test exposure I did with the old ASI178MC that also has 2.4um pixels, but a much smaller sensor. Using the ES102 I took 50 x 30 sec exposures of M27 (dumbbell) and compared them with results from the 450D on the C8. The FOV is the same, but the 178MC results were so much better.

Any views most welcome.

 

[alan potts]

I asked a similar question and was put off the 183mc as the pixels were too small and this gave problems on some scopes. I am sure someone will give you a much better answer than I just have. I bought a 071 and I am not enjoying it at all, I am sure the camera produces fine result but in my hands I am not so sure it ever will. At the moment I am wishing I had got another mount and stuck with my Canon 40D, so easy to use.

[Adam J]

For me there is no competition here the ASI294mc pro is a much more sensitive camera. I might consider the ASI183mc pro on the 300mm lens but the 294 will still work fine on the 300mm and but the 294 will trounce the on the ES102. Of course something like the Atik Horizon Color might be a balance between pixel size and sensitivity across all your scopes. 

[Adam J]

3 minutes ago, alan potts said:

I asked a similar question and was put off the 183mc as the pixels were too small and this gave problems on some scopes. I am sure someone will give you a much better answer than I just have. I bought a 071 and I am not enjoying it at all, I am sure the camera produces fine result but in my hands I am not so sure it ever will. At the moment I am wishing I had got another mount and stuck with my Canon 40D, so easy to use.

I am shocked to hear you say that. What type of issues are you having? It should walk all over a 40D. 

[GeekTeacher]

I am also very interested in this comparison as I have a friend who is advising me to get a 183mc for the finer resolution and detail in images. I am worried that the resulting images of some galaxies will be too small and that it may be difficult to focus. Can the 183mc use binning to equate to approximately the same resolution of the 294mc and thus generate similar results. Or have I got that principle wrong?

[nfotis]

15 hours ago, GeekTeacher said:

I am also very interested in this comparison as I have a friend who is advising me to get a 183mc for the finer resolution and detail in images. I am worried that the resulting images of some galaxies will be too small and that it may be difficult to focus. Can the 183mc use binning to equate to approximately the same resolution of the 294mc and thus generate similar results. Or have I got that principle wrong?

 

I think that the 183 doesn't offer binning on sensor, you would need to do it via software. If you do 2x2 binning, that should add two bits of dynamic range (you accumulate four pixels instead of one)

 

You may want to verify the field of view attained by your scope and various sensors before you decide (check "imaging mode")

 

https://astronomy.tools/calculators/field_of_view/

 

This site offers also a CCD calculator for checking the ideal sampling on DSO imaging

 

https://astronomy.tools/calculators/ccd_suitability

 

Hope this helps,

N.F.

 

Edited October 22, 2020 by nfotis