#1  
Old 19-07-2014, 10:43 PM
Chris85's Avatar
Chris85 (Chris)
Registered User

Chris85 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 314
CCD options?

Hi All,

At the moment I'm using a Atik 383L along with 1.25" filters, which I know isn't ideal, but for a while there I thought I'd be fine with the pretty bad vignetting and just crop.. Well that has now passed, especially since I've now built myself a wide-field rig - no point if you have to crop the outer 3rd of the image!
So what I'm asking is, can anyone offer advice on a CCD that would suitable to use with BOTH my GSO Rc 6inch and my SD66? My Rc is F9 and my SD66 is F 5.9.
I'd prefer to keep the filters and change the CCD. Figure it's cheaper to sell the Atik and upgrade, than buying a full 36mm set of LRGB plus H,O,S filters. I could be wrong though.
Anyway I know it's not ideal with the wildly different apertures and focal lengths, but I figured I'd see what people think anyway.
Cheers,
Chris
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 20-07-2014, 12:03 AM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 15,472
The Sony ICX694 chipped cameras like Starlight Express or the Kodak 4022 chipped cameras may be good alternatives. They are both smaller than the KAF8300 I am pretty sure (the 694 is and the KAF4022 I think so).

Greg.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 20-07-2014, 07:25 PM
Chris85's Avatar
Chris85 (Chris)
Registered User

Chris85 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 314
Cheers, Greg. The Xpress cameras do look very good, especially with a few people claiming that they hardly need any darks at all. However I would've thought the 4022 wouldn't suit the SD66 with it's 7.4um pixels?

Chris
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 20-07-2014, 08:27 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 15,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris85 View Post
Cheers, Greg. The Xpress cameras do look very good, especially with a few people claiming that they hardly need any darks at all. However I would've thought the 4022 wouldn't suit the SD66 with it's 7.4um pixels?

Chris
SD66 with any camera is going to undersampled. Its like using a 16803 chip on an FSQ - 9 micron pixels but it works.

It would depend if you intend to never upgrade your scope to something larger as 66mm aperture is going to limit it largely to widefield views which are typically undersampled.

Other factors come into it as well- like QE, noise, well depth.
I've seen many nice images from the 4022 chip - its a high performer. But so is the Sony ICX694. Perhaps the ICX814 would be better which has even smaller pixels but not much of a drop in QE at 70% and high QE in Ha so its good for narrowband.

The Sony's have the lowest read noise, the highest QE and are low cost but are small. Also shallow well depth. Its usually some sort of a compromise somewhere in that equation.

If Sony brought out a 35mm sized CCD watch out. Nobody would use the Kodaks again. That line of CCDs has been stagnant now for a few years and it seems less and less likely to be a source of future high end new chips but you never know.The future is likely the Sony's but they need to make some larger CCDs.

Greg.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 20-07-2014, 09:48 PM
LewisM
Novichok test rabbit

LewisM is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere in the cosmos...
Posts: 9,326
Chris, I have been looking to swap my Atik 4000 OSC for an Atik 383L... if interested, drop me a line and we can maybe go from there - I am happy to swap straight up (the Atik 4000 is a $5K camera). I haven't forgotten the WO dovetail either

My focuser drawtube is 4" - I don't think that'll vignette with the 383
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 21-07-2014, 08:12 AM
Shiraz's Avatar
Shiraz (Ray)
Registered User

Shiraz is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ardrossan south australia
Posts: 4,787
Chris, the field of view will be limited by the filters whatever you do, so you will not gain anything by getting a smaller chip. The 8300 pixel size is well matched to your longer fl scope and will give nicely undersampled images with the short fl. Why not just keep your 8300 and continue to crop off the outer parts of your images? - seems to me to be easily the most cost effective approach.

Last edited by Shiraz; 23-07-2014 at 06:56 AM.
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 01:29 AM.

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