KAF16803 supercessor?

Slawomir (Suavi) · #1 22-07-2018, 07:57 PM

Hi all,

This might be old news to some, but GSENSE6060 sensor seems to have a potential to not only excite us mortals, but perhaps even tempt some of the lucky KAF16803 users

http://www.gpixelinc.com/en/index.php?s=/b/109.html

gregbradley · #2 22-07-2018, 07:59 PM

Sounds good on paper.

Greg.

Atmos (Colin) · #3 22-07-2018, 08:03 PM

I think you mean the GSENSE4040 sensor which FLI is currently using in their Kepler4040 camera

I've been drooling over it for a bit now.

Slawomir (Suavi) · #4 22-07-2018, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atmos

I think you mean the GSENSE4040 sensor which FLI is currently using in their Kepler4040 camera

I've been drooling over it for a bit now.

4040? Nope, click on the link Colin

You need something bigger than the current King of CCDs to lure the lucky ones

Greg - I think since FLI is using those sensors, means they must be good

Lognic04 (Logan) · #5 22-07-2018, 08:15 PM

Atmos (Colin) · #6 22-07-2018, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slawomir

4040? Nope, click on the link Colin

You need something bigger than the current King of CCDs to lure the lucky ones

Greg - I think since FLI is using those sensors, means they must be good

Ah I'm with you now. The GSENSE-4040 is a potential direct replacement of the KAF-16803. The GSENSE-6060 is the 4040 on roids

LewisM · #7 22-07-2018, 09:54 PM

Size doesn't matter

gregbradley · #8 24-07-2018, 10:16 PM

https://optcorp.com/products/fli-kep...minated-camera

It doesn't sound that impressive. Less full well than the CCD (105K for the CCD versus 78K). Slightly less QE at 58%. Lower read noise. Not sure what that means in terms of images as the 16803 is very clean.

Higher price. Appears to only be in the Kepler model. Not sure if that is good or not.

The higher version you linked sounds like a step up. This one seems like a step sideways.

I just read the comparison between 16803 and the 4040. Yes there seems to be some advantages. The backside illuminated sensor is the go though. Big bucks.

Greg.

Atmos (Colin) · #9 24-07-2018, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregbradley

https://optcorp.com/products/fli-kep...minated-camera

It doesn't sound that impressive. Less full well than the CCD (105K for the CCD versus 78K). Slightly less QE at 58%. Lower read noise. Not sure what that means in terms of images as the 16803 is very clean.

Higher price. Appears to only be in the Kepler model. Not sure if that is good or not.

The higher version you linked sounds like a step up. This one seems like a step sideways.

I just read the comparison between 16803 and the 4040. Yes there seems to be some advantages. The backside illuminated sensor is the go though. Big bucks.

Greg.

http://www.flicamera.com/spec_sheets/KL4040.pdf
The 4040 has a peak QE of 74% and although it’s well depths aren’t quite as deep it requires 4-6x less exposure time to become read noise limited giving it a significantly higher dynamic range.

Slawomir (Suavi) · #10 25-07-2018, 06:21 AM

However, the 6060 that I originally mentioned is bigger, has 120k wells, 3.5e RE and 95%QE resulting in 90dB dynamic range (KAF16803 is around 80dB). And yes, price advantage that smaller CMOS offer vanishes since these are not mass produced and being new and large are very expensive.

Atmos (Colin) · #11 25-07-2018, 07:31 AM

Sounds like the perfect wide field sensor for the FSQ-106/130

gregbradley · #12 25-07-2018, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atmos

http://www.flicamera.com/spec_sheets/KL4040.pdf
The 4040 has a peak QE of 74% and although it’s well depths aren’t quite as deep it requires 4-6x less exposure time to become read noise limited giving it a significantly higher dynamic range.

Ah yes. The Optcorp site shows it incorrectly as 58% QE.

Yes a gain but my FLI ML16 has 6 electron read noise. I am not sure where the read noise shows it head in images as 16803 even at its higher read noise is hardly described as noisy. Its very clean especially using the slower digitisation rates.

The backside models seem more interesting. Sony has been selling backside illuminated sensors for their's others' cameras for a few years now.

My Sony A7r3 has less than 1.5 electron read noise, unknown QE but probably around 60% despite a Bayer filter array and its 42.4mp. But unless you can get a mono version of it I can't see it competing with the 16803 at this stage.

Greg.

Atmos (Colin) · #13 25-07-2018, 07:28 PM

The BSI version of the 6060 is very interesting but certainly a more specialised sensor with its enormous size.

A mono version of either the Sony A7R3 or Nikon D850 would be a worth investment if they were to ever be made.

gregbradley · #14 25-07-2018, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atmos

http://www.flicamera.com/spec_sheets/KL4040.pdf
The 4040 has a peak QE of 74% and although it’s well depths aren’t quite as deep it requires 4-6x less exposure time to become read noise limited giving it a significantly higher dynamic range.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atmos

The BSI version of the 6060 is very interesting but certainly a more specialised sensor with its enormous size.

A mono version of either the Sony A7R3 or Nikon D850 would be a worth investment if they were to ever be made.

QHY sell a 400BSI camera. That's the model those images on the FLI Kepler promo page from Gerald Rheman and Wolfgang used.

Greg.

Slawomir (Suavi) · #15 26-07-2018, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregbradley

QHY sell a 400BSI camera. That's the model those images on the FLI Kepler promo page from Gerald Rheman and Wolfgang used.

Greg.

It's all interesting, but in reality, I think an amateur astronomer would be much better off with FLI16200 for less than half the price of what QHY asks for their QHY42. It looks like unless it is a mass produced sensor, a specialised CMOS is at least as expensive as CCD.

gregbradley · #16 29-07-2018, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slawomir

It's all interesting, but in reality, I think an amateur astronomer would be much better off with FLI16200 for less than half the price of what QHY asks for their QHY42. It looks like unless it is a mass produced sensor, a specialised CMOS is at least as expensive as CCD.

I know QHY are up and coming but I wonder how good their quality is over time with use. FLI is proven.

Yes I agree the cost/benefit ratio is not good enough at this stage to upgrade.

sCMOS would probably only mean a lot of underexposed images that are not as deep as we all want to see.

Greg.

Slawomir (Suavi) · #17 29-07-2018, 05:01 PM

FLI is bees knees for sure. I think Moravian's new MarkII cameras with improved download times and lower RN are an interesting alternative, in particular that these have an integrated/dedicated FW and OAG and the price is significantly less too.

gregbradley · #18 29-07-2018, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slawomir

FLI is bees knees for sure. I think Moravian's new MarkII cameras with improved download times and lower RN are an interesting alternative, in particular that these have an integrated/dedicated FW and OAG and the price is significantly less too.

An integrated filter wheel and OAG is a big plus.

Greg.

gregbradley · #19 30-07-2018, 04:07 PM

Just got the prices back from QHY. Expensive. I don't see these cameras as being a threat to the 16803 yet. They are too expensive.

QHY42 US$14,000
QHY4040 US$14,000
QHY 6060 US$28,000.

Its the 6060 that seems to be the one that is significantly better than the 16803. But is it better than the 50100 FLI 50MP camera which is around US$16,000?

Greg.

Peter Ward · #20 30-07-2018, 04:16 PM

Amp glow is still a problem with CMOS...hence for very faint sources that need 20 minute subs just to capture a hand-full of photons CCD's still look to have an edge.

My money....with the proviso of some sort of financial windfall landing in my bank account....is on EMCCD's