ASI 6200

[Rodd]

• ADC: 16 bit
• Back Focus: 17.5 mm
• Camera Connection: Female M54 x 0.75
• Color or Monochrome: Monochrome
• Cooling: Cooled
• Delta T: 60°C Below Ambient
• Dynamic Range: 13.9 Stops
• Full Resolution Frame Rate: 9 fps
• Full Well: 51 ke
• Megapixels: 61.2
• Peak QE: 80%
• Pixel Array: 9576 x 6388
• Pixel Size: 3.75 microns
• Power Consumption: 12V 3A
• Read Noise: 3.5e
• Sensor: IMX455

This looks like a KILLER camera.  But the big question is .....does it have a coated sensor plate/sensor chamber window.   I am very upset that the ASI 1600 ended up to be a flawed design because of the lack of a simple coating.  at $1,200 ($999 without filters) it is not so bad...but $4,000 (in USA) would be way too much to spend on a camera with a flaw like that.  No way I would buy it.  But the vendors I have asked have not been able to confirm.   Does anybody know?  a 16 bit 61mp CMOS camera is out of a dream!

Edited March 12, 2020 by Rodd

[don4l]

Have you seen any images from it yet?   Somebody posted one here on SGL about a week ago.

[Rodd]

3 minutes ago, don4l said:

Have you seen any images from it yet?   Somebody posted one here on SGL about a week ago.

There is on on Astrobin--not very impressive--but probably has nothing to do with the camera.  AP is a funny business.  Having the best scope and mount and a great camera does not in the slightest guarantee decent results!  I didn't see any major flaws that could be attributed to the camera.  High Point Scientific--a vendor in the USA, just confirmed that the camera does have a coated window/plate and the camera does not suffer from the ASI 1600 diffraction patterns.

So far so good

Rodd

[don4l]

The image that I saw was taken by a Scandanavian chap.

The 6200 chip size and pixel size would suit the FSQ brilliantly IMO.  However, I do feel that you are absolutely correct to be very cautious.

Good luck.

[Rodd]

1 minute ago, don4l said:

The image that I saw was taken by a Scandanavian chap.

The 6200 chip size and pixel size would suit the FSQ brilliantly IMO.  However, I do feel that you are absolutely correct to be very cautious.

Good luck.

Yes--that is what I am thinking--the FSQ 106 reducer .6x--The ASI 1600 is good for that and this should be even better.  But there is a lot to consider.  I think backfocus would work (its limited with the .6x reducer).  But there absolutely has got to be 2 USB ports in the camera for the guide cam and filter wheel.  i only have one cable from the telescope to the computer because of this.   No way I want to increase my cables!

Rodd

[tomato]

Here is the link to the post just in case you haven’t seen it. It’s just RGB, no Lum data!

I was so blown away by it I was going to put my cameras up for sale and raid my pension pot to buy two (yes, two gulp!) of these for the dual rig, but have calmed down a bit now.  Great widefield and all the detail you need when cropped, it is tempting.

 

 

 

[Ken82]

It’s a great camera for the fsq 106 😁

Not sure about coatings,  I get a small halo on very bright stars which probably means the coatings are decent. 
 

The halo is definitely from the camera and not filter given it’s size. 
 

Field of view is awesome with the fsq although I’ll likely bin 2x2 in software most of the time. 
 

Included  is a crop of alnitak showing a small halo. 4min uncalibrated sub. 
 

Adapters have been an issue with the fsq as the M54 tilt adapter is too far from the sensor so causes vignetting. I’m waiting for some custom made adapters which should arrive in the next few weeks. 

[Rodd]

1 hour ago, tomato said:

Here is the link to the post just in case you haven’t seen it. It’s just RGB, no Lum data!

I was so blown away by it I was going to put my cameras up for sale and raid my pension pot to buy two (yes, two gulp!) of these for the dual rig, but have calmed down a bit now.  Great widefield and all the detail you need when cropped, it is tempting.

 

 

 

You must remember that this person would create a great image no matter what camera he used.   It’s hard to go by an image unless it is a direct data comparison.  Otherwise, are you judging the camera of the processing?   Certainly the FOV is excellent

[Rodd]

13 minutes ago, Ken82 said:

It’s a great camera for the fsq 106 😁

Not sure about coatings,  I get a small halo on very bright stars which probably means the coatings are decent. 
 

The halo is definitely from the camera and not filter given it’s size. 
 

Field of view is awesome with the fsq although I’ll likely bin 2x2 in software most of the time. 
 

Included  is a crop of alnitak showing a small halo. 4min uncalibrated sub. 
 

Adapters have been an issue with the fsq as the M54 tilt adapter is too far from the sensor so causes vignetting. I’m waiting for some custom made adapters which should arrive in the next few weeks. 

That’s a bit disheartening.  I would use it with the fsq and .6x reducer....so even a bigger Fov.   However, can I use 36mm filters?  Will the Zwoptical filter wheel I use now work with it.  If not, having to buy a filter wheel and no snd bb 2” filters would kill the deal

[Ken82]

8 minutes ago, Rodd said:

That’s a bit disheartening.  I would use it with the fsq and .6x reducer....so even a bigger Fov.   However, can I use 36mm filters?  Will the Zwoptical filter wheel I use now work with it.  If not, having to buy a filter wheel and no snd bb 2” filters would kill the deal

Ok cool a bigger field of view so what are you planning to image ? 
 

Personally I think the field of view is adequate for almost all Astronomy targets unless you want to start mosaics etc etc. 
 

The  sensor will not work well with 36mm filters. Depending of course how far the filters are from sensor. 
 

I’m not sure what zwo filter wheel you have but the 7x2” works well. It also works well with baader filters which was an uncertainty given the filter sizes and documentation zwo released. 

[don4l]

31 minutes ago, Rodd said:

That’s a bit disheartening.  I would use it with the fsq and .6x reducer....so even a bigger Fov.   However, can I use 36mm filters?  Will the Zwoptical filter wheel I use now work with it.  If not, having to buy a filter wheel and no snd bb 2” filters would kill the deal

I'm fairly sure that you couldn't use 36mm filters.  I use 2" filters on a smaller sensor.

 

[Rodd]

That stinks

[tomato]

9 hours ago, Rodd said:

You must remember that this person would create a great image no matter what camera he used.   It’s hard to go by an image unless it is a direct data comparison.  Otherwise, are you judging the camera of the processing?   Certainly the FOV is excellent

For sure, there is an expert behind the image. However, the two attributes about it that caught my eye were the FOV given the scope that was used, and the level of fine detail visible even after a severe crop. I think the camera is playing a part in achieving this.

[Rodd]

1 hour ago, tomato said:

For sure, there is an expert behind the image. However, the two attributes about it that caught my eye were the FOV given the scope that was used, and the level of fine detail visible even after a severe crop. I think the camera is playing a part in achieving this.

No doubt. That is why I like large sensors with small pixels for smaller scopes.  The resolution of the big image is a bit higher than typical (like 2.4 instead of 3.5) and the fact that you can crop sections for stand alone images.  The asi 1600 does this well, but this camera takes it to another level.  The resolution, hence fine details, are due to the pixel size, which is pretty much the same (3.75 vs 3.8).  It’s really hard to see the 80% efficiency, 60 degree cooling and other good things this camera has in the image.  I’d say the only unequivocal thing in this image that can be attributed to the camera as opposed to processing, good optics, small pixels, good aquisition, etc is FOV.   I think diffraction pattern disease will be the clincher 

Edited March 13, 2020 by Rodd

[Ken82]

On 12/03/2020 at 23:44, Ken82 said:

Included  is a crop of alnitak showing a small halo. 4min uncalibrated sub. 

Time to eat some humble pie 😀

I was getting a halo 120 pixels across using baader RGB, HA and OIii filters. I also got a larger halo 160 pixels across using an IDAS d1/D2. 
 

when I switched to chroma the halo was gone 👍 so the camera doesn’t cause the small halos. 
 

Great camera I need another one now 😀

If you already have baader filters the halo is very small so nothing to worry about. 

Edited July 6, 2020 by Ken82

[Spracks]

@Ken82 I just ordered the ASI 6200 to go with my Tak 106-FSQ EDXIII.  I saw your comment above about needing adapters to avoid vignetting, can you elaborate on which adapters you needed?  Do you have the EDX or the ED?  Thanks!

-Joe

[Ken82]

8 hours ago, Spracks said:

@Ken82 I just ordered the ASI 6200 to go with my Tak 106-FSQ EDXIII.  I saw your comment above about needing adapters to avoid vignetting, can you elaborate on which adapters you needed?  Do you have the EDX or the ED?  Thanks!

-Joe

Hi Joe,

I have the edx iv paired with my asi 6200mm.

I was using an M98 to M54 adapter until recently but I’ve changed this now to better control tilt. 
 

I now plan to use the takahashi M98-M72 adapter at the end of the scope. Then M72-M68 baader adapter. Which will screw into the M68 Zwo OAG in my picture. 
 

The OAG is then bolted to the FW and filter wheel is also bolted to camera to prevent tilt. 
 

Hopefully that helps with the tilt I had in the optical train but if not I plan to purchase a Gerd Neumann M68 tilt adapter. 
 

With the small pixels and large field of this camera I expect some elongation of stars in the corners even perfectly aligned. I plan to run an experiment focusing both “on axis” and “off axis” to see if this helps as the CFZ “off axis” will be tiny. 
 

50mm unmounted filters are also essential for this camera as you will get star reflections using mounted filters as the light hits the aluminium. 

Hope that helps 

ken 

 

[Spracks]

Thanks for the great response Ken, very helpful!  How significant was the tilt you were experiencing prior to the new adapter?  Did you try the M68 sensor tilt adapter that is now being offered by ZWO?  The ZWO M68 adapter was released after the camera had been out for awhile, not sure if it was available when you started to search for adapter solutions.  

[Ken82]

3 hours ago, Spracks said:

Thanks for the great response Ken, very helpful!  How significant was the tilt you were experiencing prior to the new adapter?  Did you try the M68 sensor tilt adapter that is now being offered by ZWO?  The ZWO M68 adapter was released after the camera had been out for awhile, not sure if it was available when you started to search for adapter solutions.  

I didn’t think it was terribly bad as I’ve previously used a full frame with my fsq 85 (without additional Flattener) and it was similar. Although the 85 isn’t really corrected for such a large sensor. That being said tak Europe seem to think my tilt was significant. Not sure yet I’ll need to test with the new adapters. 
 

I know zwo have also released a M68 tilt adapter for this camera,  I believe Grant is looking to add it to the FLO website soon.  But I’m reading it doesn’t have a gasket to stop light leaking into the sensor. I’m also being told people weren’t happy with 3 small grub screws potentially holding the entire weight of the camera. Not sure as I haven’t seen one in person. 
 

I think the gert Neumann M68 will be a better more robust solution. 
 

Another interesting point is that the small screws that come with the FW are Matt black but the internal screws that come with the m68 OAG are silver. So to prevent reflections it’s best to replace with Matt black fittings. 

cheers ken 

 

[Spracks]

Good info!  Just to clarify, have you used the setup you showed me in your first picture?  Wasn't clear if you just got the right parts in and haven't tested yet or if you used that setup and the results were unacceptable.  Looks like I have the Takahashi adapters to pull that off, just need the M72/M68 adapter.  I hate adapters haha.

 

-Joe

[RayD]

20 hours ago, Ken82 said:

I think the gert Neumann M68 will be a better more robust solution. 

Totally agree, Ken.  I believe they have a unique adjustment method also which makes it much easier to use when in place.  Great piece of kit and may well be investing myself too.

[Ken82]

22 hours ago, Spracks said:

Good info!  Just to clarify, have you used the setup you showed me in your first picture?  Wasn't clear if you just got the right parts in and haven't tested yet or if you used that setup and the results were unacceptable.  Looks like I have the Takahashi adapters to pull that off, just need the M72/M68 adapter.  I hate adapters haha.

 

-Joe

I haven’t tested the M72-M68 connections yet Joe.

I think the M54 is likely the weakest link in the train as it’s by far the narrowest part and the thread is only 3mm long to stop from hitting the filters. 
 

So my thinking was that the much larger and longer threaded M68 connections will better correct any tilt plus the FW is now bolted. I can only test and hope. 

Otherwise Zoltan does the Gerd Neumann tilt plate at 365astronomy 👍

Edit - I also hate adapters, I’ve now collected a large box of these for every occasion. I’d hate to count them together in cost 😬

Edited July 18, 2020 by Ken82

[Spracks]

Gotcha.  If you wouldn't mind letting me know how the M72-M68 adapter works when you get the chance to test it out, I would appreciate it!  I won't get the 6200 for ~1 month, so I have a bit of time to prepare.  I could just buy ALL the adapters, but you know...money lol.  Thanks for taking the time to respond to my continuous line of questioning!

-Joe

[Ken82]

6 hours ago, Spracks said:

Gotcha.  If you wouldn't mind letting me know how the M72-M68 adapter works when you get the chance to test it out, I would appreciate it!  I won't get the 6200 for ~1 month, so I have a bit of time to prepare.  I could just buy ALL the adapters, but you know...money lol.  Thanks for taking the time to respond to my continuous line of questioning!

-Joe

No problem at all, thats what the astro community is all about in my book. Ive had great advice/help from several other members when working out things.  @vlaiv in particular is a wealth of knowledge and gave me the method to calculate total noise in subs etc. For the asi 6200mm read noise + thermal noise for a 300s exposure at -10 was 2.143e which is very slightly higher than the zwo graphs for this camera. 👍

Here are a couple of images ive taken with the asi 6200 and fsq 106. They are both only a couple of hours integration from my light polluted garden (bortle 5/6) so clearly not going to win any prizes but im pleased. My plan was to use it more for widefield later in the year and get a larger refractor for galaxy season next year. 

I have had an issue with some purple fringes on brighter stars but not sure yet where thats coming from as takahashi europe have said the scope is showing exceptional performance with no chromatism etc. I need to have a closer look in the coming months as it may have been my filters. Ill let you know. (Stars in these images arent so bright so the issue isnt clear but you can see the half purple stars on M106 and ive masked the issue on m101). 

Ken 

 

[Spracks]

Those look great, Ken.  Especially considering the light pollution and short integration, excited to try this bad boy out!