Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_2021_annual.thumb.jpg.3fc34f695a81b16210333189a3162ac7.jpg

Is there still a benefit of mono?


assouptro
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi Stargazers 

I am sure this has been asked before, but I may have missed it?

Since CMOS cameras have become more sensitive and cleaner there has been a sea change to one shot colour cameras with dual band or quad band filters to create some impressive results.

Apart from scientific applications Is there still a benefit to plodding along with a mono camera and individual broadband/narrowband filters when attempting to produce a pretty picture? 

Cheers 

Bryan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, assouptro said:

Hi Stargazers 

I am sure this has been asked before, but I may have missed it?

Since CMOS cameras have become more sensitive and cleaner there has been a sea change to one shot colour cameras with dual band or quad band filters to create some impressive results.

Apart from scientific applications Is there still a benefit to plodding along with a mono camera and individual broadband/narrowband filters when attempting to produce a pretty picture? 

Cheers 

Bryan

To produce a pretty picture, either will be fine.

My experience - mono data with narrowband filters is just better than OSC and dual band filters, especially in any sort of bright moonlight.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, tooth_dr said:

To produce a pretty picture, either will be fine.

My experience - mono data with narrowband filters is just better than OSC and dual band filters, especially in any sort of bright moonlight.

Thanks for the input

I can see the attraction when skies are so rarely clear, and I wonder what the new generation of 3nm dual band filters will produce? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apart from mono being quicker than OSC, able to capture true narrowband, easier to process, smaller file sizes and being MUCH cheaper than OSC (there are some amazing used mono outfits for sale for crazy low prices as people jump to OSC) - I can't think of many reasons 😉 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

New generations of sensitive OSC CMOS sensors have Mono equivalents and mono will always have edge for imaging over OSC - regardless of filters used.

OSC has advantage only in convenience factor (and price).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Skipper Billy said:

smaller file sizes and being MUCH cheaper than OSC

Not sure on that David!  My OSC and mono cameras have identical 51MB file sizes and the mono camera is more expensive than the OSC version.

Edit - you are suggesting used CCD cameras!

Edited by tooth_dr
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Skipper Billy said:

Apart from mono being quicker than OSC, able to capture true narrowband, easier to process, smaller file sizes and being MUCH cheaper than OSC (there are some amazing used mono outfits for sale for crazy low prices as people jump to OSC) - I can't think of many reasons 😉 

How is it MUCH cheaper than OSC, when you pay more for the camera, need filter wheels and filters…🤔🤔🤔

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Skipper Billy said:

Apart from mono being quicker than OSC, able to capture true narrowband, easier to process, smaller file sizes and being MUCH cheaper than OSC (there are some amazing used mono outfits for sale for crazy low prices as people jump to OSC) - I can't think of many reasons 😉 

Mono cheaper than OSC?

Looks like its the other way around unless i missed something.

Edit: i find it interesting that 3 users posted the same observation at the same time.

Edited by ONIKKINEN
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ONIKKINEN said:

Mono cheaper than OSC?

Looks like its the other way around unless i missed something.

I misread the post too. Used — a KAF8300 mono CCD and filter wheel and filters is half the price of a new 2600MC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, tooth_dr said:

I misread the post too. Used — a KAF8300 mono CCD and filter wheel and filters is half the price of a new 2600MC

Not a fair comparison by any means.

KAF8300 is low QE, 4/3 size, high read noise CCD, while 2600 is opposite of that - high QE, APS-C size and low read noise.

There is 2600MM that can be compared to 2600MC and it is more expensive even if you don't include filters and filter wheel

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Stuart1971 said:

Why does the difference have to be between used mono and new OSC, why not used against used….?

There are loads of used mono cameras about - there is an Atik16200 with EFW3 filter wheel and a full set of filters for sale for less than £1800 on a well known astro sales site. Find me an ad for a used ZWO 6200 or 2600 for comparison 😉  (The Atik has been for sale for quite some time and not sold!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Skipper Billy said:

There are loads of used mono cameras about - there is an Atik16200 with EFW3 filter wheel and a full set of filters for sale for less than £1800 on a well known astro sales site. Find me an ad for a used ZWO 6200 or 2600 for comparison 😉  (The Atik has been for sale for quite some time and not sold!)

True 

I’ve been watching it! 

Edited by assouptro
Typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, vlaiv said:

Not a fair comparison by any means.

KAF8300 is low QE, 4/3 size, high read noise CCD, while 2600 is opposite of that - high QE, APS-C size and low read noise.

There is 2600MM that can be compared to 2600MC and it is more expensive even if you don't include filters and filter wheel

Yes Vlad, absolutely agree, not my arguement, I didn’t make that comparison.  I was only trying to clarify David’s point above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Skipper Billy said:

There are loads of used mono cameras about - there is an Atik16200 with EFW3 filter wheel and a full set of filters for sale for less than £1800 on a well known astro sales site. Find me an ad for a used ZWO 6200 or 2600 for comparison 😉  (The Atik has been for sale for quite some time and not sold!)

Well I am not going to argue, but there was a used 2600 a few weeks ago for £1450 on ABS, because I am well annoyed I missed out on it….☹️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Skipper Billy said:

There are loads of used mono cameras about - there is an Atik16200 with EFW3 filter wheel and a full set of filters for sale for less than £1800 on a well known astro sales site. Find me an ad for a used ZWO 6200 or 2600 for comparison 😉  (The Atik has been for sale for quite some time and not sold!)

Used prices are not really fair as a comparison since there are so many variables.

A brand new IMX571 OSC camera is 1350€ btw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn’t intend starting a new cmos v used ccd thread although I can understand how we got there with quality used ccd’s now being considerably cheaper than the higher end new generation cmos cameras atm 

I’m just wondering if it’s still worth the effort to commit several nights to an object when I see so many fine examples of OSC with dual band filter versions? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, assouptro said:

I’m just wondering if it’s still worth the effort to commit several nights to an object when I see so many fine examples of OSC with dual band filter versions?

That really depends on what your goals are. Do you want to create the finest possible image?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, assouptro said:

I didn’t intend starting a new cmos v used ccd thread although I can understand how we got there with quality used ccd’s now being considerably cheaper than the higher end new generation cmos cameras atm 

I’m just wondering if it’s still worth the effort to commit several nights to an object when I see so many fine examples of OSC with dual band filter versions? 

If you can afford the 2600, personally, I would go for it, and I am a lifelong CCD user, up till now, and am considering one myself, if I can find a second hand one….which is unlikely…👍🏼

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Allinthehead said:

That really depends on what your goals are. Do you want to create the finest possible image?

I am always trying to create a better version of the last attempt of an object and I’m super critical of my own work so I guess the answer is yes!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.