#1  
Old 06-08-2020, 12:08 PM
DaBris (Daniel)
Registered User

DaBris is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Nundah, QLD
Posts: 18
Which ASI camera to suit ED72

Hi all,
I have been fooling around with a Canon 60d for a year or so now with some half decent (in my books) results but I am looking to purchase an ASI camera to compliment the rest of my ASI setup.
Any recommendations which camera is best suited for DSO imaging with a small skywatcher refractor? I am looking currently at ASI1600 pro cooled or ASI183 pro cooled
Cheers!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-08-2020, 12:12 PM
nsavage (Nick)
Registered User

nsavage is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 86
https://astronomy.tools/calculators/ccd_suitability may help.

I am not 100% on how much under-sampling is too much etc. and others may be able to help (I would be interested to understand more myself)
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-08-2020, 12:12 PM
Nikolas's Avatar
Nikolas (Nik)
Dazed and confused

Nikolas is offline
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,833
the ED72 will mean undersampling with a camera with larger pixels so the 183 would be the best bet for that focal length
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-08-2020, 12:38 PM
DaBris (Daniel)
Registered User

DaBris is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Nundah, QLD
Posts: 18
Thanks Nick and Nik!
I don't quite understand undersampling either yet, however I was leaning towards the ASI183.
Much appreciated.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-08-2020, 04:39 PM
The_bluester's Avatar
The_bluester (Paul)
Registered User

The_bluester is online now
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Kilmore, Australia
Posts: 2,726
If you are undersampled, smaller/dimmer stars will appear blocky and pixellated, you would be able to extract some extra data by drizzle processing but you need lots and lots of subs to keep noise under control.

Over sampling on the other hand will result in the stars covering a lot more pixels and probably star edges and fine features being well resolved, but beyond the limits of the seeing you are just making things bigger, not getting more detail, it also costs you in extra file size per sub. As the light from any star or feature falls on more pixels, you may also require longer exposures to get the same values.

I used an ASI294MC Pro on an Evostar 72mm with the 0.85 reducer/flattener and it performed pretty well, but if yours is an Evostar 72 you possibly need a filter (I bought a ZWO one marketed as an IR filter, but the specs suggest it is more like just a luminance filter with cutoff at the near IR and near UV points) or you are liable to have problems with reflections. Some of the newer cameras have the UV-IR cut filter incorporated in the sensor chamber window now which saves adding an external one.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 17-08-2020, 10:32 AM
TareqPhoto (Tareq)
Registered User

TareqPhoto is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Ajman - UAE
Posts: 276
I hope i am not late but please buy ASI1600, i bought this recently so i want more and more people getting it and not the previous people only, i want to feel like this camera is still holding its quality, and the more i see people using it and dealing with its pros and cons the more i feel happy of my decision.
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 12:39 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Limpet Controller
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
NexDome Observatories
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement