#1  
Old 17-10-2019, 03:25 PM
peeb61's Avatar
peeb61 (Paul)
Always looking up

peeb61 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Wollongong
Posts: 697
Advice on CMOS camera

Hi All,

Just a quick question, I'm in the market for a new cooled camera for astroimaging, my imaging scope is a skywatcher MakNewt 190mm f/5.3.

Having used an QHY8L for a number of years I've been very happy with it and its still powering on, had a couple of issues in the last couple of months setting up the new Obs but alas all is well.

I do also have a bit of light pollution thrown into the mix as well so.....

I was looking at a cmos sensor so the QHY-183 C or the ZWO ASI183MC Pro.

I know no one can tell me which one is better but maybe pros and cons?

Many thanks in advance.

Paul
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 17-10-2019, 03:36 PM
glend (Glen)
Registered User

glend is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Lake Macquarie
Posts: 5,334
My own experience with the MN190 over several years, showed me that the ASI1600 was a great choice for that focal length. And consider the mono version, it gives you increased resolution and narrowband options (where many of us wind up).
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 17-10-2019, 03:52 PM
peeb61's Avatar
peeb61 (Paul)
Always looking up

peeb61 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Wollongong
Posts: 697
Thanks Glen,

So the higher the pixel size the better?

2.4 um v 3.8 um ?

Paul
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 17-10-2019, 03:53 PM
Atmos's Avatar
Atmos (Colin)
Ultimate Noob

Atmos is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 6,289
They both have the same sensor so there is virtually no difference between them. Although the following comments aren’t in relation to this product in particular, my experience is that QHY built better hardware while ZWO has better software (drivers).
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 17-10-2019, 04:13 PM
peeb61's Avatar
peeb61 (Paul)
Always looking up

peeb61 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Wollongong
Posts: 697
Thanks Colin, this makes sense!

Much appreciated.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 17-10-2019, 04:42 PM
Atmos's Avatar
Atmos (Colin)
Ultimate Noob

Atmos is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 6,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by peeb61 View Post
Thanks Glen,

So the higher the pixel size the better?

2.4 um v 3.8 um ?

Paul
Between these two, given your 1000mm focal length the 3.8 micron pixels are a better match unless you get truly exceptional seeing where you are
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 17-10-2019, 04:54 PM
peeb61's Avatar
peeb61 (Paul)
Always looking up

peeb61 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Wollongong
Posts: 697
Thanks again Glen,

The 2.4 is the QHY183c, the 3.8 is for the ASI1600.

I have LP issues, my viewing is good but not exceptional. Hence the use of filters to try and tame the beast!

Paul

Last edited by peeb61; 17-10-2019 at 08:39 PM.
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 02:33 AM.

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