Moravian g2 8300 mono. Is it still supported?

[tomato]

I agree the rule is applicable to current kit, I guess the argument is has CCD had it’s day for Astro imaging? I would argue no, but the market decides.

[Ian McCallum]

21 minutes ago, tomato said:

I agree the rule is applicable to current kit, I guess the argument is has CCD had it’s day for Astro imaging? I would argue no, but the market decides.

It didn't seem that long ago, that CCD cameras in general were seen (no pun intended) as having better definition than CMOS.  I must be getting old.🙄

[Wonderweb]

4 hours ago, tomato said:

Just out of interest, here is a sort of (unscientific) side by side comparison of CCD vs CMOS, M33 taken with the same scope from the same location:

Esprit 150/Moravian G2-8300 mono LRGB 160 mins

Esprit 150/IMX 571 CMOS OSC 210 mins:

I actually prefer the CCD image…

 

So do I. Great pics.👍

[DaveS]

4 hours ago, tomato said:

Just out of interest, here is a sort of (unscientific) side by side comparison of CCD vs CMOS, M33 taken with the same scope from the same location:

Esprit 150/Moravian G2-8300 mono LRGB 160 mins

Esprit 150/IMX 571 CMOS OSC 210 mins:

I actually prefer the CCD image…

 

The proof of the pudding as they say. CCD wins.

[tomato]

There’s a chance the (I stress unscientific) comparison post will resurrect the mono+filters vs OSC debate, but if it does I think the mono camp will have the upper hand based on the images.

[markse68]

19 hours ago, gorann said:

Something I really like with CMOS (like the ASI1600) is the virtually instant downloading time, which makes framing or focusing so much easier.

I'm using a QSI583 which I chose over an ASI1600 because it had the built in filter wheel and OAG- it's a very neat package. And I wanted to learn the hard way   Yes 20 sec download time is a bit of a pain but I developed a work around- initially I was using the guide cam for focussing but it often took more time to get it on a target star so now I use the main cam and platesolve to a target but I start with it roughly focused (I know roughly where to set the focuser) and I've learnt how much and which way to adjust based on the Bahtinov image so it usually only takes 3 or 4 shots to get good focus. Camera is nice and cooled by then and ready to go. Not so bad really.

Mark

[rnobleeddy]

3 hours ago, tomato said:

There’s a chance the (I stress unscientific) comparison post will resurrect the mono+filters vs OSC debate, but if it does I think the mono camp will have the upper hand based on the images.

Without wishing to rekindle the debate....

- I imagine what we all have in common is that when we look on astrobin, we can people who've beaten our images with both technologies!

- the ASI 1600 is probably the last generation of CMOS where there's a real debate to be had - after that (e.g. 2600) I think any rational debate lands on the CMOS side - the specs simply do not lie.

 

 

[gorann]

12 hours ago, tomato said:

Just out of interest, here is a sort of (unscientific) side by side comparison of CCD vs CMOS, M33 taken with the same scope from the same location:

Esprit 150/Moravian G2-8300 mono LRGB 160 mins

Esprit 150/IMX 571 CMOS OSC 210 mins:

I actually prefer the CCD image…

 

Not sure I agree Steve, and you have much tighter stars in the CMOS image, although that could hardly be down to the camera😉

[gorann]

2 hours ago, rnobleeddy said:

Without wishing to rekindle the debate....

- I imagine what we all have in common is that when we look on astrobin, we can people who've beaten our images with both technologies!

- the ASI 1600 is probably the last generation of CMOS where there's a real debate to be had - after that (e.g. 2600) I think any rational debate lands on the CMOS side - the specs simply do not lie.

 

 

You are perfectly right - the ASI1600 was maybe on pair with CCDs like the 8300 and won at the time by being cheaper but it suffered from amp glow and microlensing artefacts, but the new generation CMOS has since then left the CCDs behind. But I can see that the low second hand prices on what used to be very expensive CCDs are tempting.

Edited April 17, 2022 by gorann

[ONIKKINEN]

13 hours ago, tomato said:

Just out of interest, here is a sort of (unscientific) side by side comparison of CCD vs CMOS, M33 taken with the same scope from the same location:

Esprit 150/Moravian G2-8300 mono LRGB 160 mins

Esprit 150/IMX 571 CMOS OSC 210 mins:

I actually prefer the CCD image…

 

Both are very beautiful, but i cant help but notice that the images have been processed differently (colour look clearly different, maybe the CMOS image could use some SCNR and maybe the CCD image went a bit too far with that? Cant tell exactly but they do look very different) and taken with vastly different specs clearly favouring the CCD in this case, so i dont think this comparison plays out very fairly.

The CCD image is taken with LRGB while the CMOS image is with an OSC camera. The CCD also has much larger pixels than the OSC camera, so i think its to be expected that the CCD image in this case would be better even if it had shorter integration? And yes, i do think the CCD image in this case looks better.

[tomato]

Like I said, it is a very unscientific comparison. As I recall conditions were better when the CCD image was taken and M33 was better positioned in the sky, and the data was certainly processed differently.
The point I was trying to make is even if the market deems CCD cameras to now be near financially worthless, that doesn’t make them worthless as an Astro imaging camera.

[Wonderweb]

10 hours ago, ONIKKINEN said:

Both are very beautiful, but i cant help but notice that the images have been processed differently (colour look clearly different, maybe the CMOS image could use some SCNR and maybe the CCD image went a bit too far with that? Cant tell exactly but they do look very different) and taken with vastly different specs clearly favouring the CCD in this case, so i dont think this comparison plays out very fairly.

The CCD image is taken with LRGB while the CMOS image is with an OSC camera. The CCD also has much larger pixels than the OSC camera, so i think its to be expected that the CCD image in this case would be better even if it had shorter integration? And yes, i do think the CCD image in this case looks better.

I appreciate there is a difference between mono and osc but from reading your final paragraph, am I to assume that the g2 8300 is better suited in pixel scale to the esprit 150 (1050mm fl) and will give a more pleasing  image (personal preference) than the imx571 (zwo2600mc) with its smaller pixels and cmos sensor? 

If this is the case then I feel alot of my questions regarding which way to go have been answered.  The moravian g2 8300 is well suited to my scope (orion optics ct8 - 900mm fl), will give me great results as seen with the m33 images and on astrobin, and is available at a very reasonable price second hand which is about a 3rd the cost of a new 2600mm. I have also discovered that it is still well supported by latest image capture software and, so long as I dont want to sell it and expect to recover anything like my original outlay, will serve me well for years to come. 

[Sp@ce_d]

Assuming filter wheel & filters have been taken into consideration when comparing costs & the budget. The other thing when comparing is sensor size,FOV & imaging circle. I take it you’re happy that your intended targets will fit comfortably with the 8300 sensor. The other thing to mention is dithering, it makes all the difference cleaning up with the 8300.

[tomato]

I've  never suffered with  walking noise on the 8300. I calibrate with darks, flats and bias frames using APP, this software creates a Bad Pixel Map from these. I have been running a dual rig for quite a while so dithering can be a challenge to implement.

[ONIKKINEN]

3 hours ago, Wonderweb said:

I appreciate there is a difference between mono and osc but from reading your final paragraph, am I to assume that the g2 8300 is better suited in pixel scale to the esprit 150 (1050mm fl) and will give a more pleasing  image (personal preference) than the imx571 (zwo2600mc) with its smaller pixels and cmos sensor? 

If this is the case then I feel alot of my questions regarding which way to go have been answered.  The moravian g2 8300 is well suited to my scope (orion optics ct8 - 900mm fl), will give me great results as seen with the m33 images and on astrobin, and is available at a very reasonable price second hand which is about a 3rd the cost of a new 2600mm. I have also discovered that it is still well supported by latest image capture software and, so long as I dont want to sell it and expect to recover anything like my original outlay, will serve me well for years to come. 

The sampling rate question is tricky to answer when one is OSC and one is mono. The mono camera samples as is, at 1.06'' per pixel with 55% peak QE, whereas the OSC camera samples at half the expected rate with 1/4th the expected QE (thats a way to think about it when comparing to mono), so at 7.52 micron pixels and maybe 20% peak QE whereas the mono camera is 5.4 micron and 55% peak QE. My point was that the comparison was not that fair or even to begin with. If you compared the IMX571 mono to the G2 8300 mono then the comparison would be a different thing entirely, but i would still bin the 571 in that case.

I image with a VX8 so the same kind of mirror as your CT8 and find that 1.84'' sampling is often oversampled, but my typical seeing conditions are poor and i have other issues in my system (bad coma corrector for example) that you might not have. For me the 1.24'' sampling rate the moravian would give would be definitely without a doubt oversampled most nights but from what i read this kind of resolution is a good target for an 8'' scope so i would be inclined to believe yes it is a good match for your scope.

If you find the G2 8300 for cheap, then its a good choice so not much more to say. Like you said one costs a toe and the other costs an arm and a leg so hardly a level playing field. Do keep in mind that with the higher read noise CCD camera you will need to expose much longer to swamp read noise well enough. It could be an issue with a newtonian and under dark skies, certainly would be for me at least.

[Wonderweb]

23 hours ago, ONIKKINEN said:

The sampling rate question is tricky to answer when one is OSC and one is mono. The mono camera samples as is, at 1.06'' per pixel with 55% peak QE, whereas the OSC camera samples at half the expected rate with 1/4th the expected QE (thats a way to think about it when comparing to mono), so at 7.52 micron pixels and maybe 20% peak QE whereas the mono camera is 5.4 micron and 55% peak QE. My point was that the comparison was not that fair or even to begin with. If you compared the IMX571 mono to the G2 8300 mono then the comparison would be a different thing entirely, but i would still bin the 571 in that case.

I image with a VX8 so the same kind of mirror as your CT8 and find that 1.84'' sampling is often oversampled, but my typical seeing conditions are poor and i have other issues in my system (bad coma corrector for example) that you might not have. For me the 1.24'' sampling rate the moravian would give would be definitely without a doubt oversampled most nights but from what i read this kind of resolution is a good target for an 8'' scope so i would be inclined to believe yes it is a good match for your scope.

If you find the G2 8300 for cheap, then its a good choice so not much more to say. Like you said one costs a toe and the other costs an arm and a leg so hardly a level playing field. Do keep in mind that with the higher read noise CCD camera you will need to expose much longer to swamp read noise well enough. It could be an issue with a newtonian and under dark skies, certainly would be for me at least.

Thanks for the info  I am currently using a 269c pro tec and, when I can get it to work , shoot at around 3 minutes which seems to be a pretty good exposure time with an idas d2 filter. Im pretty sure I could quite happily push this to twice that length if I needed to. My guiding is usually good and I dont suffer with elongated stars. They are just really soft. What sort of exposure lengths do you feel I would require to swamp the read noise with the ccd? Im usually in a bortle 5-6 area. 

[ONIKKINEN]

48 minutes ago, Wonderweb said:

Thanks for the info  I am currently using a 269c pro tec and, when I can get it to work , shoot at around 3 minutes which seems to be a pretty good exposure time with an idas d2 filter. Im pretty sure I could quite happily push this to twice that length if I needed to. My guiding is usually good and I dont suffer with elongated stars. They are just really soft. What sort of exposure lengths do you feel I would require to swamp the read noise with the ccd? Im usually in a bortle 5-6 area. 

Read this comment in a recent thread. Plug your own numbers in and see what you get.

With 8e of read noise you are looking at awfully long subs compared to lower noise cameras, but this might go in the nitpick gategory as people have used cameras like that for ages and the results are still great. But still its something to consider that shorter subs would ideally be avoided.

[Adam J]

On 18/04/2022 at 08:13, tomato said:

Like I said, it is a very unscientific comparison. As I recall conditions were better when the CCD image was taken and M33 was better positioned in the sky, and the data was certainly processed differently.
The point I was trying to make is even if the market deems CCD cameras to now be near financially worthless, that doesn’t make them worthless as an Astro imaging camera.

Conditions can make a massive difference. Personally I would say that I have seen a step change in images quality that people are producing since the latest generation CMOS has been released so I would not be persuaded to purchase a 8300 these days unless second hand and on a very limited budget. 

Also it is worth remembering that the biggest performance difference will be in narrow-band when its harder to bury that 8e of read noise. 

Adam

Edited April 20, 2022 by Adam J

[steviemac500]

Just to mention, I am thinking of selling my G2-8300. I might be getting out of the hobby, haven't decided yet but I am looking for something new to try in terms of AP. I love my camera, bought it new never regretted it.

[newbie alert]

On 18/04/2022 at 14:22, ONIKKINEN said:

The sampling rate question is tricky to answer when one is OSC and one is mono. The mono camera samples as is, at 1.06'' per pixel with 55% peak QE, whereas the OSC camera samples at half the expected rate with 1/4th the expected QE (thats a way to think about it when comparing to mono), so at 7.52 micron pixels and maybe 20% peak QE whereas the mono camera is 5.4 micron and 55% peak QE. My point was that the comparison was not that fair or even to begin with. If you compared the IMX571 mono to the G2 8300 mono then the comparison would be a different thing entirely, but i would still bin the 571 in that case.

I image with a VX8 so the same kind of mirror as your CT8 and find that 1.84'' sampling is often oversampled, but my typical seeing conditions are poor and i have other issues in my system (bad coma corrector for example) that you might not have. For me the 1.24'' sampling rate the moravian would give would be definitely without a doubt oversampled most nights but from what i read this kind of resolution is a good target for an 8'' scope so i would be inclined to believe yes it is a good match for your scope.

If you find the G2 8300 for cheap, then its a good choice so not much more to say. Like you said one costs a toe and the other costs an arm and a leg so hardly a level playing field. Do keep in mind that with the higher read noise CCD camera you will need to expose much longer to swamp read noise well enough. It could be an issue with a newtonian and under dark skies, certainly would be for me at least.

How can 1.24 be oversampled??

And the same for 1.84??

Edited September 11, 2022 by newbie alert
Added info

[ONIKKINEN]

3 hours ago, newbie alert said:

How can 1.24 be oversampled??

And the same for 1.84??

Typical 1.5-2.5'' fwhm seeing, typical 0.5-1'' RMS guiding, not quite diffraction limited corrector (for my example anyway). I dont think its a shocking statement to say that 1.24'' will be oversampling almost all of the time. I certainly have never taken a single deep sky subexposure that could even in theory support that kind of resolution.

[newbie alert]

Where are you getting 1.5-2.5 

Nyquist says .67-2.0 as optimal.. not that I believe it