Quote:
Originally Posted by Xeteth
I'll be honest here, finding research on which is 'better' is hard. However, the QHY9 uses the KAF8300 chip which from everything I've read is a well tried and tested chip that produces great results. It is able to cool to a lower temp and has a built in filter wheel. Lastly, I was told by an astrophotographer I met with years of experience that the QHY9 was a much better product, however he didn't really elaborate on reasons so this isn't much.
|
You need to determine what better means to you before you can compare. There is no “one chip to rule them all”, they all suit different scopes differently and have different quirks and costs.
For example, you mention noise. There are a number of different sources of noise. Two of the most common are read noise and thermal noise. If you compare those contributions, you will see that the KAF8300 performs quite poorly in those respects compared with more recent CMOS sensors. And deeper cooling is only beneficial if there are substantial benefits from doing so. Some manufacturers state the thermal noise in electrons per second at a specific temperature. Before dismissing any options based on some off-the-cuff advice with no basis, you should run these types of calculations for yourself to find out
You might find that some modern DSLRs/mirrorless cameras perform very competently now, although hard numbers are difficult to find.
QE is quantum efficiency. It is the proportion of photons received that generate electrons that are subsequently measured as signal. Higher QE is always better.
If you’re finding blue halos from your scope, check the cut-off of your UV/IR-cut filter.If you’re not using one, you might want to try one out. With a mono sensor, you can always refocus if the focal point of blue is different from the rest.