#61  
Old 09-12-2009, 07:06 AM
Kal's Avatar
Kal (Andrew)
1" v

Kal is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by netwolf View Post
Were it not for Qhy what would the ST8300 cost? competition is good and glad its there in this. I would like to see more affordable cameras like this in the future.
By the same token, were it not for the ST-8300 what would the QHY9 cost? This one can be answered!

Competition is good
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 09-12-2009, 07:08 AM
rat156's Avatar
rat156
Registered User

rat156 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by netwolf View Post
The Sbig and Qhy camera being discussed in the OP use the Kodak chip. What is the purpose of raising an issue about a Sony chip that is not even in the camera's being discussed. Based on the OP the discussion is comparing two camera with the same Kodak sensor, can we stay on topic here guys. Snip...
What's wrong with a three page discussion meandering a bit? The OP's intention was to discuss the finer points of the two cameras in question, but this, at least IMHO, requires that we bring up other products made by the two manufacturers in question. When someone asks about a particular product many people may recommend an alternative as they may know of a similar priced product which may suit the users needs more. I have no problem with the raising of the ST10 and QHY8 in this subject, in fact I would recommend that the OP look at an ST10 secondhand before buying anything new.

Quote:
Originally Posted by netwolf View Post
My only experince with a SBIG was my friend ST-237 and it was the first hands on i had with a CCD camera. It was awesome compared to the later borrowed DSI experience i had. The software, the camera, the filters it all just worked. I would like to know how true this is for the ST8300 and the Qhy9 users.
This part annoys me, you ask other people to stay on topic (by which you mean discuss only the two cameras mentioned by the OP), then immediately bring some other cameras into the discussion. If you make rules you have to stick to them! The last sentence almost relates it back to the topic, but not quite.

Quote:
Originally Posted by netwolf View Post
I would suggest a seperate thread to discuss AQE, as it seems to merit discussion on weahter such a curve could be derived for the Sony's.

Also its worth considering that it is the very comppetivie pricing of the Qhy that has brought abou the recent response in lowering of prices by other establisedh companies. Were it not for Qhy what would the ST8300 cost? competition is good and glad its there in this. I would like to see more affordable cameras like this in the future.
A separate thread on AQE would die a very quick death, it's too esoteric, it would degenerate into Ward bashing in no time. I don't know what you guys have against the Ferrari driving, airline piloting local SBIG dealer. Of course he's going to point out the good points of his camera range, of course he's going to mention the weak points of the opposition. I really don't think Peter makes a fortune out of selling his astro gear, he does it as a bit of a service really, OK he charges like the proverbial wounded bovine, but he doesn't sell enough to pay for the Ferrari's clutch. I have owned three SBIG products and not bought them off Peter. Secondhand is the way to go for CCD cameras! They can be much cheaper and as long as you ask for darkframes etc the purchase is pretty safe, all three of mine came from Astromart, all have been fine.

Cheers
Stuart
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 09-12-2009, 07:18 AM
multiweb's Avatar
multiweb (Marc)
ze frogginator

multiweb is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hinchinbrook
Posts: 18,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hagar View Post
but Peters comments could easily be construed as a direct attack on the QHY range of cameras. As an SBIG dealer Peter appears to be holding up the SBIG Halo and making an open attempt to degrade the standing of the QHY range in general at least from a performance point of view. This really is irrelevant to this question.
Mate ?! Doug... That's the second time you're pouring petrol on the flame in this thread. First time was with Alex. Peter and Theo are discussing QE and specs of the two cameras. I for one find the info in this thread very interesting coming from both sides. No need to start or steer towards another s**t fight.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 09-12-2009, 08:00 AM
Peter Ward's Avatar
Peter Ward
Galaxy hitchhiking guide

Peter Ward is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 6,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hagar View Post
........ Peters comments could easily be construed as a direct attack on the QHY range of cameras........

Give me a break!

My post was only an observation about the odd way *SONY* give out QE specs....and backed it up with an original Sony data sheet.

Sony's stating relative QE specs makes it difficult to know how well their sensors may perform....they may be fantastic, but the conversion data
to allow a real world comparasion to *any* other sensor is not there.

I very deliberately made no comment about the quality, of lack thereof, of any manufacturer's cameras as I figured it wouldn't go down too well with some..... Cheesh! You can't win....
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 09-12-2009, 08:14 AM
Kal's Avatar
Kal (Andrew)
1" v

Kal is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,798
Regarding the absolute QE debate, perhaps I am missing something, but on Gama's webpage for the QHY9 there is a graph showing absolute QE for the Sony KAF-8300 chip (link).

Microlensing is added to a CCD to reduce the effect that causes the drop in QE (to Effective QE) as some photons don't strike a part of the CCD that can record the strike. Adding a microlens helps ensure that a larger portion of the photons are recorded. Both the ST-8300 and the QHY9 use microlensed KAF-8300 CCD's yes?
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 09-12-2009, 08:29 AM
Peter Ward's Avatar
Peter Ward
Galaxy hitchhiking guide

Peter Ward is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 6,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal View Post
.... but on Gama's webpage for the QHY9 there is a graph showing absolute QE for the Sony KAF-8300 chip (link).

.......?
Kodak make the KAF-8300, not Sony. That's why there is some AQE data on it
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 09-12-2009, 08:31 AM
Tandum's Avatar
Tandum (Robin)
Registered User

Tandum is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Carindale, Brisbane.
Posts: 4,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal View Post
Regarding the absolute QE debate, perhaps I am missing something, but on Gama's webpage for the QHY9 there is a graph showing absolute QE for the Sony KAF-8300 chip (link).
This is why it's wrong to introduce Sony chips in this thread, it just confuses people. The KAF-8300 is a kodak chip.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 09-12-2009, 08:41 AM
Hagar (Doug)
Registered User

Hagar is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by multiweb View Post
Mate ?! Doug... That's the second time you're pouring petrol on the flame in this thread. First time was with Alex. Peter and Theo are discussing QE and specs of the two cameras. I for one find the info in this thread very interesting coming from both sides. No need to start or steer towards another s**t fight.
Marc, The point made here was that e are not discussing sony sensors, My recollection of the ST8300 and the QHY9 is that they both use Kodak CCD's, nothing to do with the way Sony relate QE to the purchasers.
If you want to accuse me of pouring petrol on a fire why not take a look in the mirror. Twice now you have stuck your nose in to a dscussion with nothing relavent to the question at hand. You openly breach the terms of service with things like "S**T". Another thing for you to bear in mind is you have only made posts in this thread to try and inflame the argument and get a response, you have not made one post RELEVANT to the question asked. You have only jumped to the aid of others who probably don't need or want your assistance. If you have nothing to say about the topic in question, why not keep quiet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Ward View Post
Give me a break!

My post was only an observation about the odd way *SONY* give out QE specs....and backed it up with an original Sony data sheet.

Sony's stating relative QE specs makes it difficult to know how well their sensors may perform....they may be fantastic, but the conversion data
to allow a real world comparasion to *any* other sensor is not there.

I very deliberately made no comment about the quality, of lack thereof, of any manufacturer's cameras as I figured it wouldn't go down too well with some..... Cheesh! You can't win....
Peter, the discussion was not about Sony CCD's but making this comparison does nothing to assist the original request for information and does appear to be an attempt, all be it a subtle attempt to show your product up as being superior. All up if Sony only provide this information I can't see why QUI ( QHY guy) and Theo shouldn't use this on their websites after all SBIG only print the information they aquire from Kodak. If Kodak only provided the same information I feel sure you and SBIG would use it on your web sites. Must be dificult for you to know which cap to wear. Dealer or user.

Last edited by Hagar; 10-12-2009 at 08:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 09-12-2009, 08:51 AM
Kal's Avatar
Kal (Andrew)
1" v

Kal is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,798
Thanks Robin and Peter... Obviously I was missing something big lol
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 09-12-2009, 09:26 AM
Peter Ward's Avatar
Peter Ward
Galaxy hitchhiking guide

Peter Ward is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 6,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hagar View Post
........
Peter, the discussion was not about Sony CCD's but making this comparison does nothing to assist the original request.........
Agreed, I was thinking in general terms.

QHY make a number of Sony based cameras as say, do SX and a quite a few others....not really relevant to cameras using the same KAF device...more a heads up for those looking at other alternatives.

That said I'm bemused at QHY's web info stating the KAF8300 as a 8.6 megapixel chip.

The chip has 8.3 meg active pixels....hence Kodak's nomenclature KAF *8300*
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 09-12-2009, 09:26 AM
netwolf's Avatar
netwolf
Registered User

netwolf is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,905
Stuart, I was simply asking for others experience with the cameras mentioend in the OP. By relating my experience i was setting the stage for the kind of information i was seeking.

If i think the AQE discusion is merited how is that an attack on Peter? I am just saying that it would be better served in a seperate thread. And it would avoid confussion.

Lastly as to competion well everyone agrees its good. That is a challenge to every camaera maker, bring it on.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 09-12-2009, 09:46 AM
Hagar (Doug)
Registered User

Hagar is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,646
Perhaps a Chinese interpretation of the Kodak Datasheet
Taken from the Kodak datasheet.

Parameter Typical Value
Architecture
Full Frame CCD; with
Square Pixels

Total Number of Pixels
3448 (H) x 2574 (V) =
approx. 8.90M

Number of Effective
Pixels
3358 (H) x 2536 (V) =
approx. 8.6M
Number of Active Pixels
3326 (H) x 2504 (V) =
approx. 8.3M

Pixel Size 5.4μm (H) x 5.4μm (V)
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 09-12-2009, 10:07 AM
Peter Ward's Avatar
Peter Ward
Galaxy hitchhiking guide

Peter Ward is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 6,635
http://www.qhyccd.com/QHY9.html

The camera image caption reads 8.6 megapixel. Cool.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 09-12-2009, 11:12 AM
OzRob's Avatar
OzRob (Rob)
Registered User

OzRob is offline
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Thailand
Posts: 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Ward View Post
Agreed, I was thinking in general terms.

QHY make a number of Sony based cameras as say, do SX and a quite a few others....not really relevant to cameras using the same KAF device...more a heads up for those looking at other alternatives.

That said I'm bemused at QHY's web info stating the KAF8300 as a 8.6 megapixel chip.

The chip has 8.3 meg active pixels....hence Kodak's nomenclature KAF *8300*
It is pretty clear to me what they state on their website:
Total pixel : 3448*2574 (8.9mega pixel)
Effective pixel: 3358*2536 (8.6mega pixel)
Active pixels: 3326*2504(8.3mega pixel)
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 09-12-2009, 11:38 AM
Gama's Avatar
Gama
Registered User

Gama is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by rat156 View Post
Umm, not to be a smartar$e, but the original question was SBIG or QHY9.
......Stuart
Your not Stuart, but Peter is bringing in the Sony Color sensor (ICX-453) and all other Sony sensors. The QHY-9 has a Kodak sensor like in every camera out there using the Kodak-8300, including the ST8300.
Why would you want to know about totally different cameras if the post is about the 2 competeing models asked ?, do you want a color camera with a Sony CCD?.
Lastly, what good would benefit you to know the QE of a different CCD powered camera to whats being compared ?, i can tell you the QE of Meades LPI camera, do you want that too ?.
This is my whole point.. Start another thread comparing QE's etc..


Theo.

Last edited by Gama; 09-12-2009 at 11:48 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 09-12-2009, 12:47 PM
iceman's Avatar
iceman (Mike)
Sir Post a Lot!

iceman is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Gosford, NSW, Australia
Posts: 36,709
I think everyone needs to take a breather here.

There's some good discussion but intermixed is some people getting very worked up. Unfortunately it's not bound to get any better with two competing CCD camera retailers both offering advice, opinions, data etc.

Please keep the emotion out of it. I'd hate to have to lock the thread to "force" people to take a breather and calm down.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 09-12-2009, 07:17 PM
marki's Avatar
marki
Waiting for next electron

marki is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,427
The bottom line with any of this is that the OP's question is not being or can not be answered yet as none of us has got our grubby hands on an ST8300 so why all the fuss? The SBIG may turn out to be a pig which I very much doubt or may turn out to be and absolute winner .

Mark

Last edited by marki; 09-12-2009 at 09:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 09-12-2009, 08:24 PM
CometGuy's Avatar
CometGuy
Registered User

CometGuy is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 942
In case anyone is wondering, the actual light sensitive area of the Kodak 8300 is the 3358 x 2536 pixels (the number quoted as "effective pixels"). So the light sensitive sensor area is 18.1 x 13.7mm.

Terry
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 09-12-2009, 08:32 PM
Peter Ward's Avatar
Peter Ward
Galaxy hitchhiking guide

Peter Ward is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 6,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by CometGuy View Post
In case anyone is wondering, the actual light sensitive area of the Kodak 8300 is the 3358 x 2536 pixels (the number quoted as "effective pixels"). So the light sensitive sensor area is 18.1 x 13.7mm.

Terry
The number of active pixels defines how many pixels end up in the image. The rest are used for engineering purposes and are rather moot.

KAF8300's are an 8.3 megapixel sensor. I look forward to seeing one sometime shortly after Christmas
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 09-12-2009, 08:41 PM
AlexN's Avatar
AlexN
Tunnel Vision

AlexN is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 6,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Ward View Post
I look forward to seeing one sometime shortly after Christmas
As do I mwahahha!!!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 04:14 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Celestron Australia
Advertisement
NexDome Observatories
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Meade Australia
Advertisement
SkyWatcher Australia
Advertisement
Lunatico Astronomical
Advertisement
OzScopes Authorised Dealer
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement