What to upgrade to?

[04Stefan07]

Currently using a ZWO ASI178MM-Cool in my main imaging rig. It captures DSO nicely esepcially the small ones in conjunction with my telescope however I do want more FOV.

The ASI1600MM-Cool is the obvious choice and have checked the FOV I can get and I can capture a lot more targets.

Thoughts on an upgrade path from my current camera? Has to be around the same price as the ASI1600MM-Cool so not more than $2k AUD.

I was thinking of selling the 178 but I might keep it and use it in another rig or use it for small DSOs.

Thanks,
Stefan.

[Spacecake2]

I can't help with that but I hope someone replies quickly.   

[Spacecake2]

for 2k aud I'd rather get a new telescope 😂

On 11/10/2020 at 18:15, 04Stefan07 said:

Currently using a ZWO ASI178MM-Cool in my main imaging rig. It captures DSO nicely esepcially the small ones in conjunction with my telescope however I do want more FOV.

The ASI1600MM-Cool is the obvious choice and have checked the FOV I can get and I can capture a lot more targets.

Thoughts on an upgrade path from my current camera? Has to be around the same price as the ASI1600MM-Cool so not more than $2k AUD.

I was thinking of selling the 178 but I might keep it and use it in another rig or use it for small DSOs.

Thanks,
Stefan.

 

[Adam J]

On 11/10/2020 at 08:15, 04Stefan07 said:

Currently using a ZWO ASI178MM-Cool in my main imaging rig. It captures DSO nicely esepcially the small ones in conjunction with my telescope however I do want more FOV.

The ASI1600MM-Cool is the obvious choice and have checked the FOV I can get and I can capture a lot more targets.

Thoughts on an upgrade path from my current camera? Has to be around the same price as the ASI1600MM-Cool so not more than $2k AUD.

I was thinking of selling the 178 but I might keep it and use it in another rig or use it for small DSOs.

Thanks,
Stefan.

Take a look at the ASI294mm pro its new on the market this month. 

Adam

[MartinB]

I have the asi 1600 pro which I rate very highly.  I think the extra for the pro is worth it especially if using USB, there is hardly any amp glow.  I have also just purchased an asi 294.  This is a bit more money, marginally bigger chip, larger pixels, 11mp vs 16mp, 14 bit, very high QE, higher read noise at lower gain setting, better dynamic range.  If you are imaging above 500mm f/l the 294 might be a good bet, at shorter f/l you could save a bit of money with the 1600.

Obviously you have the qhy cameras to consider as well but I'm not as familiar with these.

[04Stefan07]

Appreciate the helpful replies Adam and Martin, thank you.

[nfotis]

If you like the 4/3rds sensor size, the 1600 and 294 seem to be the obvious contenders. The monochrome 294 seems to be a bit unproven yet? QHY promotes a unbinning capability, which quadruples the pixels from 11.7 to 46.8 Mpixels (using 1/4 the size per picture element, of course).

On APS-C, I suppose that you may need to upgrade your filters to 2" or so (it's my understanding that the 1.25" isn't enough to cover the full area of the sensor at APS and above sizes).

N.F.

 

[Adam J]

18 hours ago, nfotis said:

If you like the 4/3rds sensor size, the 1600 and 294 seem to be the obvious contenders. The monochrome 294 seems to be a bit unproven yet? QHY promotes a unbinning capability, which quadruples the pixels from 11.7 to 46.8 Mpixels (using 1/4 the size per picture element, of course).

On APS-C, I suppose that you may need to upgrade your filters to 2" or so (it's my understanding that the 1.25" isn't enough to cover the full area of the sensor at APS and above sizes).

N.F.

 

You can get 36mm unmounted filters. 

[nfotis]

19 hours ago, Adam J said:

You can get 36mm unmounted filters. 

 

Yes, and the prices start to rise quite fast at this point (full 2" filters are quite painful for the wallet when we are speaking about narrowband stuff).

I think that 1.25" are enough for a 4/3rds sensor?

N.F.

Forgot to mention that the monochrome sensor is the IMX492, a somewhat different beast than the colour IMX294

 

 

Edited October 14, 2020 by nfotis

[Adam J]

2 minutes ago, nfotis said:

 

Yes, and the prices start to rise quite fast at this point (full 2" filters are quite painful for the wallet when we are speaking about narrowband stuff).

I think that 1.25" are enough for a 4/3rds sensor?

N.F.

 

 

Depends on the sensor and the F-ratio of the scope. Not all 4/3 sensors are exactly the same size. So the ASI1600mm pro works ok down to F4 with 1.25 inch filters but the ASI294mm pro is likely to only work down to F5 with 1.25 inch filters as its a little bigger. Any faster than those and you are looking at 31mm unmounted. 

Adam

[MartinB]

No problem with unmounted 31mm filters though.  They are a similar price to mounted 1.25 mounted.  Only problem is if you need to keep moving them in and out of the wheel which would be a bit more time consuming.

[04Stefan07]

Been saving the pennies for a month now and getting there for the next camera.

So what I have done is I mapped my current cameras FOV and how I use the main and portable setups now. The ASI178MM is a great camera for smaller DSO as you can get a real tight view but has it's limitations with pixel size and FOV.

CURRENT
Main Rig - ES102 Triplet with ASI178MM-C, 0.8x Reducer and LRGB 31mm Filters
Portable Rig - WO Z61, Canon 1200D, Field Flat

I want more FOV for larger objects for my main rig, so maybe an ASI1600MM or the new ASI2600MM? I will be using 36mm Narrowband filters as well and has to be a monochrome camera.

The portable setup I am happy with and want to keep it as a OSC. Will keep using the DSLR.

Thoughts? Have a look at the image I have attached. As you can see the portable setup has a wide FOV and main rig narrow FOV.

 

And here is the 1600MM FOV, looks to be the sweet spot.

Edited January 1, 2021 by 04Stefan07

[SupernovaF1]

On 14/10/2020 at 14:52, Adam J said:

Depends on the sensor and the F-ratio of the scope. Not all 4/3 sensors are exactly the same size. So the ASI1600mm pro works ok down to F4 with 1.25 inch filters but the ASI294mm pro is likely to only work down to F5 with 1.25 inch filters as its a little bigger. Any faster than those and you are looking at 31mm unmounted. 

Adam

There is a good post in CN about this. OP has 36mm filters so looks like he will be fine.

Another thing to consider is the pixel size in both bin 1 and bin 2. Bin 2 would be rather big for my SW 80ED but great on the SW 200pds. Bin1 is a better alternative for a smaller refractor but looking at the graphs, DR isnt anything special compared to the ASI1600.  The great side is that you can choose which ones suites you best for different scopes plus it has much better quantum efficiency.

Guess also depends on your seeing quality so worth a play with the CCD suitability calculator

 

Edited January 1, 2021 by SupernovaF1

[nfotis]

I think that the flexibility offered by the 294mm (read: IMX492 ) sensor is a big benefit, you can match your pixel size and resolution to your scope as it fits you instead of spending money for multiple cameras. And the smaller size compared to APS sensors means smaller (and cheaper) filters and filter wheels etc.

From what I am reading, this is a solid upgrade compared to the 1600mm Panasonic sensor. There are still some small bugs on the device drivers of both QHY and ZWO regarding the multiple gain/pixel size modes, etc, but these are slowly squashed out.

The IMX571 sensor looks quite promising (I would guess first deliveries in February for the monochrome version), but I would expect a much higher price compared to the 294mm (and attendant stuff like larger filters etc)

N.F.