Suggestions for dedicated astro cam

[LordLoki]

Hi all, 

I have been shooting with my good old Canon 60D for a while now and thanks to some support from people in this forum I was able to get some decent pictures with it. 

Now I would like to get a Cooled camera dedicated for astrophotography to improve image quality and to have something new to play with

My main targets will be deep sky objects. I am not sure if there is a big advantage in using a monochrome camera since the exposure time increases too if you want to get colored images. 

I looked around a bit and I am thinking about the zwo asi 294mc pro. Looks like a solid choice and searching a bit on astrobin tells me it's capable of capturing galaxies and nebulae quite well. 

What I also don't know yet is if narrowbandfilters can be used with color cameras or not. And if I need a filter wheel in order to use filters with the 294 for example. 

What is your opinion is thale 294 a good choice are there better ones in the price range? 

I should maybe also mention that I would like to use asi air or something else that does the same. 

 

Thanks for your feedback 

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by LordLoki

[TareqPhoto]

The main reasons about mono vs. OSC is about the location really, as under light pollution the majority will say that the mono will win here better than a color, while in dark sites both can be identical, and still the mono will have the edge for results mainly narrowbanding, so it is up to you as where do you live exactly, and for me i look at it as the following theory:

Mono cooled = dark sites + LP sites

Color cooled = dark sites, not much for LP sites even it is possible

So, if you really want the best out of two world of mono and color and full control then go with mono and learn the long exposures, all the fun is there

[dannybgoode]

The main issue with using NB filters on an OSC camera is the amount of data you lose due to the Bayer filter.  The filter is constructed so that 50% of the pixels read green data and 25% each red and blue.  Software trickery then calculates the luminance value of the missing colour data from the values of the surrounding pixels.

If you stick say an Ha NB filter on then really only the red pixels are going to receive any meaningful numbers of photons so you are only utilising 25% of the sensor which is a bit of a waste! 

I prefer a mono camera with a filter wheel accordingly but I'm pretty rubbish at imaging at the moment so I am not convinced I get better results at the moment!  I am confident over time though I will get more from mono than OSC, particularly when using NB filters.

[TareqPhoto]

29 minutes ago, dannybgoode said:

The main issue with using NB filters on an OSC camera is the amount of data you lose due to the Bayer filter.  The filter is constructed so that 50% of the pixels read green data and 25% each red and blue.  Software trickery then calculates the luminance value of the missing colour data from the values of the surrounding pixels.

If you stick say an Ha NB filter on then really only the red pixels are going to receive any meaningful numbers of photons so you are only utilising 25% of the sensor which is a bit of a waste! 

I prefer a mono camera with a filter wheel accordingly but I'm pretty rubbish at imaging at the moment so I am not convinced I get better results at the moment!  I am confident over time though I will get more from mono than OSC, particularly when using NB filters.

Doing rubbish at the moment should NOT be a factor or a reason at all, i bought that mono camera in 2017 which was my first ever starting, i was even worse than rubbish, but now i thank GOD that i did it as i am started to have nice results, so i know that one way or another i will move to the mono side, but i started with it and taking all my time learning it now i feel it was the best and wise decision ever, in fact even in that year of 2017 when i started i bought Astrodon Ha 5nm filter which is so expensive, i was a beginner, now i think all the waste or cost i paid in the past is now showing the real value nowadays.

[2STAR]

 

The Optolong dual band filter has good reviews for OSC cameras especially on Emission Nebulas, and there are lots of those  , also, a good LP filter all in one.

 

Eric

ps: You cannot really use individual colour filters on a OSC .

Change of tack, Now going for the 533 suits my set up better, on order with FLO when ZWO are up and running again.

 

Edited February 23, 2020 by 2STAR

[rickwayne]

Under most conditions you can actually get away with less total integration time with LRGB than with OSC for equivalent results. You can short the color data in favor of concentrating on high-res (no debayering!) low-noise Ha or luminance. Or so say some experts I respect. Plus, as others note, the mono camera enables narrowband work down the road.

[LordLoki]

All right I was leaning towards mono and from your answers I gather that it is the best choice when it comes to a long term investment.

I am pretty convinced I would want to go mono at some point. So why not start there and get experience in early. 

So what do you think of the asi 1600 mm and what size of filter should I go with for my explore scientific Ed 80

Saw this bundle and thought that might be an OK deal. Thoughts? 

https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/language/en/info/p10242_ZWO-Kit-ASI1600MM-Pro---8pos-Filterrad---31mm-L-RGB---3x-Nebelfilter.html

 

[TareqPhoto]

I went with QHY163M in the past which is just the equivalent of ASI1600MM and i have ZERO regret, results out of this camera is speaking for itself, so that is a nice choice really, in fact i am thinking about going with this camera now as well so i can have 2 mono, and why i will choose ZWO camera instead of QHY is because i bought Astrodon/Chroma filters at 1.25" size, i can't afford larger, and ZWO has sensor a bit not deeper like QHY163M, about 1-2mm, so that will make it work better at least for 1.25", i wanted the best filter, so if i have it then i better matching a camera for it not matching a filter to a camera as maybe sometimes i can't get that filter to match the camera.

About that offer, it is the best you can start with, it will give you full set to do astrophotography, it is just the weakest link in that is the filters themselves, because even ZWO maybe upgraded their filters somehow, they are still not high quality out there, and from all i read it is even the worst filters in the market compared to another out there which not all are good as well, i mean i ignored ZWO filters and went with Optolong filters which are WAY better than ZWO, but still i don't like much of this Optolong quality after all, but it is no wrong to start with the, anyway, better than not modified DSLR or even modified, later if you can you just replace them with something better.

[rickwayne]

I don't think you'll be sorry you went with mono. The flexibility of doing RGB, LRGB, HaRGB, monochrome Ha, bicolor narrowband, and three-or-better-band narrowband...it's just the nuts IMO. Since I'm very much still learning, the ZWO filters are by no means the limiting reagent for me, YMMV. If I'd waiting until I could afford something better than their $130 NB filters I'd still be waiting, instead of imaging.

[teoria_del_big_bang]

On 08/02/2020 at 19:48, LordLoki said:

All right I was leaning towards mono and from your answers I gather that it is the best choice when it comes to a long term investment.

I am pretty convinced I would want to go mono at some point. So why not start there and get experience in early. 

This was exactly my thoughts when I went to a dedicated camera from a modded DSLR. As it happened I already had a filter wheel bought of SGL 2nd hand and all the filters, again 2nd hand. After many questions and searching I too went for the ZWO 1600 mono and not regretted it.

If using some capture software such as APT or SG then there is no more difficulty taking the lights. It does take a bit longer to take a set of darks but as there is no need to do that every session then again no hassle and the flats again only takes a few more minutes.  The processing does take a bit longer as basically you have to repeat everything for each filter so usually doing the work 3 or more times depending on what filters you used, but I found it good to get to grips with the software as often I would have follow a tutorial for the first filter then I could do myself for the other filters and so my brain got used to the workflow quicker (I think anyway 🙂 ).

I think there are better dedicated cameras out there but the 1600 was about the top of my price range and so many others on SGL have the same camera it is really useful to get answers to any questions or issues you may have. Regarding the filter then really I think @TareqPhoto and @rickwayne both have valid points.  The filters are probably the weakest link in that package and you may well at some stage consider replacing at least the NB filters, but they will not stop you creating some great images and when you start talking top end NB filters then you can spend some serious money.

I used my 2nd hand filters for quite a while (I think they were various manufacturers but certainly they were pretty generic not expensive ones) and were quite capable of delivering good images and any issues were certainly down to me and my techniques and not really the filters. I have now progressed and bought some Baader filters (I know these are not the best by a long way but I do not have a bottomless wallet and I thought the NB ones were the best ultra narrowband ones I could afford). I am not sure whether the Baader LRGB's actually made much difference compared to my original ones, but I went for the Ultra NB filters (well Ha and OIII anyway still not sourced a SII yet - the ultra NBs by Baader seen to be thin on the ground) and they certainly made a big difference.

So unless you have a large budget and can afford the top end filters such as Astrodons (but they are serious money) but I think (and I am no expert just my limited experience) the ZWO package would be fine and I think many use these filters on this forum very successfully.

As I said I am still learning so no expert but they are my recent experience moving into Dedicated mono cameras and certainly do not regret it.

Steve

[LordLoki]

Thanks to everybody for the great inputs. I am pretty sure that I will go for the asi 1600 but although the bundle I posted is nice. I was concerned that the filters might be on the low end side of the spectrum. 

Since I have a bit left in my budget the question would be what would be a noticeable upgrade without breaking the bank? I will post a filterset from baader below maybe you could give your opinion if that would be a noticeable upgrade compared to the zwo filters in the previously posted set. 

And then I have one more question. What exactly is the difference between 1.25, 2",31mm and 36mm? 

Can I use all of them with the zwo 1600 and if so what are the advantages or disadvantages. If there is a good link to read up on this in more detail I would also be happy to read up on this. 

 

Here the link to the baader filters 

https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p7730_Baader-Filter-Set-LRGBC---Narrowband-H-alpha-O-III-S-II--2-inch-thread.html

Thank you all so so much for your inputs. 

[ollypenrice]

To step back for a moment, LRGB is faster than OSC because an OSC camera always has a colour filter in front of every pixel all of the time.  When shooting in luminance a mono camera is recording all three colours simultaneously, thereby catching roughly three times as much light. And then, as said above, it uses every pixel for receiving narrowband filtered light. It may be more frustrating in on-off cloud cover but mono is faster.

The Baader filters are very good. I use their LRGB and OIII and sometimes their Ha, though I also have an Astrodon. The OIII is the least convincing. Some examples produce halos but it seems that Baader will replace ones that do. There has been some discussion on the forum about halos and reflections from the ZWO filters. Indeed there has been discussion about this, and about microlensing artifacts with some CMOS chips. I'm not up on this discussion since I use CCD for the present but you might want to look into it.

Filters simply have to be large enough not to vignette the chip (mask off its outer edges.) Mild vignetting can be cured by flat fielding but you should take the manufacturer's advice on which size to use in which system. Basically larger chips need larger filters but the distance between the filter and the chip also comes into it. A filter which vignettes when further from the chip may not do so when positioned closer. Filters need to be 'large enough' but there is absolutely no virtue from being larger than 'large enough.'

Olly

[spillage]

I would suggest to bite the bullet and go with a mono. Once you stick in a Ha filter and see the results you will be blown away by the results.

I think the osc vs mono always get clouded by the time taken. Yes you could use a osc to dodge clouds take say 10 exposures and end up with a colour image whilst the mono may of only got 10 exposures using the red filter...fair point. The thing to remember is that 10 exposures is not enough to produce a finished image so the osc image will be of a low standard. Also you will get away with less exposures using mono because as @ollypenrice mentioned the mono sensor is used at 100% capacity.

But these are just my thoughts.

[gorann]

I also suggest you go mono. If you have low light pollution like me a OSC will probably give equally good RGB results but it will not give as good NB results for the reasons already stated. I now use a double rig with a mono ASI1600 on one telescope and ASI071 (OSC) on the other, and combine the data (usually HaRGB), so that is an option for the future. But right now I would argue for a mono for you, and then the ASI1600 (or equivalent from other manufacturers) is probably the best you can get on your budget. Like Olly suggested, I would go for Baader filters. There are better filters (Astrodon or Chroma) but they are much more expensive. At least the Baaders I have are very good and they are all of the same thickness so I do not need to refocus between filters (I usually focus with the Lum filter and then switch to Ha or Oiii without refocusing). I have 2" filters (to be future proof) but I understand that 1.25" will work with the ASI1600. The major drawback with that camera is microlensing which makes very bright stars look quite odd. It is caused by reflexes between the microlenses in front of the pixels and the cover glass of the chip. It has a Panasonic chip that is much worse at this than Sony chips, but there is as far as I know no mono Sony chips in that price and size range. In images without bright stars you will not see the microlensing artifacts.

[Starwiz]

5 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

To step back for a moment, LRGB is faster than OSC because an OSC camera always has a colour filter in front of every pixel all of the time.

It's been almost a year now since I switched over to mono and don't regret it.  As Olly and others have said, the overall capture time is quicker with mono than it is with OSC.

I've found the processing time is longer with mono as you can have as many as 5 sets of data to process in the instance of HaLRGB, but it's something enjoy when the conditions aren't suitable for imaging.

John

[rickwayne]

Actually I find that with Astro Pixel Processor I'm spending very little more time processing the individual filters' outputs, at least up through calibration and integration. Once I tell it in the loading process which lights go with which filter (and, optionally, session), it just handles it and I get N integrated images, where N == number of filters.

There is the process of compositing itself, of course, which is alien to OSC folks. But it seems most people do e.g. gradient reduction after compositing, rather than on the individual mono images.

So yeah, it takes a little longer but I'm definitely one of the "hurts so good" crew.