KAF16200 26.64mm x 17.76 (APSh) 3624 x 2424 pixels 6nm size. 37k full well. QE is a bit unclear its supposed to be similar or better than KAF8300. It may be a tad as the pixels are a little larger.
KAI8670 also APSh sized 8.6mp 12 electron read noise 7.4 nm pixels.
The 16200 sounds good. QHY are going to release a camera with a shutter like an SBIG. OAG and filter wheel combined for this 16200 sensor.
It could be a good upgrade for those who want a bit more FOV than their KAF8300 gives.
That's very interesting, thank you for the heads up Greg.
As for the 250mp camera...19,580 x 12,600 pixels with sensor size 28.7 x 19 mm that gives pixels 1.47 x 1.51 microns promising hopeless sensitivity and very shallow pixel wells...no thank you
EDIT: Canon specifies its 250mp sensor to be 29.2 x 20.2mm.
Wow, thanks for sharing Greg.
The new QHY cameras are interesting. Similar integrated format as QSI, integrated OAG, onboard RS232 and USB hub for mount and focus control. Looks like for another $500US they have a model with built in PC if I understand correctly including WiFi that could save having a small format PC strapped to your rig (as some people are starting to do).
Interesting times ahead.
Will be interesting to see the 16200 specs. Size would of APS-H sensor would be really nice to have - about 50% bigger in both dimensions for 135% more area that KAF 8300.
Read noise of 10 or 12 e- is horrible for smallish pixels Can't they get it at least halfway towards the RN on the Sony sensors which is down in the 3 to 5 region these days? The effect of read noise increases at its square so it gets ugly, especially for narrow band where you're almost certainly read noise limited.
I don't know Rick. STL11 was around 12 electrons read noise and there are plenty of great narrowband images from them.
Greg.
12e- is not great Greg, but it's a 9x9um pixel and collects a lot of photons. A 7.4x7.4 um pixel is 2/3 the area so you'd expect read noise of 8e- assuming no improvements in the technology. As I mentioned, the Sony chips do much better. It's not that you can't produce good images with high read noise but it takes a lot more data... and it's not like we get a lot of good weather!
Sony does do a better job. Its a shame they are shutting down their CCD production in favour of CMOS production.
Greg.
Can't say I'm overly impressed by the new sensor specs...though, have to admit, the ON Semi (Truesense) KAI-47051 is BIG!
...but...interline chips/ low well depth/14bit DA and/or high read noise doesn't seem very revolutionary to me.
I have two (not so cheap) Sony sensor cameras for solar work. The CMOS one looked good on paper, but the (previous model) Sony CCD is far superior.
I suspect the bean counters have already made the call, and for astro-imaging community, these new sensors may be akin to re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
A friend of mine in the life sciences business gets to play with all the cool low read noise cameras (1e- and less.) Unfortunately, they have small sensors and are stupidly expensive
I see there is a new Sony ICX695 is 14.6 x 12.88mm and nearly 80% QE. That's larger than the ICX694 which is 12.48 x 9.98mm. Still 6mp. Same size pixels. Did they space the pixels further apart and use a larger microlense? That's a very tricky way to get a bit more light into the sensor.
I see there is a new Sony ICX695 is 14.6 x 12.88mm and nearly 80% QE. That's larger than the ICX694 which is 12.48 x 9.98mm. Still 6mp. Same size pixels. Did they space the pixels further apart and use a larger microlense? That's a very tricky way to get a bit more light into the sensor.
I can't find a data sheet for the ICX695 but I found another camera vendor who says it is 12.5x10.0mm. That's the same as the result I get when I do the arithmetic. Did you get the info from the QHY site, Greg? Perhaps it is not accurate...
The 12 bit output would be its only major pitfall.
Not necessarily, as most of the image data is in only a small slice of the normal 16 bits but it could mean posterisation in heavily pushed images in dim areas. Worth knowing and checking for.
Can't they get it at least halfway towards the RN on the Sony sensors which is down in the 3 to 5 region these days? The effect of read noise increases at its square so it gets ugly, especially for narrow band where you're almost certainly read noise limited.
