Which mono CCD under £2000 ?

[vincentnm]

Hi All,

My foray into narrowband. Have £2K to spend.

I am looking for the most sensitive mono CCD camera with at least 2K X 2K chip size. I am open to American brands as well, since I have folks travelling from there. Which ones are out there?

PS:

Apart from sensitivity and a minimum chip size, are there any more parameters I should look out for?

Thanks,

Vincent.

[steve51450]

does the price include filters and a filter wheel or is that just the price of a ccd camera

if its the complete package i would say atik 314L or sxvh9 with wheel will be under £2000

if its the ccd camera i would say fli ml8300 $3995 dollars and $500 dollars for a fli wheel opt in the usa

[vincentnm]

Thanks for your suggestions Steve.

Just the camera for £2000.

I've sourced a 2" Ha filter from Peter Shah and plan to use it alone for the next few months, before I can get enough cash for a wheel and other filters.

[steve51450]

I use the ml8300 myself for widefield narrowband on my borg 101ed and borg 60ed, its a very sensitive chip with a high quantum efficiency as well as low read noise. On top of this it has fast download times but it has a small pixel size so suits short focal length refractors rather than big sct's etc

they sell a few versions from $3500 dollars by the way

what scope are you planning to use the camera on, if you put the chip size into ccd calc with your scope it will give your arc second per pixel size which will give you an idea of wether the camera is a good match for your scope

[vincentnm]

Thanks Steve.

I plan to use it with my ED80 and C8 hyoperstar at the moment. But a good camera is more of an investment for the future when I can afford a Borg or TMB.

Apart from the FLI Stve mentions, what else is out there that has the biggest Quantum Efficiency bang for the money? Curious to see what others feel.

Thanks,

Vincent.

[narrowbandpaul]

i think the 8300 would be a good choice.....

i would seriously think about the FLI. Its a cut above the rest. A recent comparison between the FLI ML8300 vs Apogee U8300 showed the FLI to have lower read noise at a faster download speed of 8MHz vs 1 MHz

other option include a KAI4022 based sensor. 2048x2048 7.4um pixels.

lower QE/fill factor caused by the interline transfer

for the money, i cant look past the FLI8300.

dont know how much it is in the UK. The US price in dollars is pretty good.

[doidonti]

You can buy my SBIG 7 dual chip pelican case etc with a few extra bits like a 300 watt voltage converter i will even throw in a dell latop with maxim dl and sky pro or you can buy the new express parallel interface acts like a scsi interface speed wise 1000 uk all in.

[daz]

OT: doidonti - you have a PM

[Euan]

How about the QHY9? There were earlier issues with it, but these seem to be solved now. You get a lot of bang for your bucks!!

Have a look at the Narrowband pics on the QHY forum and tell me your not impressed

[narrowbandpaul]

the St7 has less than 1MP, the required spec was 4MP. Also the dual guiding chip is a bad idea for narrowband imaging, a requirement also.

the package sounds good, and if you are willing to sell, place an ad in the sales section.

But I dont think this package suits this forum member.

richardc has done some imaging with both the FLI8300 and the Apogee U8300. Good results with both, but parametrically the FLI ML8300 is a slight better performer, even with 8x faster downloads.

there are examples on this site.

good luck with your sale, doidonti!

best wishes

paul

[narrowbandpaul]

parameters like read noise, and full well are important.

if your wanted sensor has RBI issues, then you want to make sure the camera vendors has some protocol to deal with this issue.

FLI incorporate Flood flush integrate methods to inhibit RBI.

some sensors dont feature this.

KAF8300 does to some extent

KAI line dont.

read noise, RBI, and full well. deltaT cooling.

all four are important.

[richardc]

Hi All,

My foray into narrowband. Have £2K to spend.

I am looking for the most sensitive mono CCD camera with at least 2K X 2K chip size. I am open to American brands as well, since I have folks travelling from there. Which ones are out there?

PS:

Apart from sensitivity and a minimum chip size, are there any more parameters I should look out for?

Thanks,

Vincent.

the key decision is the sensor; the KAF8300 seems to be a great deal today; you get 8.3 million pixels, you get decent QE, it has small pixels though so that puts an upper limit of the focal length to less than 2000mm for standard seeing conditions.

the next question is what camera to buy that uses the sensor. the key things are quality of construction and ease of use. You don't want to waste time waiting for cooldown. You don't want to deal with a non-orthogonal sensor, you don't want to have frosting problems due to poorly designed/manufactured chambers. You want no excuses cooling that doesn't require water assist.

Lastly cost matters.

Faster downloads mean you get better sky flats faster. speed is king these days now that very low read noise can be obtained at 8MHz readout rates.

I call your attention to this factual comparison of key camera parameteric values; Apogee U8300 versus FLI ML8300

http://www.narrowbandimaging.com/U8300_ML8300_char_report_page.htm

the major differences in the cameras;

1) Apogee wastes time cooling down. It takes them a half hour to cool to -25C starting at a modest +20C. That is just silly to waste time like that. There's no good reason you can't cool down in 10 minutes, have a reliable camera and be parametrically stable. FLI does it, why can't Apogee? Apogee recommends the use of an UPS for powering their cameras. That adds cost and no other camera makers require that, so it makes me wonder why Apogee can't make a camera that works as well as the other guys and doesn't need an expensive UPS....

2) Apogee reads out at 1MHz, FLI reads at 8MHz. Yet FLI has lower read noise. When I shoot broadband flats, I find that the sky is getting dark fast and I need to take lots of flats fast. That's where the FLI really shines.... You can cycle exposures every 2 - 3 seconds instead of every 10-12 seconds. That matters a lot when you are taking twilight flats.

FLI is known for their cooling and their quality. QHY: well you get what you pay for.....

[Whippy]

All well and good, but that camera is over £2k even is the states....

Tony..

[MartinB]

Richard, do you have any commercial connection with FLI?

The FLI looks very good at it's price point I have to say but as Tony says, it is above that specified

[richardc]

it is pretty close at $1.63 per sterling...

[Whippy]

Another thing to take into account, I'd be very wary of bringing something mechanical (and expensive) from abroad purely because if it goes wrong then it's going to cost a small fortune putting it right, plus there might be warranty issues.

I know we in the UK don't get the best of deals but I'll stick with the peace of mind that buying here brings with it.

Tony..

[skye at night]

does the price include filters and a filter wheel or is that just the price of a ccd camera

if its the complete package i would say atik 314L or sxvh9 with wheel will be under £2000

if its the ccd camera i would say fli ml8300 $3995 dollars and $500 dollars for a fli wheel opt in the usa

Both of those are less than or only 1.3 mp or thereabouts. NOT the specified 4mp....

But for 2 grand... mono is a big ask, NEW anyway...

Might get an sbig st2000(still <4mp)/or very beat up st10 ( avery very good camera) for that or stretch an extra 500 to atik 4000...

The fli is still going to be 3000 gbp and a lot more if honest and pay the duties..

QHY 9's have small pixels which is often not so good for imaging with larger scopes/longer fl's..

How about a modified 40D with enough left over for some lenses OR the filter wheel , filters AND adaptors.. and you have a nice all round camera to use also..

You CAN do narrowband with a DSLR...!!!

Just stirring BTW....

I love the look and results of fli cameras...

I would do the dslr thing myself, but then I have a20 Da already..

The Atiks are really evolving into top spec cameras as well..

(my tuppence deposited)

Steve

[richardc]

I always say "you get what you pay for" (well that's if you are lucky, often you get less than you pay for).

The KAF8300 sensor costs about $500 from Kodak. US-made Astro cameras that use it seem to mostly be clustered in the $3500 to $4000 range. That's just the price of admission... to this somewhat expensive club.

the KAI4022 is slightly smaller physically but costs considerably more, even though it is only 4MP and has lower QE across the board. The FLI ML4022 is about $5000 USD versus $3500USD for the ML8300.

I have both and the only advantage I see of the ML4022 over the ML8300 is the electronic snap-shutter found in the KAI series. That is great for machine vision and video applications. It is also handy for shooting flats. Other than that the KAF8300 is the superior sensor for astro-imaging in my opinion. The KAI4022 does have a higher well capacity too...

[Whippy]

I plan to use it with my ED80 and C8 hyoperstar at the moment.

You might want to look into how filters react with the hyperstar setup too. IIRC SteveL had issues with filters running in his hyperstar setup because the system runs too fast for filter coatings and causes odd effects.

Tony..

[narrowbandpaul]

there is no commercial connection between FLI and Richard.

just measured data from a FLI ML 8300 vs Apogee U8300

all that is presented is the facts.

and the facts are that FLI are better.

the FLI may not be £2000, but with more saving it could become a serious contender?

[richardc]

Well sometimes you have to bust the budget a bit to avoid buying a turkey. Occasionally the budgets are arbitrarily set as a guess as to what something might cost.... but guesses are frequently wrong.

I don't work for FLI or get paid by them. I know the owners pretty well and I offer suggestions to them from time to time. I have discussed product ideas with them, offered suggestions for new products that they often have produced. I do test their products occasionally to help them to make better products. Sometimes when they have something strange to root-cause and they ask me for my help. What they like is the fact that I can find the warts on a new product really fast and that gives them a chance to correct them before they build hundreds.... works well for them and works well for me: I get to try out and test new things and they get to a production release quicker with a more robust product. That benefits everyone except for FLI's competitors: but in my assessment they are widening the gap versus their competitors so they are really in a class by themselves. Just look at the Apogee U8300 versus FLI ML8300. The ML blows the doors off the Apogee in speed to read and still has lower noise. It also reaches operating temperature promptly instead of wasting over a half hour. You will appreciate that on a hot summer night with about 3-4 hours of proper dark....

All this RBI work orginated with me btw.... Now the other camera makers are trying to follow the lead we set. But there's a learning curve and I see no reason to tell them the pitfalls and how to avoid them. I call that commercial know-how and that has value like any other intellectual property

[narrowbandpaul]

i am in the process of writing a short discussion on choosing a CCD camera. I should finish it soon.

maybe if its good, it could be made a sticky or whatever its called.

Vincentnm I will post it here incase it helps make things clearer.

watch this space :-)

[Whippy]

Well sometimes you have to bust the budget a bit to avoid buying a turkey. Occasionally the budgets are arbitrarily set as a guess as to what something might cost.... but guesses are frequently wrong.

I have to disagree with this, someone has a budget because that's what can afford, it's not a figure plucked out of the air. Obviously everyone wants to buy the best they can afford so it's not a case of them buying a bad camera, more like have they got the best that their budget allows them? If someone has £2k to spend, then that's what they've got. Not £2,200 or £2,500.

I'm sure what you're saying about the FLI is quite correct, but it is over Vincent's stated budget. If he wants to take to take the risk of buying it from the US and spending the approx. extra £200 for it then great, but to call other cameras 'turkeys' is a little harsh. I'm sure there are no 'bad' cameras at that price point, just some are better than others.

Tony..

[blinky]

Have to agree with you there Tony, I dont think I will ever have that sort of money to spend on a camera but if I did I would hope than none were 'turkeys' at £2k a pop!

[steve51450]

I think Turkey may have been a bit strong but i would say that the statement is in relation to the qhy9 not the venerable sony 285 based atik or starlight xpress. The qhy9 i almost purchased at one stage before i purchased the fli equivalent. To say it has power and cooling issues from what i have read is an understatement as it frost over way more than the original qhy8. It also suffers the same connection issues as my old qhy8 did and drops drivers just the same

to put it in a nutshell i think what richard is trying to say is if you can spend £2000 on a camera it may be worth trying to spend the extra £200 if you can afford it as the difference is well worth stretching yourself for

as for buying ccd cameras from America i have a fli ml8300 and it has never missed a beat. I also have a qsi540 which again is perfect. Both were purchased from the states and apart from a little extra postage to return them to the manufacturer if you have a problem i see no difference in warranties etc

Not that i have had to do this with either camera so i have no fear about taking the so called risk with importing one my self