#1  
Old 18-09-2009, 08:49 PM
batema's Avatar
batema (Mark)
Registered User

batema is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 1,809
A question re SBIG V's QHY CCD Cameras

Hi,

This is not being disrespectful to either camera manufacturers but why would you buy a 1.6 Mpixel camera from SBIG when you can buy a 6 M pixel QHy8 camera? I am starting to look and know the wonderful reputation of both but was wondering if the image quality from a smaller CCD camera would be better than a larger?

Mark
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 18-09-2009, 09:02 PM
multiweb's Avatar
multiweb (Marc)
ze frogginator

multiweb is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hinchinbrook
Posts: 18,243
IMHO Apple & Oranges. I see QHY* cameras as value cameras as in "bang for the buck". Having said that SBIG is quality engineering. You get what you pay for and they also nicely integrate all their Filter wheels, self guiding, AO, etc...all their accessories. All works out of the box. If I had the $ I'd get an ST10 "yesterday". Will do one day - just a matter of time
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 18-09-2009, 11:15 PM
Tandum's Avatar
Tandum (Robin)
Registered User

Tandum is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Carindale, Brisbane.
Posts: 4,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by batema View Post
1.6 Mpixel camera from SBIG when you can buy a 6 M pixel QHy8 camera
You can't compare them like that. Pixel count is not the comparator. The Q8 cameras are dirt cheap entry level jobs. The Q9 mono has competition now from reputable vendors. My 1.3 Mpixel starlight camera sees way deeper than my qhy8 for an equal exposure time, but it only sees a sixth of the sky. It still takes nice images if that is what your after.

You buy the camera to do the job you need done. If your looking for supernova then an sbig st7 will do. If you want snapshots, then a qhy or canon will do.

You also need to match sensor pixel size to your scope, but that's another story.

In reallity, some cameras are engineered and tested and others are not.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 19-09-2009, 01:09 AM
Gama's Avatar
Gama
Registered User

Gama is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,121
The sensor cost is also a big factor. At times, it even can reach 40% of the cost of the camera. Monos are more expensive, but as the guys have said, not cut and dry.
Look at your budget, then look at what is offered in that price range.
But the SBIG's is a little like a BMW, even the old ones hold their value very well.

Theo.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 20-09-2009, 03:10 PM
allan gould's Avatar
allan gould
Registered User

allan gould is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 4,481
Ive owned dual chip SBig and QHY8. Wouldnt get another SBig in a fit. If you want quality service from someone that cares and will bend over backward to help - I couldn't better QHY and Theo. Sbig are big and have a way to go to understand what it meant for someone starting out ie a real amateur to make an investment and then start the learning process. I hated the constrains of the dual chip and found it utterly frustrating, never a guidestar when you needed one and the monochips (when I was using it were) as noisy as all hell. The top end cameras are great from SBig but Id never afford one or buy one as this is my hobby and not an obsession.
Just my personal opinion - but once Ive reached the limits of the QHY8 then something newer will be there to step up to, but it had better be easy to use, light, compact and be compatable with all my other stuff, cos by then Ill be a really grumpy old man.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 20-09-2009, 08:14 PM
Peter Ward's Avatar
Peter Ward
Galaxy hitchhiking guide

Peter Ward is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 6,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by allan gould View Post
...... Sbig are big and have a way to go to understand what it meant for someone starting out ie a real amateur to make an investment and then start the learning process....
I was going to stay out of this ...but...

I doubt SBIG would still be around after 20 years of supplying dodgy CCD products. They are not a big company. In fact they employ more engineers than assemblers and take a great deal of pride in their products.

Your experience seems to be at odds with many others, amongst which there are some very heavy hitters indeed, who have gone down the dual chip path and have been delighted with the results.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 20-09-2009, 09:24 PM
Hans Tucker (Hans)
Registered User

Hans Tucker is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Ward View Post
I doubt SBIG would still be around after 20 years of supplying dodgy CCD products.
Somehow I didn't read into Allans post that he was accusing SBIG of supplying a dodgy product. It may well have been that his particular SBIG camera suffered from excessive noise but I would be interested to know what communication he had with SBIG to rectify the problem and what solution was offered. I have come across a couple of complaints which had more to do with the cleanliness of the sensor (dust issues) in SBIG cameras. As for the dual guide chip issue I believe SBIG has addressed that with the introduction of a remote guide port which allows the use of a separate SBIG guide camera plus you can send your existing camera back to have this upgrade carried out. Somehow I cannot be convinced that the Sony Sensors used predominately in QHY cameras (QHY8 included) are better than the Kodak KAI & KAF sensors used in SBIG cameras. This is why there is a considerable price difference between the two brands.

I have just been in contact with SBIG regarding having the sensor in my camera replaced/upgraded and whilst the communication has been somewhat slow I am pleased that they offer an upgrade solution which gives a degree of flexible possible cost effective options. This is something I have yet to see readily advertised with other CCD camera manufacturers.

Either way SBIG isn't going to be able to please everybody and for those not happy with SBIG there are the other options, Apogee, QSI, QHY, Starlight. Competition is great.

Last edited by Hans Tucker; 20-09-2009 at 10:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 20-09-2009, 10:57 PM
Peter Ward's Avatar
Peter Ward
Galaxy hitchhiking guide

Peter Ward is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 6,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans Tucker View Post
Somehow I didn't read into Allans post that he was accusing SBIG of supplying a dodgy product.
True, but "wouldn't get another SBIG in a fit" I would not take as a tick in the box either

There are indeed many choices out there. Read the specs, compare the features, accessories, software, price, etc. then make an informed choice.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 21-09-2009, 05:34 AM
Dennis
Dazzled by the Cosmos.

Dennis is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 10,902
I’ll just offer my personal experience with my older SBIG ST7 camera (parallel model with TC211 guide chip) as an additional reference point. Apart from the small guide chip (newer models use the bigger chip), it is the only way I have been able to obtain 30 minute sub frames without star trailing at focal lengths of up to 1700mm.

My side-by-side efforts have proven to be inconsistent; sometimes I get nice round stars but often I don’t and I always seem to get progressive offsets between frames. I have really tried hard to fix these side-by-side issues but have never succeeded.

The self guiding capability of the ST7 often has me wondering did it download a new image, as the refresh did not reveal any movement between frames. I am using a top end mount, the Tak EM-200.

What I also like about the SBIG dual chip cameras is that the set up and tear down operations are much easier and simplified, just OTA, camera, power cable, parallel cable and auto guider cable. No second scope, side-by-side plate and additional guide camera.

So, based on my experience, my next CCD camera will be an SBIG but with a much larger guide chip and the faster download times of the USB version as my parallel downloads take approx 16 seconds. When I win the lotto that is! LOL!

Cheers

Dennis
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 21-09-2009, 07:17 AM
allan gould's Avatar
allan gould
Registered User

allan gould is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 4,481
As I stated - it was my personal opinion and Im glad you guys are happy with your choices. But they are not for me. Id probably look at other cameras before I went for another SBIG.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 21-09-2009, 01:11 PM
Gama's Avatar
Gama
Registered User

Gama is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,121
Its starting to go off topic a little, but as Allan has said, its his opinion.
As mentioned, Sbig are a reputable supplier of high grade scientific equipment, but not all will find it an easy step forward nor do what they expected it to do, as with any camera.
To each his/her own.

Theo.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 21-09-2009, 02:15 PM
Dennis
Dazzled by the Cosmos.

Dennis is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 10,902
I think that what may be of interest to the OP, is that once you have analysed all the objective specifications, there also remains some “unquantifiable” subjective variation in how each end user experiences and interacts with their particular camera and how their system behaves in real life versus expected behaviour on paper.

In Allan’s case, as with many others, they appear to have successfully mastered either side-by-side, piggy back or off-axis guiding which makes the (2nd) guide chip of the SBIG dual chip cameras redundant. Alas, in my case, despite my best efforts, I haven’t been able to eliminate differential flexure so I am “doomed” to co-exist with the SBIG dual chip cameras.

Cheers

Dennis
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 21-09-2009, 02:57 PM
Peter Ward's Avatar
Peter Ward
Galaxy hitchhiking guide

Peter Ward is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 6,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis View Post
...which makes the (2nd) guide chip of the SBIG dual chip cameras redundant. ....
If you are not interested in self-guiding, self guided spectroscopy, differential guiding and adaptive optics...oh, and the electronics to drive a remote guide head, yep, this integrated solution is redundant

Sorry, couldn't resist
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 21-09-2009, 03:03 PM
Terry B's Avatar
Terry B
Country living & viewing

Terry B is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Armidale
Posts: 2,761
Quote:
Originally Posted by batema View Post
Hi,

This is not being disrespectful to either camera manufacturers but why would you buy a 1.6 Mpixel camera from SBIG when you can buy a 6 M pixel QHy8 camera? I am starting to look and know the wonderful reputation of both but was wondering if the image quality from a smaller CCD camera would be better than a larger?

Mark
A simple answer for me is that I use my camera for photometry as well as pretty pics. It is much harder to achieve accurate results with an antiblooming chip and/or with a colour chip.
This makes the QHY camera less attractive.
I don't use the internal guider in my camera but use a QHY guider.
Depends on your needs.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 25-09-2009, 08:18 AM
allan gould's Avatar
allan gould
Registered User

allan gould is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 4,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Ward View Post
If you are not interested in self-guiding, self guided spectroscopy, differential guiding and adaptive optics...oh, and the electronics to drive a remote guide head, yep, this integrated solution is redundant

Sorry, couldn't resist
Peter
Thats a bit of a stretch to say that. Im not interested in spectroscopy at all. But I am interested in guiding but the disadvantage of the dual chip system is particularly shown with narrow band imaging where the light is dropped by the filter covering both chips. Differential guiding - easy with a separate guide scope. Finding a guide star with a separate scope - easy. Never had flexture etc and find it a supremely easy system to set up and start guiding.
Your welcome to your opinions but they are not mine as I go about things differently to you. I have used both and just didnt like SBIG for the cluncky software, dual chip, the weight of the unit, not easily finding a guide and the heavy noise in the frame. My opinion and I think good ones. Your welcome to yours.

Last edited by allan gould; 25-09-2009 at 11:29 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 03:38 AM.

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