ICEINSPACE
Moon Phase
CURRENT MOON
Full Moon 99.8%
|
|
16-01-2019, 07:07 PM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Spokane Washington
Posts: 65
|
|
ASI183MM Pro vs ASI1600MM Pro?
I am trying to decide between these two cameras to use on a SkyWatcher Esprit 100. The 1600 has a larger sensor, larger pixels, and will provide a wider field of view than the 183. On the other hand, the 183 has much better QE, resolution, and would seem to be better for binning. I am looking to get the best possible deep sky images I can and not sure which of the two would be better suited for the task... Does the higher read noise and smaller sensor of the 183 take it off the table?
Last edited by thercman; 16-01-2019 at 07:21 PM.
|
16-01-2019, 11:42 PM
|
|
Drifting from the pole
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 5,429
|
|
Greg, I have and Esprit 100 and both a 1600 and a 178, the latter being the smaller sized sibling of the 183, possessing the same 2.4 micron pixels architecture.
They are certainly different animals. The higher QE of the 183 doesn’t much compensate, in practice, for the significantly smaller photosite...the 3.8 micron pixels of the 1600 have 2.5x the area.
I find the 178 needs more light (i.e. exposure time) to get the best out of it, but it can eek out that last bit of detail from the scope, assuming the atmosphere cooperates. On an average night, you won’t notice the difference, and the 1600 will get you signal more quickly.
The 178 is much more tricky to calibrate, and doesn’t always work perfectly, and after stacking you can sometimes still see some pattern noise. The 1600, on the other hand, is a very solid performer and produces nice clean results, making it amenable to a dark library. The 178 is a less consistent performer in that respect. Some of the darks I’ve seen from the 183 are shocking.
Pros and cons for sure. If there was a smaller pixelled version of the 1600, I’d get one in a heartbeat, but the Sony sensors (178/183) come with baggage when it comes to DSO imaging.
|
17-01-2019, 01:02 AM
|
Feel free to edit my imag
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Llandysul, WALES, UK
Posts: 1,381
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by thercman
I am trying to decide between these two cameras to use on a SkyWatcher Esprit 100. The 1600 has a larger sensor, larger pixels, and will provide a wider field of view than the 183. On the other hand, the 183 has much better QE, resolution, and would seem to be better for binning. I am looking to get the best possible deep sky images I can and not sure which of the two would be better suited for the task... Does the higher read noise and smaller sensor of the 183 take it off the table?
|
Unfortunately you will find each have their good and bad points and finally it will be a case of close your eyes and take a pick
|
17-01-2019, 03:28 AM
|
|
PI cult recruiter
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 10,584
|
|
Here are a few simple numbers that might help with a decision. I have assumed you're not using a reducer, so focal length is 550mm.
ASI1600mm: image scale 1.43 arcsec/pixel, FOV 1.84x1.39 degrees. That image scale will be quite forgiving of bad seeing and imperfect guiding and would be well sampled at around 5 arcseconds.
ASI183mm: image scale 0.9 arcsec/pixel, FOV 1.37x0.92 degrees. Image scale means you're well sampled at around 3 arcseconds, so less forgiving on seeing and guiding but not impossibly so.
The ASI1600mm system will be about 1.8x faster taking into account the QE of each camera and the pixel size/area.
Now you have to think about the size of the objects you want to image, the resolution you'd want to achieve and whether faster imaging is a priority for you.
Cheers,
Rick.
|
17-01-2019, 07:19 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: North Queensland
Posts: 3,240
|
|
What Rick said + I would also consider diffraction caused by 100mm aperture meaning sampling at 0.9arcseconds per pixel might be a bit on the optimistic side. Therefore my vote goes for ASI1600MM.
|
17-01-2019, 09:08 AM
|
|
Ultimate Noob
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 6,983
|
|
I’d agree that the ASI1600 is a lot more general purpose than the ASI183 for many of the reasons already discussed.
|
18-01-2019, 09:53 AM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 22
|
|
I recently purchased a asi1600mm pro off an iceinspace user after emailing zwo. It may or may not add value but no harm in sharing.
Their comments were:
1. 1600mm pro is still their best camera for mono DSO I'm terms of specs but obviously heaps of factors here that may impact which is preferred (E.g. pixel size).
2. In a few months they will release an update where the small filter wheel (holds 5 filters) is integrated into the camera body.
|
23-01-2019, 06:04 PM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Spokane Washington
Posts: 65
|
|
Hi Everyone!
Sorry I haven't responded sooner. Anyway I have read everything you guys have posted and it's all very informative, thanks!
When I purchase lenses for my camera I just buy native lenses since they are already manufactured to work with the camera system. Wouldn't it be great if the astronomy camera manufactures got together with a couple of the scope manufactures and designed a sensor specifically for the glass? Of coarse this would need to be done on a limited basis since there are many refractors on the market. (Just thinking out loud here)
Thanks again for the advice, I will be picking up a 1600 soon...
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +10. The time is now 09:28 PM.
|
|