View Single Post
  #13  
Old 21-06-2018, 10:53 PM
glend (Glen)
Registered User

glend is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Lake Macquarie
Posts: 6,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by brenchen View Post
So far what I've gathered is 1600MC and 183C are highly comparable, but 183C gives me better clarity because the pixel sizes are smaller?

I just learnt about the 294MC Pro which seems to be a continuation from the 1600MC. Again it will still be comparable to the 183C. But since I prefer the larger sensor, I should probably just go for that over the 183C rather than adding glass in front of the sensor trying to get greater FOV?
I would stay away from the 294MC, early adopters are reporting problems with calibration and cooling, and even Sam from ZWO is now positioning it as an EAA camera. The sensor architecture does not allow for even cooling of the rear of the chip, hence colour artifacts are appearing due to uneven strata cooling. It also has pretty bad AMP glow at longer exposure times.

You can read some of the concerns with the 294 on this ZWO support forum thread:
https://bbs.astronomy-imaging-camera...hp?f=21&t=8007


The 1600 is a well known camera with a good reputation and no vices.
Reply With Quote