Best Mono Camera

[Sreesha74]

Suggest me best mono camera for DSO astro-imaging in range of

 

a) less than 1000$

b) between 1000-2000$

 

It should be filter-wheel compatible.

 

Thanks

[RayD]

17 minutes ago, Sreesha74 said:

Suggest me best mono camera for DSO astro-imaging in range of

 

a) less than 1000$

b) between 1000-2000$

 

It should be filter-wheel compatible.

 

Thanks

This is too subjective to be possible.

You will get lots of recommendations of both CCD and CMOS cameras within your ranges, including the option of buying used, but it simply isn't possible for anyone here to say "this is the best mono camera."

[Adam J]

Dont know about dollers but the only real contender under 1000 pounds is a IMX183 based camera. So ASI183mm pro or Altair or QHY basically take your pick.

As for the higher price range, that will depend on many factors.

Adam

[Wyvernp]

Also, which camera would depend on the scope you use with it to make sure you are not too over/under sampled.

[Sreesha74]

5 hours ago, Wyvernp said:

Also, which camera would depend on the scope you use with it to make sure you are not too over/under sampled.

Thanks.  I have Explore Scientific ED 102mm (714mm FL) Triplet Refractor for Deepsky imaging. 

[Adam J]

5 minutes ago, Sreesha74 said:

Thanks.  I have Explore Scientific ED 102mm (714mm FL) Triplet Refractor for Deepsky imaging. 

Well I guess it depends on what your interested in imaging also then

[MarkAR]

This Ccd suitability calculator will help you find what will work best for your scope.

https://astronomy.tools/calculators/ccd_suitability

[Adam J]

23 minutes ago, MarkAR said:

This Ccd suitability calculator will help you find what will work best for your scope.

https://astronomy.tools/calculators/ccd_suitability

was never a fan of that calculator as it will tell you that chosing a camera that gives a pixel scale smaller than the Daws limit is absolutly fine.

[MarkAR]

14 minutes ago, Adam J said:

was never a fan of that calculator as it will tell you that chosing a camera that gives a pixel scale smaller than the Daws limit is absolutly fine.

Just had a quick read about the Dawes limit, seems like its down to how good seeing is and how good your eyesight is. Makes it sound like it's more important for observing.

[Adam J]

11 minutes ago, MarkAR said:

Just had a quick read about the Dawes limit, seems like its down to how good seeing is and how good your eyesight is. Makes it sound like it's more important for observing.

I suggest that you have a longer read. The daws limit is the limit to the ability of the scope to resolve distinct points of light from one another in terms of resolution. So if you have a scope with a daws limit of 2 arcsecond per pixel as you would with a 60mm aperture then selecting a small pixel camera like a ASI183mm pro will result in a image scale of 1.4 arcseconds per pixel at 360mm focal length. Hence the pixels are too small and dont actually resolve detail smaller then 2 arcseconds irrespective of the fact that your are sampling at 1.4 arcseconds. Try it, it will tell you its fine when its actually quite sub optimal as your exchanging SNR for resolution...but not actually getting better resolution by using a small pixel camera. 

The odd thing is they have a Daws limit calculator on their web page but dont intergrate it with the CCD suitability calculator.

Adam

Edited June 2, 2020 by Adam J

[MarkAR]

Thanks for the explanation, trouble is they also have the Rayleigh limit.....for my scope Dawes is 1.01 and Rayleigh is 1.2

So Dawes is saying I can use my SXCCD Trius 694 but Rayleigh says no.

 

Edited June 2, 2020 by MarkAR

[MarkAR]

By the way, to the opening post.

SXCCD cameras are good.

[Whirlwind]

10 hours ago, Adam J said:

I suggest that you have a longer read. The daws limit is the limit to the ability of the scope to resolve distinct points of light from one another in terms of resolution. So if you have a scope with a daws limit of 2 arcsecond per pixel as you would with a 60mm aperture then selecting a small pixel camera like a ASI183mm pro will result in a image scale of 1.4 arcseconds per pixel at 360mm focal length. Hence the pixels are too small and dont actually resolve detail smaller then 2 arcseconds irrespective of the fact that your are sampling at 1.4 arcseconds. Try it, it will tell you its fine when its actually quite sub optimal as your exchanging SNR for resolution...but not actually getting better resolution by using a small pixel camera. 

The odd thing is they have a Daws limit calculator on their web page but dont intergrate it with the CCD suitability calculator.

Adam

Dawes limit only really applies to point sources (so star clusters, doublets etc).  It means less when you consider extended objects (planets, nebulae, galaxies etc).  Some planetary imagers (e.g. Damian Peach) image way past the Dawes limit of their telescopes.  Dawes limit applies in specific circumstances.  However, it is generally correct though that the finer the image scale you are getting less signal for the same noise per pixel and can have diminishing returns.

As for the original post I would suggest an ASI183 for sub-1000 as well - this has the benefit that you can use a wide field telescope and still get decent resolution.
For 1k - 2k probably something like the Atik383L - long in the tooth but a good all rounder camera.

Edited June 3, 2020 by Whirlwind

[Adam J]

1 hour ago, Whirlwind said:

Dawes limit only really applies to point sources (so star clusters, doublets etc).  It means less when you consider extended objects (planets, nebulae, galaxies etc).  Some planetary imagers (e.g. Damian Peach) image way past the Dawes limit of their telescopes.  Dawes limit applies in specific circumstances.  However, it is generally correct though that the finer the image scale you are getting less signal for the same noise per pixel and can have diminishing returns.

As for the original post I would suggest an ASI183 for sub-1000 as well - this has the benefit that you can use a wide field telescope and still get decent resolution.
For 1k - 2k probably something like the Atik383L - long in the tooth but a good all rounder camera.

Daws limit applies for everything not just point sources. On nebula for example as you decrease the image scale below the Daws limit the image will look increasingly as if you have applied a Gaussian blur to it. To a certain point that will look fine but beyond that it breaks down and in no case will you actually resolve more detail irrespective of aspherics In terms of I would say that some sharpening algorithms work better to the eye if oversampled but that does not mean you have more detail it just means that sharpening is giving the impression of more detail but those are artifacts not real detail. Damian peach is using a ASI290 on a 14 inch edge HD, he is at 50% of the Daws limit but he may bin. Looking at his images at full size fantastic though they are I would say he is not resolving details down to pixel level. 

It's not that you are getting less signal to noise at finer image scale it's that you have insufficient aperture per arcsecond. A larger aperture scope like a RASA is therefore ideal for the asi183 as it has lots of aperture per arcsecond. 

As for 

Edited June 3, 2020 by Adam J