ZWO ASI224 vs ASI290mc

[MimasDeathStar]

Hello everybody

I hope you don't mind me asking another dreadfully naïve beginners question (a noob question so my kids tell me!) but I was thinking about getting a solar system camera and for the life of me I cant work out what the difference between these two cameras are! Armed with nothing more than the "they're more expensive than the ASI120 so they must be better" level of knowledge; I've quickly run out of steam. I really really like the look of the ASI178 but I think it may be too expensive at the moment.

I've googled and read various forums about this very topic a few times and I must admit the debate quickly reaches a point where my brain takes off its reading glasses and goes off to sit in a quiet corner...

I think I understand the basic selling points - resolution, quantum efficiency, pixel size, and working out sampling size and so on but these units seem so very close in so many respects that I cant help but wonder why they both exist? Superficially they seem so similar, and I'm really relieved that I'm not the only person confused by this (as I've seen so many people ask a similar question!). I'm guessing they both must have their own USP but I haven't figured out what that is. And I thought I knew about photography before I bought a telescope!

Ofcourse underpinning all of this is a fundamental lack of knowledge and a broad spectrum ineptitude at anything above basic GCSE knowledge so I'm sure someone can point out why I'm being so daft!

Thankyou!

BTW my telescope is a Meade Polaris 90mm refractor (900mm focal length) an a basic EQ mount, I was just hoping for something as "all round" as possible - sun / moon / planets and so on.

[CraigT82]

The differences are really in the pixel size and noise characteristics. 

Pixel size should ideally be match to the focal lengths you'll be using in order to sample optimally.

Noise characteristics -read/fixed pattern - is of a concern to those who are producing the highest standard of images (whereby the camera noise becomes a limiting factor to image quality rather than skies/scope/skills) but to us mere mortals it's not a major concern.  Any planetary camera you can get on the market these days will be capable capturing the full quality of the images your scope will deliver to it. 

 

Edit: some good info here if you haven't seen it already...

https://agenaastro.com/articles/zwo-astronomy-cameras-buyers-guide.html

Edited March 11, 2020 by CraigT82

[johninderby]

This should help. Includes a calculatorfor working out the right pixel size for your scope. Has the ZWO cameras in the calculator.

https://astronomy.tools/calculators/ccd_suitability

Edited March 11, 2020 by johninderby

[Mr niall]

Thanks both that’s really useful!

[MimasDeathStar]

4 hours ago, johninderby said:

This should help. Includes a calculatorfor working out the right pixel size for your scope. Has the ZWO cameras in the calculator.

https://astronomy.tools/calculators/ccd_suitability

 

5 hours ago, CraigT82 said:

The differences are really in the pixel size and noise characteristics. 

Pixel size should ideally be match to the focal lengths you'll be using in order to sample optimally.

Noise characteristics -read/fixed pattern - is of a concern to those who are producing the highest standard of images (whereby the camera noise becomes a limiting factor to image quality rather than skies/scope/skills) but to us mere mortals it's not a major concern.  Any planetary camera you can get on the market these days will be capable capturing the full quality of the images your scope will deliver to it. 

 

Edit: some good info here if you haven't seen it already...

https://agenaastro.com/articles/zwo-astronomy-cameras-buyers-guide.html

Thankyou for the advice! I read those articles and I must admit I have a bit of a headache now but I think it looks like the 224 makes more sense for my scope than the 290 so that's good news especially as it is the cheaper of the two!