Desperate! Please give your insight

[Vinnyvent84]

Thank you both. I’m going to play my order for the camera tonight. You both may know this… I read that I may need to use my diagnol (Baader prism) in order to achieve clearance to the base when approaching zenith. 
 

so optimal setup if I understand would be scope, focal reducer, camera. BUT I wouldn’t be able to do that and would need to keep my diagonal in place resulting in scope, focal reducer, diagnol, camera ?

[bosun21]

4 hours ago, PeterC65 said:

An IMX585 would be a bit better for DSOs, but not so good for planetary

I find that the 585 is great for planetary. Larger sensor makes planets acquisition easier. 200fps with ROI. Sensitive in the IR. Better efficiency.

Edited January 13 by bosun21
Typo

[Elp]

1 hour ago, Vinnyvent84 said:

Sheesh I’m starting to feel like maybe I made a big mistake in my purchase of that telescope 😟

Scope is fine, mount not so much and it was always designed for visual, not imaging. We always state to beginners mount and tripod is the most important purchase of all.

[Vinnyvent84]

8 minutes ago, Elp said:

Scope is fine, mount not so much and it was always designed for visual, not imaging. We always state to beginners mount and tripod is the most important purchase of all.

Gotcha, and it definitely makes sense. Honestly the mount made sense due to my specific situation. I read EQ mounts are MUCH harder to get setup and ready to go - due to me living in NYC I can’t just leave the mount out in my yard after observing / using it. I have to bring it downstairs in my den from my yard after each use. Between that, the bigger size and weight moving it every time and the cost being substantially more then even the scope itself I held off on getting an upgrade. I did see those new ZWO AZ mounts requiring no counterweights and less bulky but my lord they start at 2k! In my mind it felt wrong spending 2k to mount a 6SE scope, in a light polluted / generally poor seeing conditions area to boot. 

[happy-kat]

I'd start with learning to do alignment and visual observing. Then with the camera start with imaging the Moon. There's plenty to learn there, then build on it. 

[PeterC65]

2 hours ago, bosun21 said:

I find that the 585 is great for planetary. Larger sensor makes planets acquisition easier. 200fps with ROI. Sensitive in the IR. Better efficiency.

Yes, me too, but the OP is using an F10 scope so the pixel size of the IMX585 is a bit big.

 

[PeterC65]

2 hours ago, Vinnyvent84 said:

so optimal setup if I understand would be scope, focal reducer, camera. BUT I wouldn’t be able to do that and would need to keep my diagonal in place resulting in scope, focal reducer, diagnol, camera ?

Usually the magnification factor depends on the back focus, the distance between the reducer and the camera, so the diagonal might change that. You could maybe limit the altitude you go to and avoid using a diagonal.

 

[bosun21]

1 hour ago, PeterC65 said:

Yes, me too, but the OP is using an F10 scope so the pixel size of the IMX585 is a bit big.

 

A 1.5x barlow will get him spot on at F15. As you say it will also be better for DSO's should the OP decide to move in this direction.

[Vinnyvent84]

3 hours ago, bosun21 said:

A 1.5x barlow will get him spot on at F15. As you say it will also be better for DSO's should the OP decide to move in this direction.

 

4 hours ago, PeterC65 said:

Usually the magnification factor depends on the back focus, the distance between the reducer and the camera, so the diagonal might change that. You could maybe limit the altitude you go to and avoid using a diagonal.

 

Ok so if i may ask you both because i didnt hit the purchase button yet - if you had to make a choice and say "best planetary and lunar images you could get" as priority one and decently distant second priority being capturing DSO's what camera would you go with the ZWO 678 or ZWO 585? The pricing seems about $100 difference so wont make or break me either way in that regard...i just fear getting degraded planetary / lunar pics for the sake of DSO's (which is harder for me to capture anyway due to the LP and seeing conditions where I live). If you think the 585 would capture the same quality planetary and lunar pics (or maybe better?) I will have no issue getting that one (along with 1.5 barlow as mentioned). i just fear 585 is getting jack of all trades master of none?

[PeterC65]

6 hours ago, Vinnyvent84 said:

Ok so if i may ask you both because i didnt hit the purchase button yet - if you had to make a choice and say "best planetary and lunar images you could get" as priority one and decently distant second priority being capturing DSO's what camera would you go with the ZWO 678 or ZWO 585? The pricing seems about $100 difference so wont make or break me either way in that regard...i just fear getting degraded planetary / lunar pics for the sake of DSO's (which is harder for me to capture anyway due to the LP and seeing conditions where I live). If you think the 585 would capture the same quality planetary and lunar pics (or maybe better?) I will have no issue getting that one (along with 1.5 barlow as mentioned). i just fear 585 is getting jack of all trades master of none?

The IMX585 is THE mid priced camera to get. I have one (actually I have two). I keep looking at other cameras (including the IMX678) and decide that they are not as good as the IMX585, but I mainly observe DSOs and only sometimes observe the Moon and Planets. What's good about the IMX585 is that it has a mid sixed sensor (to get anything bigger you need to pay A LOT more) and the pixel size is good for most objects and scopes (2um is on the small size, 5um would be big).

Having said that, with your scope, and if you're sure you will be focusing on Lunar and Planetary, then the IMX678 is probably a better bet. While @bosun21 is right about the x1.5 Barlow, it would be better to use the scope at its native F10 for planetary observation.

If you do find that you also enjoy observing DSOs then you could still use the IMX678 with a 500mm refractor.

 

[bosun21]

While the 678 is maybe slightly better for your scope on the planets I would still go for the 585 for the moon. You will be able to photograph larger areas of lunar surface with the 585 due to its larger sensor. It's a horses for courses scenario in which what you get on one hand you may lose in the other. You can't really go wrong with either.

[Vinnyvent84]

6 hours ago, PeterC65 said:

The IMX585 is THE mid priced camera to get. I have one (actually I have two). I keep looking at other cameras (including the IMX678) and decide that they are not as good as the IMX585, but I mainly observe DSOs and only sometimes observe the Moon and Planets. What's good about the IMX585 is that it has a mid sixed sensor (to get anything bigger you need to pay A LOT more) and the pixel size is good for most objects and scopes (2um is on the small size, 5um would be big).

Having said that, with your scope, and if you're sure you will be focusing on Lunar and Planetary, then the IMX678 is probably a better bet. While @bosun21 is right about the x1.5 Barlow, it would be better to use the scope at its native F10 for planetary observation.

If you do find that you also enjoy observing DSOs then you could still use the IMX678 with a 500mm refractor.

 

 

5 hours ago, bosun21 said:

While the 678 is maybe slightly better for your scope on the planets I would still go for the 585 for the moon. You will be able to photograph larger areas of lunar surface with the 585 due to its larger sensor. It's a horses for courses scenario in which what you get on one hand you may lose in the other. You can't really go wrong with either.

Thank you both! I actually had a question pop in my head. When using the astronomy.tools FOV calculator I noticed the 678 camera for example - displays Jupiter in a smaller view then going a 224mc camera with a 2x Barlow or the suggested 585 with a 1.5x Barlow. 
 

I know you have to do that computation to determine what or if a Barlow is best compared to scope and pixel size but I am more interested in capturing shots that are larger then a tiny little dot. Is this something you address through cropping later without loosing detail? Or something when you set the smaller ROI while recording which “zooms” it in?

I definitely don’t want a larger but really blurry image either so just not sure if this is something you address through software to do it correctly or through a Barlow ?

[Elp]

When you change sensor sizes there is zero zoom factor on the sensor, in traditional photography it's related to "crop factor" compared to say a full frame sensor, so to someone who doesn't know a smaller sensor looks like it presents a larger image, it doesn't, it's cropped compared to a larger sensor. I think most people crop their planetary images, or use a smaller region of interest upon capture which does essentially the same thing but pre capture not post capture.

You can't compare the 678 without Barlow to the other two with Barlow's as you haven't compared like for like.

[PeterC65]

1 hour ago, Vinnyvent84 said:

Thank you both! I actually had a question pop in my head. When using the astronomy.tools FOV calculator I noticed the 678 camera for example - displays Jupiter in a smaller view then going a 224mc camera with a 2x Barlow or the suggested 585 with a 1.5x Barlow.

I know you have to do that computation to determine what or if a Barlow is best compared to scope and pixel size but I am more interested in capturing shots that are larger then a tiny little dot. Is this something you address through cropping later without loosing detail? Or something when you set the smaller ROI while recording which “zooms” it in?

I definitely don’t want a larger but really blurry image either so just not sure if this is something you address through software to do it correctly or through a Barlow ?

The field of view with the IMX678 natively is almost identical to that with the IMX585 and a x1.5 Barlow. That's why @bosun21 is recommending the IMX585. It's just the same as the IMX678 with the x1.5 Barlow but has a bigger sensor for DSO use (with the x0.63 reducer).

7 minutes ago, Elp said:

You can't compare the 678 without Barlow to the other two with Barlow's as you haven't compared like for like.

You can compare the IMX678 with the IMX585 because they both have the same 4K resolution, but what @Elp says does apply to the IMX224. It has a tiny sensor but with bigger pixels than that IMX678 and IMX585 and it uses older technology which suffers from amp glow.

The x1.5 Barlow may slightly degrade planetary views (depending on the choice of Barlow) so if you are wanting the best planetary performance then go for the IMX678, otherwise go for the IMX585. Personally I think you will want to observe more than just planets so I would go for the IMX585 and use a Barlow for planets, or even just use it natively.

Just as when observing visually, winding up the magnification on planets doesn't necessarily allow you to see more.

 

 

[Elp]

5 minutes ago, PeterC65 said:

You can compare the IMX678 with the IMX585 because they both have the same 4K resolution

I said you can't compare them because this is what OP said:

"using the astronomy.tools FOV calculator I noticed the 678 camera for example - displays Jupiter in a smaller view then going a 224mc camera with a 2x Barlow or the suggested 585 with a 1.5x Barlow"

I've interpreted the above comparison like this:

Using 678 without a Barlow, using a 224 with a Barlow, using a 585 with a Barlow.

You cannot include the 678 in that comparison as a result as no Barlow is being used so they're not a like for like comparison.

As you say though, you can compare both cameras as they are without Barlow (or both with Barlow's), and as per my prior comment the 485 (and hence the 585) make for excellent planetary and DSO cameras.

[PeterC65]

The way I see it, the x1.5 Barlow makes the IMX585 look almost exactly the same as the IMX678 as far as the scope is concerned (same pixel size, same sensor size), so the image in both cases will be the same, other than for any degradation due to the Barlow, which should be minimal.