Quote:
Originally Posted by gregbradley
Per your list of requirements there is only one camera that meets that and that is the QSI660 or 690WSG. I think that is around US$4,100 which would be outside your budget.
The SX Trius would come in under the budget with the USB filter wheel and OAG.
Sizewise the Sony is not that much smaller than the KAF8300. Well depth is similar with the Kodak a bit deeper. KAF8300 is about 15 x 12mm and Sony ICX694 is about 12 x 9mm.
I have had problems with star bloat but others have not so not sure what that is about. Shorter exposures do work as a strategy with this camera.
There are 2 areas where the Sony is considerably superior - much higher QE -77% and still 66% in Ha for the 694 and about 6 % less for the 814.
Low noise, the Sony is very clean indeed. I have a FLI Microline 8300 and it is also very noisefree at -15C on. I don't agree the KAF8300 is very noisy. You may be looking at poor quality electronics and confusing that with the chip. Older SBIG cameras were like that, the latest STXL are clean and the higher SBIG 8300 cameras have better electronics.
My Microline 8300 is pure clean at -20 and I run it at -35 to -40 where its super clean.
The Sony would be the one for narrowband. Its way more sensitive than the KAF8300 for narrowband. I am finding it is giving me superior results when using narrowband filters.
You'd have to work out the cost of the Trius 814, the USB filter wheel, the OAG and the larger filters (36mm) versus QSI all in one package with 31mm filters (the filters are closer to the sensor so they get away with smaller filters). Its probably much the same and if you add in the lower cost of 31mm narrowband filters, especially 3nm ones the QSI may be a tad cheaper. My choice would be the QSI as I find these all in one packages like the SBIG STL very appealling clean and simple solution. The 814 would be a good match for a shorter focal length refractor. Say US$4100 plus US$475 for some Astrodon I series LRGB, plus an SBIG STi or Lodestar X2 (Lodestar does not like CCDsoft and is oriented towards Maxim DL).
Greg.
|
Thanks for your insightful comments Greg. Much as I like the look of the QSI's it's made me have a good long look at the Starlight xpress range today. Hmmm...
Quote:
Originally Posted by PRejto
Judge for yourself. I just used my TEC140 as a reference.
|
Um, er yeah - can't argue with that Peter! (Insert sheepish look) I didn't understand how more pixels gave a smaller FOV but i've been enlightened now- cheers!
Quote:
Originally Posted by phomer
Andy,
There is very little noise when running the QSI583 cooled to -10 and lower and what little there is is easily removed by using darks. I normally use -15 as it gets there all year round, whereas -20 or lower are not able to be achieved in Summer. The 683 improves the cooling over the 583 so it should be able to reach -20 year round. I cannot comment on the support, however, as it has not given me any issues in the 3 years I have owned it. In fact I know of noone that has had any issues. It would need to be returned to the USA though.
Regarding the different sensors, the Kodak has larger pixels 5.4 microns vs 3.69 and that is why the detector is larger and will give a wider field, with slightly fewer pixels. The sensors are 17.96mm x 13.52mm vs 12.48mm x 9.98mm which is significantly larger.
In addition each Kodak pixel can hold about 25,500 electrons as against 18,000 or so (this figure was hard to find and is a bit uncertain). The pixel dark current is 0.025 vs 0.002 at -10. This should give a greater dynamic range to the 8300 as the read noise is essentially the same but lower for the Sony ICX814.
One other thing is the Sony 9mpix takes about 2 seconds longer to download, 12 against 16 seconds although I would not let that influence me.
Just one further thing is that it is probably no longer valid to call it a Kodak Sensor as they are now produced by Truesense imaging.
Regards
Paul
|
Thanks Paul, that clears up a few misconceptions that I had. You guys certainly make a good case for the Sony chip cameras
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregbradley
The bottom line is both are good. You'd be happy with either.
The Starlight Express 814 got camera of the year last year so that also says something.
Both are close to ideal pixel/arc sec seeing. Around 1 pixel/arc sec is good and both are close to that.
The Sony would be better for narrowband but you are losing a bit of field of view.
Greg.
|
Thanks Greg, I was really surprised by the smaller FOV of the Sony, but overall it seems a better fit for me. I guess I could always look forward to getting a shorter FL 'scope one day for a wider FOV ... those Tak 106's sure look nice, but the new WO 81 might be a more realistic proposition to run by SWMBO in the short to medium term.
I'll send off quote requests/wish lists to the Starlight & QSI reps this week and see how it all pans out from there. Much will depend on the cost of the camera, OAG, FW & filters together.
Meanwhile if anyone has a second hand one they would like to sell I'm interested
Cheers
Andy