Moravian C1+ Cameras IMX304 only £1100!!

[Adam J]

Saw this on Moravians page recently and was impressed with the price and format. 

Looks like moravian have announced a new range of cameras the C1+ cooled dedicated CMOS range.

https://www.gxccd.com/art?id=590&lang=409&fbclid=IwAR0jpXnbSPkTBRkde_7Qbq5ItAB7-dfQHLPn5dkVrvybVc-K4UTU1u3qNqs

These are clearly aimed to compete better on price with the cheap chinese companies. But to my eye the quality still looks like what you would expect from Moravian. 

The flagship model based on the IMX304 is between the IMX183 and the ASI1600mm pro sensor in size with performance and pixel size similar to the latter. 

A few other companies like SX and Atik hae IMX304 based cameras on the market but across the board there is a lack of test images, I would really like to give one a shot but to be honest I would need to see a dark frame and some test images first. I have questions, like what is the micro lensing like in comparison to the ASI. 

The narrower bodies on these in comparison to their C2 and G2 ranges would also make this better suited to hyperstar and RASA imaging. The C1+12000A would be well suited to use on a RASA 8. 

At 1230 euros, £1100 that is a good way cheaper than the current ASI1600mm pro price. 

I expect that these will be very attractive and sell well just so long as the microlensing is a little better than the ASI1600mm pro. 

Example image from a C2 12000A with IMX304 sensor.

 

If I did not already own a ASI1600mm pro I would probably get one of these. The slightly smaller sensor means I could use my 1.25 inch filters without vignetting with a faster scope, I am hoping for less microlensing, still a decent number of pixels at 3.45um despite it being slightly smaller. 

I would expect a similar QE to the ASI, I think some might worry about the full well capacity, but I note that the read noise is quite low at unity gain so it may still end up with a decent dynamic range. 

At any rate a really interesting product. Hope FLO decided to offer them.

The astonishing thing is that SX are selling their 304 based camera for 2.2k......

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/starlight-xpress-cameras/starlight-xpress-trius-csx-304-cmos-camera-mono.html

Adam

 

Edited June 17, 2020 by Adam J

[DaveS]

SX aren't exactly known for selling cheap kit! Wonder how many they're sold?

These Moravian cameras look to be good value, but get 'em before the new year.

[ebdons]

What about the Moravian service and after sales help etc? SX are renowned for that?  but it is a tempting price and cmos is something I might get into. ton

[giorgio_ne]

I saw and held a prototype of this camera at the tiny Moravian stand at the last astrofest. Build quality is definitely there.

[vineyard]

Thanks for the head's up @Adam J.  V topical as I have my eyes out for a cooled OSC CMOS.  Currently ASI294MCPro is top of the wishlist.  The C1+ does look v interesting.  When I put in its details as a Custom Camera on astronomy.tools the FOV for even the largest C1+ seems much smaller than the 294MC or 1600MM though.  I'm a newbie to this level of cameras - is there a build quality difference between Moravian & ZWO that explains that (smaller FOV C1+ as expensive if not more than 294MCPro)?  Thank you, Vin

[Adam J]

19 minutes ago, vineyard said:

Thanks for the head's up @Adam J.  V topical as I have my eyes out for a cooled OSC CMOS.  Currently ASI294MCPro is top of the wishlist.  The C1+ does look v interesting.  When I put in its details as a Custom Camera on astronomy.tools the FOV for even the largest C1+ seems much smaller than the 294MC or 1600MM though.  I'm a newbie to this level of cameras - is there a build quality difference between Moravian & ZWO that explains that (smaller FOV C1+ as expensive if not more than 294MCPro)?  Thank you, Vin

I would say that the build quality of Moravian is better than ZWO they have nicer features and you dont have to send it to china if something is wrong.

I think that you would only really go for this in OSC over the ASI294mc pro is you really wanted the smaller pixels 3.45um but did not want to go so far as a ASI183mc pro.

My personaly opinion if that this is more interesting as a mono camera than a OSC camera.

It is smaller than the 1600mm pro or the 294mc yes but bigger than the 183. Something to bear in mind is that both the 294 and the 1600 sensors have some niggling issues with them. The ASI1600mm pro has a problem with microlensing and the 294 has issues with calibration due to uneven cooling that is effected by the ambient temperature meaning that you can get residual background artifacts after calibration (it also has horrible amp glow).

Adam

[vineyard]

3 hours ago, Adam J said:

I would say that the build quality of Moravian is better than ZWO they have nicer features and you dont have to send it to china if something is wrong.

I think that you would only really go for this in OSC over the ASI294mc pro is you really wanted the smaller pixels 3.45um but did not want to go so far as a ASI183mc pro.

My personaly opinion if that this is more interesting as a mono camera than a OSC camera.

It is smaller than the 1600mm pro or the 294mc yes but bigger than the 183. Something to bear in mind is that both the 294 and the 1600 sensors have some niggling issues with them. The ASI1600mm pro has a problem with microlensing and the 294 has issues with calibration due to uneven cooling that is effected by the ambient temperature meaning that you can get residual background artifacts after calibration (it also has horrible amp glow).

Adam

Thanks re the 294 issues - luckily I'm quite away financially from pulling the trigger so will keep researching!  I'd prefer staying between 3.45-4.8 um pixel size for sampling purposes w my set-up.  The C1+12000A FOV seems decent enough vs the 294, although its full-well seems m-u-c-h lower (is that why you think it might be better as mono?).

Comparing a bit more to other ZWOs based on your warnings about the 294, the 071 (second hand only!) or even the 533 appear more interesting now vs the 294.  Ah well, must keep sleuthing (& saving!).  If only Moravian come out w more in the meantime

Cheers,

Vin

[Adam J]

2 hours ago, vineyard said:

Thanks re the 294 issues - luckily I'm quite away financially from pulling the trigger so will keep researching!  I'd prefer staying between 3.45-4.8 um pixel size for sampling purposes w my set-up.  The C1+12000A FOV seems decent enough vs the 294, although its full-well seems m-u-c-h lower (is that why you think it might be better as mono?).

Comparing a bit more to other ZWOs based on your warnings about the 294, the 071 (second hand only!) or even the 533 appear more interesting now vs the 294.  Ah well, must keep sleuthing (& saving!).  If only Moravian come out w more in the meantime

Cheers,

Vin

What makes you want OSC? 

[vineyard]

2 hours ago, Adam J said:

What makes you want OSC? 

I've been asking myself that a fair bit (need to make sure I make the right decision).  I think it boils down to (a) convenience & (b) economics.

On the economics side, clearly no need for 3-4 filters, filter wheel (although I'd probably do without a wheel & just pop one filter per clear night and image different targets).

On the convenience side, the ability to get a colour image to show to family quicker   With the number of clear nights uncertain, gathering 3-4 bands of data on an object may take who knows how much longer (if you work on say needing 4-8 hrs of data per band?).  Although the flip to that is that it's better to do something well, and as I have restricted views eventually over the years the number of targets will be more or less the same so it'd be worth being patient...

I'd also have to learn a bit more Pixinsight wrt multi-channel combination, but that's doable.

As you can see, I ebb & flow on this choice!

Certainly with an OSC the nominal mega-pixel advantage I guess disappears once you spread it across 4 - eg if I'm understanding things right, per channel the Moravian C1+3000A is about the same as the 294MC (& a lot cheaper, although with a shallower full well still?).

What's tipping me in particular towards OSC is the argument that the tri-band filters (or a similar combination, like an Astronomik UHC+IR) with an OSC can go a long way towards closing the gap w mono?  But since I've never used any of these yet, I can't vouch for that first-hand, although the next clear night I may well try and compare UHC+IR vs "traditional" OSC just to see if there is a palpable difference.

All thoughts & suggestions v welcome!

[Adam J]

4 hours ago, vineyard said:

I've been asking myself that a fair bit (need to make sure I make the right decision).  I think it boils down to (a) convenience & (b) economics.

On the economics side, clearly no need for 3-4 filters, filter wheel (although I'd probably do without a wheel & just pop one filter per clear night and image different targets).

On the convenience side, the ability to get a colour image to show to family quicker   With the number of clear nights uncertain, gathering 3-4 bands of data on an object may take who knows how much longer (if you work on say needing 4-8 hrs of data per band?).  Although the flip to that is that it's better to do something well, and as I have restricted views eventually over the years the number of targets will be more or less the same so it'd be worth being patient...

I'd also have to learn a bit more Pixinsight wrt multi-channel combination, but that's doable.

As you can see, I ebb & flow on this choice!

Certainly with an OSC the nominal mega-pixel advantage I guess disappears once you spread it across 4 - eg if I'm understanding things right, per channel the Moravian C1+3000A is about the same as the 294MC (& a lot cheaper, although with a shallower full well still?).

What's tipping me in particular towards OSC is the argument that the tri-band filters (or a similar combination, like an Astronomik UHC+IR) with an OSC can go a long way towards closing the gap w mono?  But since I've never used any of these yet, I can't vouch for that first-hand, although the next clear night I may well try and compare UHC+IR vs "traditional" OSC just to see if there is a palpable difference.

All thoughts & suggestions v welcome!

It is about another £300 for some cheaper LRGB filters and a ZWO 5 position wheel ~£160 to start out with a mono camera. It will cost you more than that if you buy an OSC and then trade it in as you will have lost money on it. When I started with mono I litterally got the 80 pound baader beginer LRGB filter set given to me by a friend and to be honest they where still better than a OSC in terms of colour balance.

Once you have an electronic wheel then you can just cycle LLLRGB, LLLRGB....and you will always get an image in a single night and it will always be a better imagin in the same time as you would have than with a OSC.

The 3000A is a tiny sensor more for lunar and solar imaging to be honest. Maybe closeups on smaller galaxies with medium focal length scopes. You dont want that for DSO imaging. Although you are correct in that a OSC will half the resolution of a mono camera of the same sensor.

You need to check out FOV simulator to see what you will fit onto the sensor with your scope.

I would strongly push you towards a mono camera, yes the initial outlay is a little more but to be honest its well worth it in the long run.

If you like the looks of the Moravian cameras (and I do to) then really only the C1+12000A will give you a decent FOV unless your specifically looking to image smaller targets only the 3000 and 5000 are much smaller sensors and I dont thing they will do what you want.

The 9000e well depth is not a problem as they are quoating that at 1.8e read noise and 2.2ADU per electron so the dynamic range with be similar to a ASI1600mm pro at unity but i need to work it out properly.

Like I said above if it was me and I was going mono I would give this camera a shot, but I think that if you really want to go OSC I would actually recommend the ASI533mc pro.

Adam

 

 

[Adam J]

On 17/06/2020 at 21:10, ebdons said:

What about the Moravian service and after sales help etc? SX are renowned for that?  but it is a tempting price and cmos is something I might get into. ton

its twice the cost....I am not sure any level of customer service would on its own make up for that price difference.

 

Edited June 19, 2020 by Adam J

[ebdons]

I don't know about Moravian gear, there must be more to it other than double the price? SX are expensive but some are more than SX. Sx make less cams than Moravian and labour/materials costs are lower in Czech? but I am tempted but really know nothing about Moravian stuff/quality?

[whipdry]

At 1230 euros, £1100 that is a good way cheaper than the current ASI1600mm pro price. 

 

Adam

Think you'll find the online price list for the Moravian cameras is exclusive of VAT! 

 

Peter

[vineyard]

15 hours ago, Adam J said:

It is about another £300 for some cheaper LRGB filters and a ZWO 5 position wheel ~£160 to start out with a mono camera. It will cost you more than that if you buy an OSC and then trade it in as you will have lost money on it. When I started with mono I litterally got the 80 pound baader beginer LRGB filter set given to me by a friend and to be honest they where still better than a OSC in terms of colour balance.

Once you have an electronic wheel then you can just cycle LLLRGB, LLLRGB....and you will always get an image in a single night and it will always be a better imagin in the same time as you would have than with a OSC.

The 3000A is a tiny sensor more for lunar and solar imaging to be honest. Maybe closeups on smaller galaxies with medium focal length scopes. You dont want that for DSO imaging. Although you are correct in that a OSC will half the resolution of a mono camera of the same sensor.

You need to check out FOV simulator to see what you will fit onto the sensor with your scope.

I would strongly push you towards a mono camera, yes the initial outlay is a little more but to be honest its well worth it in the long run.

If you like the looks of the Moravian cameras (and I do to) then really only the C1+12000A will give you a decent FOV unless your specifically looking to image smaller targets only the 3000 and 5000 are much smaller sensors and I dont thing they will do what you want.

The 9000e well depth is not a problem as they are quoating that at 1.8e read noise and 2.2ADU per electron so the dynamic range with be similar to a ASI1600mm pro at unity but i need to work it out properly.

Like I said above if it was me and I was going mono I would give this camera a shot, but I think that if you really want to go OSC I would actually recommend the ASI533mc pro.

Adam

 

 

Thanks Adam, you've given me a lot to think through.  I suspect it will boil down to price (& hence patience...or not...on my part).

The 533 has poorer resolution than the C1+12000A (9MP vs 12MP even before colour factor thrown in - I had thought it reduced by 2/3 rather than 1/2 but obviously misunderstood that, doh).  Similar FOV (albeit differently shaped) for the two.

The ASI2600MCPro seems to be more closely comparable to the C1+12000A in terms of resolution (once colour factor thrown in).  So then it seems to be a shootout between them - zero amp-glow w 2600MCp & bigger FOV/sensor but 10% pricier when compared to C1+12000A w EFW & filters.

Both way above where I was thinking - ah well, whether to be patient or not.  Luckily I have budgetary time to research more, & keep a weather eye for people upgrading 😂

Cheers,

Vin