Sony A7iii to OSC Camera - Is it worth the upgrade?

[deanchapman2705]

Hi,

I was originally looking at moving from my full-frame Sony A7iii to a dedicated astro camera (ZWO ASI294MM Pro) but then bought a house instead... So there's no way I can be spending that much money now 😂

Going from a stock camera to a monochrome dedicated astro camera, shooting through narrowband filters, definitely seemed to be worth the upgrade in terms of sensitivity, light gathering and also being a M4/3 sensor with a small refractor (as I get bad vignetting with full-frame) but I've now limited myself to one-shot colour cameras instead purely for the price as mentioned above - cameras are cheaper and would only get a duo-band filter that would screw into my flattener. 

So my main worry is, now I would be getting a OSC camera rather than mono, is it actually that much better than my Sony A7iii? As in £1.5k better? I've had a look on AstroBin and don't mean to be harsh and I'm not exactly that good myself but was not really impressed with other people's pictures considering the price of these cameras but can't tell if it's their processing of the images or the cameras themselves - they seemed to struggle with noise even with hours of exposure time and weird colours, patterns, amp glow etc that you get from old sensors that my A7iii doesn't suffer from. On the other hand, I look at any mono cameras or even the 2600MC Pro, and there seem to be amazing pictures everywhere for obvious reasons 🤔 

I've looked at the main specs, comparing in particular the 294MC Pro and 071MC Pro to my A7iii (not really interested in the 533 with its lower resolution and smaller pixel size) and was surprised how similar and in most cases, worse they were... my camera is stock so I could see how the ZWO cameras would reveal more nebulosity but to be fair, the a7iii seems to be surprisingly sensitive to the H-alpha wavelengths compared to the average DSLR as you can see below, so again, is it really worth the upgrade?

I have put some of the data together in a table to help visualise the differences but there must be something I'm missing, right?

Any help would be appreciated!

Thanks,

Dean

Edited September 6, 2022 by deanchapman2705

[Elp]

Haven't got experience with Sony cameras, always wanted one but avoided them because of their aggressive "star eater" problem.

Moving from an IR modded Canon 600D DSLR to a mono and later OSC astro camera however showed just how much better they were to my DSLR. The main thing you'll notice is how much less noise, in particular walking noise there is especially with the cooled cameras. A lot of the result will depend on how well matched the camera is to the scope optics, I've never really paid attention to this personally.

Your image above is impressive as it is with the Sony. Mono will give you more detail due to utilising all the pixels (maybe marginal), but your project management will seem like more work (and more cost due to needing filters) so this is a personal thing. Mono will also allow shooting narrowband so moon and LP have minimal impact unless you're shooting right next to them so you might get more nights of shooting.

On those nights where I want to be able to have a finished image after a few hours I tend to use the OSC camera, but always use the mono for the best longer multi sessions. The amount of detail you can pick up in hydrogen alpha alone in mono is astounding.

[deanchapman2705]

Thanks for your input Elp

45 minutes ago, Elp said:

Haven't got experience with Sony cameras, always wanted one but avoided them because of their aggressive "star eater" problem.

I've not noticed this problem myself although I think it may be related to Sony's long exposure noise reduction setting which I have turned off. I have also never experience walking noise either. I think that's what makes the A7iii so good is that even at such high ISO's, it has very even and flat dark frames when stretched - no irregular noise, patterns, glow, colour noise that you experience with DSLR's, just grain (and a few hot pixels). I bought it for photography before I knew about astrophotography so was pretty lucky lol. Just not sure if going from this to a OSC dedicated astro camera, being an older sensor but more sensitive, is a big enough of a jump for the price.

47 minutes ago, Elp said:

but your project management will seem like more work (and more cost due to needing filters)

Yeah this is my main reason for not going mono, is the cost as it's way outside my budget now   Like you said, I think I would like the simplicity of having a OSC camera - I tend to get very impatient and frustrated when things go wrong haha

 

[The Lazy Astronomer]

Found a review online comparing the a7iii to a standard and modded Canon DSLR:

From that, it looks like you'd see a significant boost in capture of Ha wavelength if you went for an astro cam or modified your existing sensor.

Set point cooling is the nice benefit with an astro cam, although with the more modern CMOS sensors coming out these days it seems like it's becoming less important (the need for dark frames may soon be a thing of the past).

Amp glow is a total non-issue, it will always calibrate out completely with good darks, so don't let that put you off any sensor. 

The 294, although on the face of it probably the best astro cam option from your list, has well documented calibration difficulties, particularly when using dual narrowband filters, so for sanity, I wouldn't recommend that one.

Although you've already discounted it, from your list, the 533 is probably the best option. Btw, an image of the same FOV with the same optics would have a higher resolution with the 533 vs your current sensor, owing to it's smaller pixel size, although obviously this would require a mosaic with the 533 to get the same FOV as the larger sensor. Whether or not you'd benefit from the increased resolution depends very much on the quality of your skies, and is a whole other topic in itself.

If you could push yourself or save a little more (very, very tricky to do after moving house, I know!) then really your best option would be the 2600 - it's basically the same as the 533 but in a larger format. There are other companies that offer the same sensor in a cheaper package which may be of interest (search the forum for risingcam imx571, there have been a few discussions about it).

[iantaylor2uk]

I have a Sony A7iii and it is pretty good for galaxies and globular clusters etc. but a dedicated astro camera would be better for nebulae. I went for a ZWO 071 MC Pro camera and usually cool it to 0 or -5 C. As far as I'm aware the star eater issue was with earlier versions of the Sony A7 camera.

[deanchapman2705]

5 hours ago, The Lazy Astronomer said:

From that, it looks like you'd see a significant boost in capture of Ha wavelength if you went for an astro cam or modified your existing sensor.

Would be interesting to see the 294MC on this comparison - I would love to modify my camera but I use it for photography more than astrophotography so it wouldn't make sense for me unfortunately.

Also here's my go at the North America Nebula - This is my only attempt since I started from a year ago so could definitely do better with more data and better processing. Very limited time on it with clouds and Bortle 6 skies but interesting how much noticeable the H-alpha is. Obviously this is stacked and stretched but still...

30x 90s (45mins) @ iso 640, unguided (setup used in signature)

6 hours ago, The Lazy Astronomer said:

Set point cooling is the nice benefit with an astro cam

This is true, hot pixels are quite common with the A7iii too, not really noticeable but a pain to remove.

 

6 hours ago, The Lazy Astronomer said:

The 294, although on the face of it probably the best astro cam option from your list, has well documented calibration difficulties, particularly when using dual narrowband filters, so for sanity, I wouldn't recommend that one.

Interesting... what sort of calibration difficulties? General unevenness and gradients etc?

 

6 hours ago, The Lazy Astronomer said:

Although you've already discounted it, from your list, the 533 is probably the best option. Btw, an image of the same FOV with the same optics would have a higher resolution with the 533 vs your current sensor, owing to it's smaller pixel size, although obviously this would require a mosaic with the 533 to get the same FOV as the larger sensor. Whether or not you'd benefit from the increased resolution depends very much on the quality of your skies, and is a whole other topic in itself.

I see what you mean though mosaic imaging seems too involved and technical for me. I also understand what you're saying about the 533 being better resolution than cropping the full frame sensor into the same FOV but I prefer having a higher resolution image with a wider FOV due to viewing it on a 4k screen and just the ability to zoom into a picture to see more detail - also bare in mind that the chip is square so although it's 9mp, once you crop it to 3:2 like the other sensors, it's really 6mp (3008 x 2005) which is a let down for me... I really like the 533 with how modern it is, they just need to make the same thing but M4/3 to allow better resolution and pixel size!

 

6 hours ago, The Lazy Astronomer said:

If you could push yourself or save a little more (very, very tricky to do after moving house, I know!) then really your best option would be the 2600 - it's basically the same as the 533 but in a larger format. There are other companies that offer the same sensor in a cheaper package which may be of interest (search the forum for risingcam imx571, there have been a few discussions about it).

Unfortunately this is way out of my budget as it's double the price of the 294MC and would probably go for the 294MM with nb filters for nearly the same price. I forgot to mention that I would like to stick with ZWO as I would be getting their ASI Air Pro and EAF to be able to do the whole thing from my tablet indoors for ease. As I mentioned above earlier, I'm not very patient when things start to go wrong - even the autoguiding and PA can drive me insane sometimes 😂 

I did also look at QHY but the accessories required for it to be the equivalent with using a portable device to control the whole setup (mini computer/raspberry pi, power hub, control unit, EAF etc) actually ended up more expensive even though their cameras are cheaper.

[deanchapman2705]

6 hours ago, iantaylor2uk said:

I have a Sony A7iii and it is pretty good for galaxies and globular clusters etc. but a dedicated astro camera would be better for nebulae. I went for a ZWO 071 MC Pro camera and usually cool it to 0 or -5 C. As far as I'm aware the star eater issue was with earlier versions of the Sony A7 camera.

Yeah the andromeda galaxy and especially the Orion Nebula with the A7iii's insane full well depth being classed as a HDR sensor also means I can bring out details from faint dust clouds whilst keeping the core underexposed even.

It just worries me how the 017MC has a smaller pixel size, much lower FWD, much higher RN than the 294 and worse QE than even the A7iii and 1600MC. Yes it would show more nebulosity but with those lower specs and for £1.5k, do you think it's worth the upgrade? If I had my old Canon 500d now, I definitely would 😂

[iantaylor2uk]

Below is an image I took last week of the Eastern Veil nebula with my ZWO 071 camera (stack of 54 three minute exposures), using an L-Enhance filter on my Takahashi TSA 102 f/8 refractor. I think this is better than I could achieve with the Sony A7III

 

 

[deanchapman2705]

Do you have one of the light frames straight from the camera I could see from this? If so, what Bortle sky are you shooting from?

I had a go at processing old data from Bortle 6 skies. Hardly any exposure time so you can tell I have stretched the data more than it would like to be and the stars have been ruined in the process.

30x 90sec (45mins) unguided, no filter - so nearly a quarter of your data and you can definitely tell.

I prefer yours obviously with how natural it looks compared to mine but that's probably due to having more data and being closer to the subject with a higher focal length. With that in mind, I can't see it being worth the upgrade... unless it's down to the processing? Maybe if I could have a go at processing your stacked image, that could help me see?

This is one of the light frames straight from the camera, not stacked:

 

 

Edited September 4, 2022 by deanchapman2705

[iantaylor2uk]

A single light frame is shown below: 

When I analysed the above frame with ASTAP, it gave a limiting magnitude (SQM) of 18.45, so I guess I'm in a Bortle 7 zone. 

I was using 3 minute exposures due to the use of the L-Enhance filter, if I was just using an IR/UV filter my subs would have been 1 minute or so. 

If you want a go at processing the stacked image from DSS, it is available for download from: https://drive.google.com/file/d/11I9auSdK3yzWncwETfUV0JiBh9ji5ooq/view?usp=sharing

I should have added that a great advantage of a dedicated ZWO astro camera, as far as I'm concerned, is that you can use an auto-focusser, and streamline all your workflow through use of an ASI Air Pro, which has greatly speeded up the whole process of astrophotography for me (autofocussing in 2 mins or so, polar alignment in 2 or 3 mins, plate solving to centre and frame target in less than 1 min, and then starting autoguiding in less than 2 mins).

I mainly use my Sony A7 III for normal photography nowadays.  

[deanchapman2705]

Wow, from Bortle 7, that's quite impressive actually!

Thank you, that's really helpful! I'll have a go at processing it later today.

1 hour ago, iantaylor2uk said:

I should have added that a great advantage of a dedicated ZWO astro camera, as far as I'm concerned, is that you can use an auto-focusser, and streamline all your workflow through use of an ASI Air Pro, which has greatly speeded up the whole process of astrophotography for me (autofocussing in 2 mins or so, polar alignment in 2 or 3 mins, plate solving to centre and frame target in less than 1 min, and then starting autoguiding in less than 2 mins).

Yeah this is what I have included in my budget, ASI Air Pro and EAF, and going for a ZWO camera as I like the idea controlling everything from one software/app.

[iantaylor2uk]

I tend to use high gain on the camera when I use the L-Enhance filter (max gain on the camera is 240, and I use a gain of 200). This is partly due to the fact that the Tak TSA 102 is slow at f/8. The noise will be lower at higher gain, although the dynamic range is lower, but you recover some of this when you stack multiple images.

Hope this helps

[Elp]

Veil is a relatively bright target, I've used lextreme with 60s subs using my Canon at F5.6.

[deanchapman2705]

Well this is my attempt of stretching your image (I purely used Adobe Photoshop as I always do). Not sure how to describe it but with the Sony, I needed to do about 4-6 curve layers worth of stretching to reveal the nebulosity but the noise gets worse if I do any more. With yours (071MC), it only needed 2-3 curve layers but the noise is revealed much sooner. This seemed to remind me of an old sensor like my Canon 500d I used to use.

However like you said above, you used a much higher gain and with bortle 7 skies - I usually shoot at ISO 640 @ f/5.9 and bortle 6 so that, and with a higher QE value compared, would probably explain it.

So I can see the potential especially if I would be shooting from bortle 4 skies and a faster scope but still struggling to see if it's really worth it for £1.5K. Do you happen to have something you've shot once with the Sony and also the 071MC to compare directly? Similar settings, exposure time? Even if it's a galaxy for example to compare noise.

[iantaylor2uk]

Not got any direct comparison images as the last time I used the Sony A7III for astrophotography was about 2.5 years ago. The 071 camera is quite old now so I wouldn't recommend getting that now, unless you can pick up a cheap one second-hand, but the 533 could be a good option.

[deanchapman2705]

9 hours ago, iantaylor2uk said:

The 071 camera is quite old now so I wouldn't recommend getting that now

I agree, it's a shame because the balance of resolution to pixel size in an APS-C sensor is perfect, but it's definitely starting to show it's age now.

The 533 seems too low resolution and small pixel size for me but like how new it is with the high QE, zero amp glow and low RN.

Then the 294 seems to fit perfectly in-between and is growing to be my favourite although as @The Lazy Astronomer said earlier:

On 03/09/2022 at 12:35, The Lazy Astronomer said:

The 294, although on the face of it probably the best astro cam option from your list, has well documented calibration difficulties, particularly when using dual narrowband filters, so for sanity, I wouldn't recommend that one.

which makes me worry....

Looking online, it's true. Pictures like the below are everywhere where the 294MC is paired with any type of nb filter that includes H-alpha and can not be calibrated out. It seems to happen only at 656nm wavelength though.

[The Lazy Astronomer]

1 hour ago, deanchapman2705 said:

The 533 seems too low resolution

I think you're looking at it in terms of megapixels, but in terms of sampling rate, the 533 would have a higher resolution than your current camera. Your current set up gives you a sampling rate of 3.4"/px, the 533 would give you 2.2"/px. If conditions and mount performance allowed, you would be able to record finer detail with the 533. What you sacrifice is FOV - it is obviously smaller with the smaller sensor on the 533.

1 hour ago, deanchapman2705 said:

Pictures like the below are everywhere where the 294MC is paired with any type of nb filter that includes H-alpha and can not be calibrated out. It seems to happen only at 656nm wavelength though.

It can be calibrated, but there are enough discussions about it that you can tell it is not a camera for someone who wants a hassle-free life.

I have the mono version - my Ha and Sii flats display some crazy patterns, but calibrate out just fine. Oiii has no pattern and just looks like a 'normal' flat (weirdly it's the broadband red filter that gives me the most difficulties), but the mono 294 seems easier to deal with than the colour one. 

I thought there was a recent discussion about a new 4/3 sensor released by Sony recently, and the possibility that might make its way into the astro cam market in the short to mid term, but I can't seem to find the topic now, so maybe I've completely made that up! 

[deanchapman2705]

Ok I'm starting to like the 533 at bit more now 😂

Still, I think I would prefer higher megapixel resolution rather than a better sampling rate although I don't really know much about sampling rates so will look into that. I like the idea of printing some of my images so it may not be high enough resolution for that unless I print small.

My worry with a 1" sensor is guiding. I'm used to shooting at 396mm focal length (A7iii has a 1.1x crop) and could maybe get away with 150s images with guiding although shoot 120s to be safe. With a 1" sensor, it has a crop factor of 3x so I would be shooting at roughly 1,080mm. 

My guiding setup is an asi120mm mini (1/3" chip so 7.21x crop) with a 125mm focal length guide scope so I'm guiding at 901.25mm. Maybe I would benefit from a off axis guider instead in this case or would I be asking too much of the mount? I can't see myself getting anything more than 60s subs.

9 hours ago, The Lazy Astronomer said:

I thought there was a recent discussion about a new 4/3 sensor released by Sony recently, and the possibility that might make its way into the astro cam market in the short to mid term, but I can't seem to find the topic now, so maybe I've completely made that up!

Sounds exciting, they did release a load of planetary cams recently so would make sense to release a new deep sky cam.

Whatever camera I would be getting, I would most likely be waiting until there's an offer (winter sale maybe) or if someone sells one cheap for second hand so might see it get released before I end up buying one. Obviously, that's if this is true. They just need to make the 294 but without all the problems.

[CraigT82]

11 minutes ago, deanchapman2705 said:

My worry with a 1" sensor is guiding. I'm used to shooting at 396mm focal length (A7iii has a 1.1x crop) and could maybe get away with 150s images with guiding although shoot 120s to be safe. With a 1" sensor, it has a crop factor of 3x so I would be shooting at roughly 1,080mm

Forget everything you know about crop factor… it’s irrelevant in astrophotography!  What is important is imaging scale - in AP this is what is generally meant by the term ‘resolution’ - it is how much sky is covered by each pixel and the units are arc seconds per pixel (“pp)

The guiding performance required is dependent on the imaging scale, which itself is dictated by imaging focal length and the pixel size of the imaging sensor. 

Ideally you want to be able to guide with an RMS error in pixels of half your imaging scale. So if your imaging scale is 2.5”pp the you should aim to guide at 1.25” RMS 

With your A7iii and a 360mm FL scope your imaging scale is 3.39”pp which is quite a low resolution. With the same scope and the 533 sensor it would be 2.15”pp. So the 533 would actually create higher resolution images with more detail. The trade off is a smaller field of view. Still the 533 is 9mp and will blow up for printing nicely as long as you don’t go crazy large. 

Your guiding would need to be a bit better with the 533 than with the A7iii (you’d need 1.07” rms Vs 1.7”rms) so you can check what your existing guiding figures are like to see if your mount can manage it.

[The Lazy Astronomer]

4 hours ago, deanchapman2705 said:

My worry with a 1" sensor is guiding. I'm used to shooting at 396mm focal length (A7iii has a 1.1x crop) and could maybe get away with 150s images with guiding although shoot 120s to be safe. With a 1" sensor, it has a crop factor of 3x so I would be shooting at roughly 1,080mm. 

My guiding setup is an asi120mm mini (1/3" chip so 7.21x crop) with a 125mm focal length guide scope so I'm guiding at 901.25mm.

Crop factor does not affect your focal length other than in apparent FOV - regardless of the size of sensor you use, your focal length on your imaging scope will always be 360mm. A smaller sensor will "see" less of the light cone coming through the telescope, so you get an apparent FOV equivalent to that of a longer focal length with a larger sensor.

[deanchapman2705]

This is all like a foreign language to me - I'll be researching about "pp and RMS this weekend then and hopefully get a better understanding of this.

7 hours ago, The Lazy Astronomer said:

Crop factor does not affect your focal length other than in apparent FOV - regardless of the size of sensor you use, your focal length on your imaging scope will always be 360mm. A smaller sensor will "see" less of the light cone coming through the telescope, so you get an apparent FOV equivalent to that of a longer focal length with a larger sensor.

I understand the size of the sensor doesn't actually change the focal length of the scope but I meant it as the equivalent so a full frame sensor (1x crop) would need a scope with a FL of 1,080mm to see the same as a 1" (3x) sensor with a 360mm FL scope.

 

21 hours ago, The Lazy Astronomer said:

What you sacrifice is FOV - it is obviously smaller with the smaller sensor on the 533.

In terms of the FOV being a drawback, I think it might be a benefit for me. With full-frame, the only things that fit well in frame are the Andromeda Galaxy and the North America Nebula with the Pelican etc and I guess some other smaller DSO's with surrounding dust or just cropping in slightly. I have tried the 533 out on a tool I use to calculate the FOV and it seems to be quite useful actually. A lot of things I can't normally reach, I would be able to easily like the Eagle, Cocoon, Crescent, Tulip Nebula etc.

But there are a few DSO's that are a bit of an awkward fit like Orion, Horsehead/Flame and Heart/Soul Nebula as you loose some of the surrounding detail especially when cropping it to a 3:2/4:5 ratio. However... William Optics have a 0.8x reducer/flattener designed for the z61 and would solve this problem. It would also make the scope faster (f/5.9 to f/4.7) which I guess would also help make up for the smaller pixel size not being able to take in as much light. Below are comparisons on some DSO's to show how much more reach I can get with a 1" sensor:

533:      A7iii: 

533:      A7iii: 

 

533:      533 0.8x:      A7iii: 

533:      533 0.8x:      A7iii: 

533 (5:4):      533 0.8x (5:4):      A7iii (3:2): 

On another note, I found this on Astrobin shot with the 533MC and WO Z61 which is pretty cool (weirdly the resolution of the image is 5604 x 5640 so not sure if they upscaled the image of binned the sensor?)

 

Anyway, I think I'm liking the 533 now and guess it would be good for doing 6 panel mosaics (3x2) that would give me a similar FOV as my Sony even in 3:2 ratio as well. Just need to see how complicated that would be but I'm sure there's forums out there for this.

 

Edited September 6, 2022 by deanchapman2705

[Ratlet]

I'm currently debating on a next upgrade and am going through a similar thought process as yourself.

I've got all the external control stuff though so have a couple options namely risking it with an uncooled Player one Saturn or going for the new svbony 405CC, which is basically the 533 Vs 294 sensor.

Thanks for posting the comparison images.  They are very useful for comparison.

[Elp]

1 hour ago, deanchapman2705 said:

Just need to see how complicated that would be but I'm sure there's forums out there for this.

If you're in the asiair (gen2 or 3) ecosystem mosaics are simple. Plan your mosaic session online via telescopius' telescope simulator, copy the coordinates into a text document, then paste into the asiair "import plan" button. Set the number of images you want to take, start the plan, the asiair and mount will do the rest.

For flexibility of fitting large targets into the fov I use DSLR lenses with the astro cams, obviously at the cost of resolution.

Edited September 6, 2022 by Elp

[The Lazy Astronomer]

1 hour ago, deanchapman2705 said:

This is all like a foreign language to me - I'll be researching about "pp and RMS this weekend then and hopefully get a better understanding of this.

I understand the size of the sensor doesn't actually change the focal length of the scope but I meant it as the equivalent so a full frame sensor (1x crop) would need a scope with a FL of 1,080mm to see the same as a 1" (3x) sensor with a 360mm FL scope.

 

In terms of the FOV being a drawback, I think it might be a benefit for me. With full-frame, the only things that fit well in frame are the Andromeda Galaxy and the North America Nebula with the Pelican etc and I guess some other smaller DSO's with surrounding dust or just cropping in slightly. I have tried the 533 out on a tool I use to calculate the FOV and it seems to be quite useful actually. A lot of things I can't normally reach, I would be able to easily like the Eagle, Cocoon, Crescent, Tulip Nebula etc.

But there are a few DSO's that are a bit of an awkward fit like Orion, Horsehead/Flame and Heart/Soul Nebula as you loose some of the surrounding detail especially when cropping it to a 3:2/4:5 ratio. However... William Optics have a 0.8x reducer/flattener designed for the z61 and would solve this problem. It would also make the scope faster (f/5.9 to f/4.7) which I guess would also help make up for the smaller pixel size not being able to take in as much light. Below are comparisons on some DSO's to show how much more reach I can get with a 1" sensor:

533:      A7iii: 

533:      A7iii: 

 

533:      533 0.8x:      A7iii: 

533:      533 0.8x:      A7iii: 

533 (5:4):      533 0.8x (5:4):      A7iii (3:2): 

On another note, I found this on Astrobin shot with the 533MC and WO Z61 which is pretty cool (weirdly the resolution of the image is 5604 x 5640 so not sure if they upscaled the image of binned the sensor?)

 

Anyway, I think I'm liking the 533 now and guess it would be good for doing 6 panel mosaics (3x2) that would give me a similar FOV as my Sony even in 3:2 ratio as well. Just need to see how complicated that would be but I'm sure there's forums out there for this.

 

I think we're basically saying the same thing, but I find these things difficult to judge in text-based conversation! 😁So, just to clarify, you can get the same effect by cropping the image from the full frame sensor in post processing - you don't get any more reach with a smaller sensor, an object is just framed tighter because the smaller sensor can't "see" as much of the area of sky around the object.

The 0.8 reducer seems a good shout for larger objects with the 533 - that looks like a pretty good framing on the heart nebula.

That veil nebula image (side note: xenomorph nebula is a much better name for that portion of it), I think that's been drizzled x2 during integration as the pixel dimensions are just under double the count of the sensor (it's probably had some slight edge cropping to remove the stacking artifacts).

[deanchapman2705]

23 hours ago, Elp said:

If you're in the asiair (gen2 or 3) ecosystem mosaics are simple. Plan your mosaic session online via telescopius' telescope simulator, copy the coordinates into a text document, then paste into the asiair "import plan" button. Set the number of images you want to take, start the plan, the asiair and mount will do the rest.

For flexibility of fitting large targets into the fov I use DSLR lenses with the astro cams, obviously at the cost of resolution.

I feel like this is starting to go off topic here but doesn't this require a goto mount? I have a SkyGuider pro so I can't see how I could manually move the mount precisely enough to each coordinate. I guess I could keep plate solving until I get there roughly and that each panel needs to overlap slightly which would allow room for error but seems like a lot of effort. Like you said, I would probably rather shoot with lenses instead if that's the case and sacrifice resolution. I have the Laowa 100mm f/2.8 APO which would be great. Works out to be nearly the same FOV as a 3:2 panel mosaic with the WO Z61 and 0.8x reducer. But obviously only a 3000x2000 image compared to an insane 9000x6000 (minus the overlapping)…