Color or Mono... The age old question.

[69boss302]

Im just about to upgrade my gear...I currently have a Canon DSLR as my camera, but its time for a dedicated one.  I know the pros and cons of color vs mono. Mono will ultimately get me a better image, but more work, more time, more equipment etc. I get the whole RGGB, CFA etc.  all the math and science and white papers aside, whats the general consensus? Have color cameras gotten 'good enough' that its really that difficult to tell?  Ive pretty much narrowed it down to the ASI1600mm and a filter wheel, or the ASI2600mc. Final cost is about the same when you get the filters etc for the mono. 

Im sure it has a lot to do with the OTA too but I dont want to get to that level of detail.  Im just looking for opinions from those who have actual experience with each.  I know the topic has been beat to death so I apologize.

Thank you for your valuable input, it is much appreciated.

Bob

 

Edited October 16, 2021 by 69boss302

[bottletopburly]

For me personally in uk clear nights are few and far between so I would go for colour and the 2600mc is an amazing camera if you have good clear skies then a mono could be considered .

[Gerr]

19 minutes ago, bottletopburly said:

For me personally in uk clear nights are few and far between so I would go for colour and the 2600mc is an amazing camera if you have good clear skies then a mono could be considered .

Absolutely agree with above response in cloud, rain and wind predominant skies!!! But if you are lucky enough to have more than one clear night in a row than potential integration times would be more persuasive for Mono imaging.

[tomato]

If you had a rig set up somewhere with 200+ clear nights per year then I would go for the mono option, but you only have to look at the images being posted here and elsewhere taken with the 2600c to see that the compromises historically associated with OSC cameras is not the issue it once was. Even NB, previously always the domain of the mono and filters option, is being seriously challenged by the latest dual and tri-band filters and OSC sensors.

[mackiedlm]

Just to add my agreement to what's already said, if you have lots of clear nights then mono may be a good choice. I'm in west of Ireland where clear nights are like hens teeth so I went from DSLR to 2600mc on the basis that I did not want to capture one filter then wait weeks before getting another. With the 2600mc even if I only get 3 hours then I should have a reasonable finished image.

For all the reasons/theory you have listed, I think we will never win the argument that osc is now as good as mono. Those with vested interest in mono will use the theory to shut us down. However, for me at least, the 2600mc is much more than  "good enough".

And +1 to what @tomato says v/v Nb. But again you'll have the purists who will tell you it's not real NB and that you should not be using your l-enhance to do that because "that's not what it was designed for" 🤣  Ive been told that several times on a forum that shall remain nameless.

I'd also say that the 1600mm is old now, does not have the backlit sensor and is prone to the "micro lensing" issue. For me the 2600mc is a much better camera. But you will get plenty who will tell you any mono is better than any osc.

Edited October 17, 2021 by mackiedlm

[Simon Pepper]

I have never used the 2600mc but I have heard great things, however I have the 294mc pro and recently decided to get the 1600mm I wanted the 294mm but after seeing Chuck grabbing APODs and the 1600 all round great feedback I just went with it and saved the best part of £700 (I got 2nd hand on ABS). I have only had one clear night so bagged 4 hours of Ha and I can say hands down the data is so much cleaner than I have ever got with my 294 and ghat has a higher qe and dynamic range. On the starless version it’s just so clean I love it! I also enjoy the challenge, extra gadgets etc that mono provides. Lastly I feel mono imaging makes you pump in more integration at least that’s my finding with OSC I was bashing pictures out each night I just had to see that 6 hours I collected and went with it. With mono I will commit to doing 6 hours of Ha, Sii and Oiii so three times as much integration I know I will get amazing images! Having said all that OSC has it’s place for me that will be on the nights where perhaps there is only 4 hours of clear skies and definitely in the summer months where from my latitude I only get astronomical twilight. 
 

edit: obviously the 2600 Is better than the 294 as well so please take my opinion with a pinch of salt.

Edited October 17, 2021 by Simon Pepper

[The Lazy Astronomer]

I would say the 1600 is 'old hat' now. If your choice is only between that and the 2600mc, then go for the 2600mc (and I say this as a mono guy).

As a side note, I never really understand the weather argument against mono. With an autofocuser and filter focus offsets, you can run through the filters in a loop, rather than in blocks, and you end up with full colour data from each session.

[iantaylor2uk]

I've been getting good results with a cooled OSC (a ZWO 071) and the L-enhance filter, and with limited time to spend (and image) don't see a need to move to mono, so agree an OSC would be a good choice for an upgrade.

[Gerr]

20 minutes ago, The Lazy Astronomer said:

I would say the 1600 is 'old hat' now. If your choice is only between that and the 2600mc, then go for the 2600mc (and I say this as a mono guy).

As a side note, I never really understand the weather argument against mono. With an autofocuser and filter focus offsets, you can run through the filters in a loop, rather than in blocks, and you end up with full colour data from each session.

My imaging session is usually interrupted and cut short by weather but with OSC I can at least process the captured data to produce an image even if I have only 60minutes acquisition time.  Can you say the same with Mono? I'm thinking interrupted filter loops would be more hassle to restart on other nights to reacquire data useable to process an image. With Mono you'd need to acquire data through all the filters to make it a worthwhile pursuit (esp. additional costs associated with mono and auotofocusers). 

Don't get me wrong - I like the mono images but I think if I went that route then I would want clear uninterrupted imaging sessions for it to work effectively as Mono is more involving where more things can go wrong than with OSC.

Just my opinion.

[Sp@ce_d]

How many clear nights do you get & how dark/un polluted are your skies. Here in UK it’s becoming increasingly harder to finish mono & filter images unless you have an Obsy setup all ready to go the moment that cloud passes. Even then I’ve got projects on the go spanning years! I setup another dual rig outside the obsy in August with a 2600MM & MC to see how that performs against my fully automated obsy just running a single mono. Well so far I’ve had no output from it as the cover has been off just twice & only enough time to align & not even finish testing setup!

 Out of all 3, 1600, 2600 MC/MM. If it’s going to be used in my obsy I would choose mono, if I didn’t have the 2600 it would be the 1600. For anything I have to setup each time then the 2600MC. Mono still gives more flexibility & sensitivity from what I’ve seen so far with the MC but it’s an amazing camera. I’m not so sure how it performs under heavy light pollution though and even having  used it with good results through a NBZ filter it’s not the same as mono through separate filters. That’s still my preference but it’s always a compromise with what we’re trying to do anyway. The 1600 gives great results you just have to be a bit more careful with the calibration & micro lenses as mentioned before. The 2600 sensor is another step forward worth taking if you can afford the extra outlay.

[69boss302]

This is great information, thank you all. I am fortunate enough to have a lot of nights of clear skies in relative darkness. Bortel 4 generally but if I get in my car can get to Bortel 3. However the last time I was out that area I got surrounded by coyotes and had to run.

To be honest I didnt come away with a clear decision hahaha. I guess thats a good thing though, if the difference isnt that huge, then a rookie like me would never know the difference. Since I do have the good skies and a lot of clear nights, I may lean toward the mono then.... It will be a steeper learning curve and more time but Im ok with that.

@mackiedlm you mention the 1600mm is old. Do you recommend a different / newer one?

Thank you guys! Good stuff!

bob

 

[Lee_P]

I used to have a 1600MM with filters, but sold it and bought a 2600MC -- very happy I did, it's a great camera. I've made a whole website about OSC imaging, and you may find this article about OSC vs Mono to be useful.

[Lee_P]

1 hour ago, Sp@ce_d said:

I’m not so sure how it performs under heavy light pollution

FYI these are all 2600MC under Bortle 8 skies. Broadband with no filter, narrowband with L-eXtreme.

Edited October 17, 2021 by Lee_P

[The Lazy Astronomer]

1 hour ago, Gerr said:

My imaging session is usually interrupted and cut short by weather but with OSC I can at least process the captured data to produce an image even if I have only 60minutes acquisition time.  Can you say the same with Mono? I'm thinking interrupted filter loops would be more hassle to restart on other nights to reacquire data useable to process an image. With Mono you'd need to acquire data through all the filters to make it a worthwhile pursuit (esp. additional costs associated with mono and auotofocusers). 

Don't get me wrong - I like the mono images but I think if I went that route then I would want clear uninterrupted imaging sessions for it to work effectively as Mono is more involving where more things can go wrong than with OSC.

Just my opinion.

Fundamentally, l am in agreement with you about the ease of osc, and if l were to upgrade my camera now, l would probably go down the osc route for a bit less faff in my life.

But, due to the short exposures it's possible to use with modern CMOS cameras, l can capture one round of all colour channels in just a few minutes and keep repeating the loop until the end of the session.

Sure, it's still possible that some subs may be affected by cloud or something, but it would really be very unlucky if one channel was significantly disproportionately affected compared to the others.

[mackiedlm]

1 hour ago, 69boss302 said:

This is great information, thank you all. I am fortunate enough to have a lot of nights of clear skies in relative darkness. Bortel 4 generally but if I get in my car can get to Bortel 3. However the last time I was out that area I got surrounded by coyotes and had to run.

To be honest I didnt come away with a clear decision hahaha. I guess thats a good thing though, if the difference isnt that huge, then a rookie like me would never know the difference. Since I do have the good skies and a lot of clear nights, I may lean toward the mono then.... It will be a steeper learning curve and more time but Im ok with that.

@mackiedlm you mention the 1600mm is old. Do you recommend a different / newer one?

Thank you guys! Good stuff!

bob

 

If I were in the running for a mono the only one I'd want would be the 2600mm - the mono version of the 2600mc. But with the need for larger filters and the extra cost of the camera, it's in a different price bracket to the 1600mm. It's very lucky for me that I'm satisfied with the osc.😀

 

[tomato]

You beat me to it, I was going to post that the 2600 is available in mono, but you would need the more expensive 2” filters.

[Sp@ce_d]

57 minutes ago, tomato said:

You beat me to it, I was going to post that the 2600 is available in mono, but you would need the more expensive 2” filters.

I'm running mine with 36mm, ok still tweaking the setup but on sloooower.. fracs..  so far seems ok

[nfotis]

7 hours ago, 69boss302 said:

This is great information, thank you all. I am fortunate enough to have a lot of nights of clear skies in relative darkness. Bortel 4 generally but if I get in my car can get to Bortel 3. However the last time I was out that area I got surrounded by coyotes and had to run.

To be honest I didnt come away with a clear decision hahaha. I guess thats a good thing though, if the difference isnt that huge, then a rookie like me would never know the difference. Since I do have the good skies and a lot of clear nights, I may lean toward the mono then.... It will be a steeper learning curve and more time but Im ok with that.

@mackiedlm you mention the 1600mm is old. Do you recommend a different / newer one?

Thank you guys! Good stuff!

bob

 

 

If you have a reasonably dark site, the 2600mc is good enough in my understanding.

Under heavy light pollution (like in Athens), a monochrome version of this sensor would be preferable (despite its higher costs). On the other hand, you are collecting photons in all bands concurrently, so a good filter might help.

Personally, the 2600mm with filter wheel and filters would be ideal, but the costs tend to skyrocket...

N.F.

 

[Clarkey]

5 hours ago, The Lazy Astronomer said:

But, due to the short exposures it's possible to use with modern CMOS cameras, l can capture one round of all colour channels in just a few minutes and keep repeating the loop until the end of the session.

This is true in theory but in practice I have found it difficult. As the filters are not parfocal, the focuser needs to adjust for each sub. Although the focuser is pretty good, it does slip very slightly and over multiple subs it drifts slightly. I tend to run a few sets of each filter - making sure I get at least one set before the first cloud rolls in!

[Adam J]

On 17/10/2021 at 20:20, Clarkey said:

This is true in theory but in practice I have found it difficult. As the filters are not parfocal, the focuser needs to adjust for each sub. Although the focuser is pretty good, it does slip very slightly and over multiple subs it drifts slightly. I tend to run a few sets of each filter - making sure I get at least one set before the first cloud rolls in!

huum I just refocus between filters, do 30mins per channel, focusing is only costing about 2-3mins on filter switch. You could say that you may not get 1.5 hours and not complete an image, but thats rubish who sets up for a gap of less than 1.5hours anyway and even if you did would you get a good image in that time?

Adam

[Allinthehead]

On 20/10/2021 at 02:39, Adam J said:

who sets up for a gap of less than 1.5hours anyway and even if you did would you get a good image in that time?

I do, otherwise I'd have very little to show in a season.

[Allinthehead]

If it's a choice between the 1600mm and the 2600mc my money would be on the 2600mc.

The 2600mm however is in a different league and if you're dealing with light pollution then it really is the best option. Cost always plays a part and with the 1600mm you can get away with 1.25 filters, the issues on brighter stars drove me nuts and really detract from an image. No such problems with the 2600mm but you need at least 36mm filters. Good luck.

[DaveS]

Remember that the biggest source of LP is the Devil's Lightbulb, AKA the Moon. Under moonlight H-alpha might be the only viable option, in which case mono wins. And given how many clear nights seem to coincide with a full moon...

As an aside, I checked the focus with my ODK and Chroma filters, finding no measurable shift. Checked both with a Bahtinov Mask and the autofocus routine in ASA Sequence. The Bahtinov figures were identical, and with the autofocus, the variation between filters was less than the variation between runs.

[ONIKKINEN]

I have had 4 sessions since the start of the second half of 2021 AP season 2 months ago due to weather. None of these were longer than 5 hours due to a change in weather from what was forecasted, and of this time at best 50% is actually captured as usable light. I couldn't live with the anxiety of not knowing when i can finish a project. Of course i could shoot RGB and L in 10 minute segments but this sounds a bit bloaty.

 

Also, the cost. Mono is more expensive as is, and good quality filters with a filter wheel just add up to that. That would also probably overload my already straining focuser, leading to another expense. OSC is the correct choice for me.

[Mike73]

I went mono simply because I want to be able to create the best images I can and the best images I've seen are still mono regardless of where they've been taken in the world.

I roughly give myself a month to complete an image, even if I used OSC and had a really bad month of weather I still wouldn't be happy with an image or want to show it if it had a small amount of RGB data.

The law of sod usually means we get clear skies on a full moon, dont ask me how or why but from my experience and in Cornwall that's just the way it is. I've pretty damn sure I can get a lot more useful data and make the most of the few clear skies we have by using a Ha filter on those nights rather than a filtered OSC.

Do I regret buying into mono? No way! Would I make the same choice? Yep too right!

I do enjoy seeing people completed images no matter what they use though, astrophotography is just as bad as any other type of photography where people get too fixated on gear rather than what their gear shows them. 🙂