ICEINSPACE
Most Read Articles
Moon Phase
CURRENT MOON Waxing Gibbous
96.5%
The Sun Now
Time Zones
Sydney*
2:08 pm
Perth
11:08 am
Auckland*
4:08 pm
New York
10:08 pm
Paris
4:08 am
GMT
3:08 am




Go Back   IceInSpace > Equipment > Astrophotography and Imaging Equipment and Discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #41  
Old 26-08-2013, 12:17 PM
h0ughy's Avatar
h0ughy (David)
DOGHOUSE REBORN

h0ughy is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NEWCASTLE NSW Australia
Posts: 30,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by PRejto View Post
I'm going to stop (with this post) pointing towards the G2-8300 camera, but will for the final time say that it is very good value for money. It has deep 2 stage cooling and an inbuilt wheel. I can run at -20 all year with no problem. I have not tried -25 but it might do it. Probably 1.25" filters would work fine with flats. I doubt there is much difference here between the QSI regarding filters, and probably not too much that would let a person say that a particular shot was taken with the QSI or the Moravian. A bit like wine tasting I say; the power of suggestion is always great. All of the photos I have put a link to earlier in this thread were taken in bad light pollution. Are they as good as a dark site. Of course not, but they were fun and continue to be so, if not a little frustrating. All were taken with a Hutech IDAS LP in front of Astrononmik filters. Naturally a larger pixel camera will cost more and have greater well depth.

Peter
so your lrgb were taken with the light polution filter in place - did you or have you used narrowband filters?
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 26-08-2013, 03:10 PM
h0ughy's Avatar
h0ughy (David)
DOGHOUSE REBORN

h0ughy is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NEWCASTLE NSW Australia
Posts: 30,212
looking harder into this i see now where the QSI 686wsg is $5700 and for the same price i can get a Moravian G3-11000 with 5 pos filter wheel for under that price - thats the next chip up!!

the FLI proline is $9400.

after that i dont think my focusers could handle the weight of anything else - or my wallet. So i could go a 8300 in the QSI, or go cheaper in the moravian, or i could just go up market to larger real estate and get the 11002 chip in the moravian for the same price as the 8300 QSI? Phone a friend......50/50.......
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 26-08-2013, 03:16 PM
PRejto's Avatar
PRejto (Peter)
Registered User

PRejto is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by h0ughy View Post
so your lrgb were taken with the light polution filter in place - did you or have you used narrowband filters?

Yes, just one but I think it came out pretty nice (Astronomik Ha 12 mm filter). If I were doing this again I'd use the TEC flattener and I'd do longer subs and longer total time!:

http://www.pbase.com/prejto/horsehead_nebula

and yes, all the other photos posted at PBase are with the Hutech in front of the LRGB filters.

Peter
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 26-08-2013, 03:34 PM
naskies's Avatar
naskies (Dave)
Registered User

naskies is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,865
Quote:
Originally Posted by h0ughy View Post
looking harder into this i see now where the QSI 686wsg is $5700 and for the same price i can get a Moravian G3-11000 with 5 pos filter wheel for under that price - thats the next chip up!!
Don't forget the price of filters... For example, a 1.25" 3 nm OIII Astrodon filter is $425, but the 50 mm version that you'd need for the 11000 chip is $925. This is towards the upper end of the quality spectrum, but you get the idea - it adds up for a full LRGB + Ha SII OIII set.

Reducers/flatteners/focusers/etc that can support a 11000 chip may also be more expensive.

Also - depending upon the filter wheel, having to swap out LRGB filters out of the carousel for NB filters can be a royal pain (i.e. with the 5 pos FW).
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 26-08-2013, 04:26 PM
Bassnut's Avatar
Bassnut (Fred)
Narrowfield rules!

Bassnut is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 4,771
Yes, and can your OTAs handle the image circle of an 11k chip?, it's pretty big.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 26-08-2013, 04:49 PM
h0ughy's Avatar
h0ughy (David)
DOGHOUSE REBORN

h0ughy is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NEWCASTLE NSW Australia
Posts: 30,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassnut View Post
Yes, and can your OTAs handle the image circle of an 11k chip?, it's pretty big.
the 127 has a removable 2" so that a 3" hole is available? the 14" well can make that with an eyeopener and lots of wizardry, i dunno magic happens

you image with yours dont you Fred?
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 26-08-2013, 04:51 PM
h0ughy's Avatar
h0ughy (David)
DOGHOUSE REBORN

h0ughy is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NEWCASTLE NSW Australia
Posts: 30,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by naskies View Post
Don't forget the price of filters... For example, a 1.25" 3 nm OIII Astrodon filter is $425, but the 50 mm version that you'd need for the 11000 chip is $925. This is towards the upper end of the quality spectrum, but you get the idea - it adds up for a full LRGB + Ha SII OIII set.

Reducers/flatteners/focusers/etc that can support a 11000 chip may also be more expensive.

Also - depending upon the filter wheel, having to swap out LRGB filters out of the carousel for NB filters can be a royal pain (i.e. with the 5 pos FW).
ok so is there a pecking order? i was looking as Baader
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 26-08-2013, 04:56 PM
Bassnut's Avatar
Bassnut (Fred)
Narrowfield rules!

Bassnut is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 4,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by h0ughy View Post
the 127 has a removable 2" so that a 3" hole is available? the 14" well can make that with an eyeopener and lots of wizardry, i dunno magic happens

you image with yours dont you Fred?
In the past I imaged with 12" Meade with a much smaller chip, I don't know how it would go with an 11k, might be worth a bit of homework 1st.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 26-08-2013, 05:26 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 14,850
The choice is a bit easier than this really Houghy.

Not all scopes as has been pointed out can handle an 11002 chip.

Because you live in light pollution your option is narrowband. Narrowband requries strongish cooling to keep the noise down as the signal is weaker than broadband. You also ideally need to be able to do long exposures.

So there are 3 factors here:

1. What size chip can your scopes handle including weight of the final camera package? (11002 requires a largish focuser like 3 inches, 2.7 may not work as it did not with my FS152 Tak, I had to upgrade it to a 4 inch focuser and then all the accessories cost way more like reducers).

2. Narrowband filters are expensive. The 11002 will require 50.2mm round filters. These cost around $550 each or more. The QSI583 can get by with smaller filters per several recommendations. Those filters can cost half as much.

3. Guiding. Because you are going to do long exposures you need a good guiding solution. OAGs are proven to be one of the best. SBIG probably has the best range of autoguiding solutions then QSI. The latest STF8300 has a built in OAG, the later models have a guide chip in the filter wheel. The guide chip has to be in front of the filters as narrowband will block the guide stars badly with a self guiding camera and my experience was it made it impractical. So its OAG or chip in filter wheel. So that narrows it to SBIG or QSI. Both have good clean electronics and cooling. Or use a FLI or Apogee and buy an OAG and fit it in front of it (that's what I use).
FLI Microline is about $3500 I thought. A MOAG is about $900 add a few hundred for adapters and more for a filter wheel and filters. It adds up.
SBIG and QSI start looking good for the overall system.
You may already have autoguiding solutions - forget guide scopes though unless they are working really well. We are talking 20-40 minute exposures with narrowband. Not going to work well with a guide scope.

You also may get better results with 3nm Ha and O111 and save money on the smaller filters required for the QSI and get the higher rated ones.
I think QSI allows the smallest filters.

So to me 11002 would be out. QSI or SBIG would stay in. A 3rd may be the new Starlight Express 694 chip -its more sensitive than 8300 and SX also sell a filter wheel and OAG unit for it. You already have a lodestar.
The chip is a tad smaller than KAF8300 though but higher QE.

Greg.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 26-08-2013, 05:31 PM
DavidTrap's Avatar
DavidTrap (David)
Really just a beginner

DavidTrap is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 2,798
Lodestar on a QSIWSG (OAG cover) is magic!

DT
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 26-08-2013, 05:39 PM
Bassnut's Avatar
Bassnut (Fred)
Narrowfield rules!

Bassnut is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 4,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidTrap View Post
Lodestar on a QSIWSG (OAG cover) is magic!

DT
Yes, that seems to be the go with everything built in. They appear to get away with smaller filters on some chips because the integrated filter wheel has the filters very close to the chip.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 26-08-2013, 08:33 PM
h0ughy's Avatar
h0ughy (David)
DOGHOUSE REBORN

h0ughy is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NEWCASTLE NSW Australia
Posts: 30,212
that Starlight Express 694M looks interesting with that High QE

http://www.sxccd.com/trius-h694

Last edited by h0ughy; 26-08-2013 at 08:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 26-08-2013, 08:35 PM
h0ughy's Avatar
h0ughy (David)
DOGHOUSE REBORN

h0ughy is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NEWCASTLE NSW Australia
Posts: 30,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidTrap View Post
Lodestar on a QSIWSG (OAG cover) is magic!

DT
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassnut View Post
Yes, that seems to be the go with everything built in. They appear to get away with smaller filters on some chips because the integrated filter wheel has the filters very close to the chip.
you guys might be right but may look at the alternatives - this isn't an easy task
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 26-08-2013, 08:46 PM
naskies's Avatar
naskies (Dave)
Registered User

naskies is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,865
Quote:
Originally Posted by h0ughy View Post
ok so is there a pecking order? i was looking as Baader
In short, the narrower the bandwidth the better (assuming transmittance remains high). Narrower means higher contrast nebulosity, smaller stars, and better blocking of light pollution and moonlight.

Here are some good examples of the difference:

http://www.astrodon.com/custom/_2e2a...sidebyside.jpg
http://www.astrodon.com/Orphan/astrodonfaqnarrowband/
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 27-08-2013, 07:33 AM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 14,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by h0ughy View Post
that Starlight Express 694M looks interesting with that High QE

http://www.sxccd.com/trius-h694
The current IOTW and Mike Sidonios latest images are taken with the H694. The Trius is the latest hardware version of this camera and it would be preferable mainly for the argon in the ccd chamber and for the extra power ports and usb ports that make it easy to use a filter wheel, guider, AO device without a lot of extra long cables. It costs about $3500 or so. The earlier model is about US$2300 or so at Ooptcorp.com.

Greg.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 29-08-2013, 12:07 PM
h0ughy's Avatar
h0ughy (David)
DOGHOUSE REBORN

h0ughy is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NEWCASTLE NSW Australia
Posts: 30,212
well i am looking harder and comparing both rigs with the same brand of filters and same quantity - i am liking the moravian more. i have prices for two comparable setups, the moravian is cheaper, but quality wise i dont see the difference. here is a pic of the setup i would have if i chose the moravian. i also got a price for use with the 36mm filters which means i could use it to image down to f3 without vignetting
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (g2_8300.jpg)
50.8 KB72 views
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 31-08-2013, 12:44 PM
h0ughy's Avatar
h0ughy (David)
DOGHOUSE REBORN

h0ughy is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NEWCASTLE NSW Australia
Posts: 30,212
just found out the qsi wsg8 model is 1.600kg without filters, the Moravian Weight of camera head + external 10 pos filter wheel 1.7 kg so they are similar in weight
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 31-08-2013, 10:15 PM
strongmanmike's Avatar
strongmanmike (Michael)
Woohoo it's clear

strongmanmike is offline
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 14,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by h0ughy View Post
that Starlight Express 694M looks interesting with that High QE

http://www.sxccd.com/trius-h694
Yeah well, I am using the SXVR-H694 with Loadstar, SX OAG and SX CFW and I can't complain and the Trius is even betterer:

Good luck with your decision Houghy

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 31-08-2013, 11:16 PM
h0ughy's Avatar
h0ughy (David)
DOGHOUSE REBORN

h0ughy is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NEWCASTLE NSW Australia
Posts: 30,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by strongmanmike View Post
Yeah well, I am using the SXVR-H694 with Loadstar, SX OAG and SX CFW and I can't complain and the Trius is even betterer:

Good luck with your decision Houghy

Mike
thanks Mike - its not easy
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 05-09-2013, 10:21 AM
h0ughy's Avatar
h0ughy (David)
DOGHOUSE REBORN

h0ughy is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NEWCASTLE NSW Australia
Posts: 30,212
Well i made a decision, based on flexibility of being able to be used on any scope up to F3 i went with the moravian camera setup.

for me it was clear, the moravian had its own camera software as well as the fact it had ASCOM drivers, the QSI had a lite version of maxim, so if you wanted full functionality you needed maximdl and be $500 poorer, but it also has ASCOM drivers so I could have used other software – but I don’t have to buy software with the Moravian.

The QSI had a maximum filter of 8 1.25”, the Moravian had a 12 position filter wheel but I chose to get the 10 position and use 36mm filters – using 9 filters.

Pricewise they were both close, with the Moravian cheaper on comparative 8 filters option, but the Moravian is more modular than the QSI.

Off axis guider – both cameras had the option

Build – I know the Moravian cameras have selected sensors, not so sure about the QSI but having seen both at astorfest the Moravian does look more robust. Both can be cooled to a massive amount (we will call it -20C) which could be maintained throughout the year. The QSI is more compact.

While it probably wont be the choice made by some others I think it has been a process where you have to choose your use, scope selection and useability. I couldn’t afford the astrodons, maybe for me with my level of ability and use I also couldn’t justify the cost? If I win lotto eh ?
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 01:08 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Interest Free Finance
Advertisement
SkyWatcher WiFi Adaptor
Advertisement
FLI Cameras and Imaging Accessories
Advertisement
SkyWatcher 2018 Catalogue
Advertisement
OzScopes Authorised Dealer
Advertisement
Lunatico Astronomical
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
NexDome Observatories
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement