#1  
Old 08-04-2018, 11:37 PM
astronobob's Avatar
astronobob (Bob)
Casual Cosmos Capturer

astronobob is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Gold Coast SE QLD
Posts: 4,190
Zwo ASI Cooled Mono , choice ?

Howdy Astro-liano's

Dare I say, might go mono ? Both deep Sky & Planetary !

Tho, on reading 'stats' with the Zwo Asi Cams about lately, & the good references with the 1600mm in particular, I have read, thought & thunked about the 183mm pro mono ?
Could anyone help one to understand why the 1600 is the prefered camera ?

I dont see why, considering the 186 has a faster fps rate, more pixels, smaller pixels, better Qe, ROI: Supported, smaller chip, & $450 cheaper.

Down sides : 0.4e more read noise & 5ke less full well depth ?

Question : Does the advantage of 0.4e less read noise & extra 5ke well depth 'out-way' my other considerations ?

What are your thoughts, expertise & experiences ?

Rgrds

Quick links to the Stats :
https://astronomy-imaging-camera.com...si1600mm-cool/
https://astronomy-imaging-camera.com...83mm-pro-mono/

Last edited by astronobob; 08-04-2018 at 11:39 PM. Reason: add descriptive info
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-04-2018, 12:57 AM
glend (Glen)
Registered User

glend is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Lake Macquarie
Posts: 7,033
I have owned a 1600MM-C since the first week they were released and have put hundreds of hours on the camera shooting RGB and narrowband through several different scopes. Its strengths are: flexibility, it is at home shooting long narrowband subs and short sub RGB; smooth ultra low noise, great resolution, clean sensor without dead pixels, great cooling even through summer nights; good camera control you can configure it with Gain and Offset to suit your target and conditions. Frame rate differences don't matter, the 1600 is plenty fast for planetary, imho well depth does matter.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-04-2018, 02:07 AM
Merlin66's Avatar
Merlin66 (Ken)
Registered User

Merlin66 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Junortoun Vic
Posts: 8,904
Bob,
The ASI 183MM is a recent arrival.....the ASI 1600 has been around longer and has a larger user base.

I went for the ASI 183.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-04-2018, 06:08 AM
lazjen's Avatar
lazjen (Chris)
PI cult member

lazjen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Flaxton, Qld
Posts: 2,064
One annoying problem with the 1600 is the lack of Anti-Reflective coating on the sensor. It can cause some bad reflections on bright stars sometimes.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-04-2018, 06:14 AM
RickS's Avatar
RickS (Rick)
PI cult recruiter

RickS is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 10,584
Hi Bob,

Something to keep in mind is that smaller pixels will require longer integration times for DSOs.

Cheers,
Rick.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-04-2018, 06:26 AM
kens (Ken)
Registered User

kens is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 314
And the sensor is half the size of the 1600. Bigger is better when you need a large FOV for the larger DSOs
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-04-2018, 06:46 AM
glend (Glen)
Registered User

glend is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Lake Macquarie
Posts: 7,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazjen View Post
One annoying problem with the 1600 is the lack of Anti-Reflective coating on the sensor. It can cause some bad reflections on bright stars sometimes.
For those who are not up to date on the reflection discussion with ZWO, this is likely a problem with all ZWO mono cameras, and from what i can determine it is an issue with most mono sensor cameras including the QHY versions of the 1600. The reasons come down to this: Panasonic, who manufactures the sensor, does not have non-reflective sensor cover glass supplies and uses the standard coverglass. Even if ZWO had asked for a different coverglass it is unlikely to have been able to cost effectively built for such a small number of sensors in a production run. The front chamber window is indeed AR but the reflections come about because of the highly reflective surface of the mono sensor (which does not have a Bayer Matrix covering it, and thus damping reflectivity) reflects light back into the sensor cover glass. The reflection, or flaring, only appears in certain circumstances ( and Alnitak is the usual culpret). Care in composition and framing can avoid it once you are aware of it. That said, for most DSO, nebulas, and planetary work, it will never be a concern.

Anti-reflective sensor coverglass is available from Astronomic in APS-C sizes (and is required when DSLR sensors are debayered to mono sensors). I have used it on the Canon 450Ds that i debayered, but the risks associated with changing a 1600 cover glass are extreme due to the way the sensor is constructed - so not really an option for owners but perhaps Central DS could do it if you had enough money.

Last edited by glend; 09-04-2018 at 07:00 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-04-2018, 07:30 AM
Shiraz's Avatar
Shiraz (Ray)
Registered User

Shiraz is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ardrossan south australia
Posts: 4,918
both good cams.

The 1600 will be best around 1m fl and the 183 will suit shorter fast scopes.

As Rick points out, on any given scope, the 183 will require ~twice as long to get to any given image quality due to smaller pixels. The 1600 will produce lower res images in really good seeing, but will have twice the field of view.

Agree with Glen that the reflection issue on the 1600 seems to be of minor practical significance - and the amp glow on the 183 is probably also of minor concern, with the possible exception of deep narrowband imaging, where it may leave some residual noise after flat processing.

the 1600 can do ROI at very high frame rates if need be (not as fast as the 183 though)

the 183 binned 2x2 could be an alternative to the icx694 based cameras - very similar overall specs at much lower cost.

Last edited by Shiraz; 09-04-2018 at 08:03 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-04-2018, 07:58 AM
lazjen's Avatar
lazjen (Chris)
PI cult member

lazjen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Flaxton, Qld
Posts: 2,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by glend View Post
For those who are not up to date on the reflection discussion with ZWO, this is likely a problem with all ZWO mono cameras...<snip>
The ASI183 appears to have AR according the specs.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-04-2018, 08:46 AM
glend (Glen)
Registered User

glend is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Lake Macquarie
Posts: 7,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazjen View Post
The ASI183 appears to have AR according the specs.
In the Cloudy Nights thread on this subject, many people mention AR glass (specifically "Protect window:AR window") included in the various ZWO camera specs, and yes the top camera housing glass window is AR. The issue concerning reflection is related to the glass used over the sensor surface, which is bonded on during the sensor production process - it is not AR. Just about every reference concerns Alnitak.

It is possible the 183 is not affected but it would be entirely related to the chip surface characteristics and the sensor area cover glass. You should buy one and test it on the Flame Nebula and the Horsehead, with Alnitak in frame.

Last edited by glend; 09-04-2018 at 09:08 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-04-2018, 09:07 AM
stanlite (Grady)
Registered User

stanlite is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 345
It is my understanding that the 183 sensor family has AR glass on the chip. It’s a Sony sensor not Panasonic like the 1600.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-04-2018, 09:12 AM
glend (Glen)
Registered User

glend is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Lake Macquarie
Posts: 7,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanlite View Post
It is my understanding that the 183 sensor family has AR glass on the chip. It’s a Sony sensor not Panasonic like the 1600.
As stated below, buy one and test it, and publish the photos here. If your looking for a reason to not buy a 1600, so be it, don't buy it.

Potential 183 buyers should read Jon Rista's excellent review which he conducted for ZWO and published on CN, here:

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/5...d-asi-qhy-etc/

And note Jon's final conclusion, on his opening post: "... don't expect the IMX183 to be an "ASI1600 killer" in any way."
It is a long thread but well worth looking through all of it. Jon goes into amazing testing detail. Note Jon owns a 1600 and has tested it extensively.

Note that within that CN thread, user "rockstarbill" states the 183 sensor surface is "AR coated", and this is the only reference in the entire thread. There is no explanation for how the sensor surface is AR coated.

In theory, a back illuminated sensor should produce less reflectivity due to pixel wiring being relocated to the back, and the QHY183 ads make mention of this.

Last edited by glend; 09-04-2018 at 09:55 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-04-2018, 10:08 AM
Merlin66's Avatar
Merlin66 (Ken)
Registered User

Merlin66 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Junortoun Vic
Posts: 8,904
Hmmmm
OK, I've just send an email directly to Sony requesting confirmation (or otherwise) that the IMX183 chip is fitted with an AR cover plate.
Let's see what the manufacturer says.......
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-04-2018, 01:09 PM
Atmos's Avatar
Atmos (Colin)
Ultimate Noob

Atmos is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 6,980
As for actually choosing between the two of them it entirely depends on what scopes you’re planning on using them with for image scale.

The ASI183 has a diffraction pattern closer to that of the KAF-8300 while the ASI1600 shows more of a microlens array diffraction. The ASI183 diffraction pattern I’d say is better than the ASI1600 but the scope you’re planning on paring it with I’d suggest is of more importance.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-04-2018, 10:04 PM
astronobob's Avatar
astronobob (Bob)
Casual Cosmos Capturer

astronobob is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Gold Coast SE QLD
Posts: 4,190
Appreciate all input everybody..

The CN Article is very interesting, , been clunkin' & thunkin' through it the last hr or so, brain hurts, in a good way ;-)

I think the 178 is a step in the right direction as far a camera advancements are going, resolution, dark noise, read noise, amp glow, back-lit, experimentations, etc etc.
There are some extensive 'going's on' in these astro cams, eh ?
Quite eye-opening for this duck...

Tho - Personally, I am considering towards the 1600 ATM, haven't imaged for some time & going by the stats, testing, and other relative factors, ie - scope, guiding ability, seeing, let lone processing skills, Lol, I am doubting I am capable of, - think the 178 is more for the experience imager ?
Tho it is cheaper,
But it requires more integration time ?
Good for Galaxies, PN's & Planets - which appear more interesting to me, and thus half the disadvantages tend to disappear using for this purpose, If I am understanding - in other terms, this 178 tends to need more 'user' care when doing longer subs for the faint stuff &/or going narrow bands.

BTW, I only have a few imaging scopes now, & the main two being the 8" F4 & the 10" F4.6, both within the recommended apertures & F/ratio's lengths, perceivably matching the cameras pixel to arcsec ratio <-- this is the 'sampling' amount ? I think, to small a pixel = over sampling - basically anyway I get it, just cant explain it fully easily yet

Lots to learn, Lots to research

Kind Rgrds
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-04-2018, 03:40 PM
Merlin66's Avatar
Merlin66 (Ken)
Registered User

Merlin66 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Junortoun Vic
Posts: 8,904
Sony 183 chip

OK, here we have it.....
Directly from Sony.

"
With regards to your inquiry about “Does the Sony 183 chip have an AR coated cover plate?"

I’ve checked with our Japan engineers and they indicated that IMX183 has an AR coated cover panel.
"
That should remove any ambiguity on the subject!!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-04-2018, 03:44 PM
glend (Glen)
Registered User

glend is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Lake Macquarie
Posts: 7,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merlin66 View Post
OK, here we have it.....
Directly from Sony.

"
With regards to your inquiry about “Does the Sony 183 chip have an AR coated cover plate?"

I’ve checked with our Japan engineers and they indicated that IMX183 has an AR coated cover panel.
"
That should remove any ambiguity on the subject!!
There you go, thanks for chasing that up. So probably no reflections, i stand corrected. Apologies to lazgen.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-04-2018, 07:21 PM
lazjen's Avatar
lazjen (Chris)
PI cult member

lazjen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Flaxton, Qld
Posts: 2,064
Yeah, I was deeply offended Glen. j/k.

However, I'm happy to see it confirmed having AR. That 183 could be useful in a couple of setups I've got.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 13-04-2018, 09:33 PM
astronobob's Avatar
astronobob (Bob)
Casual Cosmos Capturer

astronobob is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Gold Coast SE QLD
Posts: 4,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickS View Post
Hi Bob,

Something to keep in mind is that smaller pixels will require longer integration times for DSOs.

Cheers,
Rick.
Thanx, Ric, Can you explain why smaller pixels need more exposure, please?
I hear its common knowledge, but I dont understand why, do different size pixels (as in width & breadth) all have the same depth or are the smaller ones deeper ? because, if they all the same depth, then my 'thunking' says they fill the same rate, - I believe I am wrong tho,
Cheers any further insight
----------------------------------------------------------
,
,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiraz View Post
both good cams.

The 1600 will be best around 1m fl and the 183 will suit shorter fast scopes.
Thanx Ray, if I use the 183 with 1200mm F/L - is that 'over sampling' ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiraz View Post
As Rick points out, on any given scope, the 183 will require ~twice as long to get to any given image quality due to smaller pixels. The 1600 will produce lower res images in really good seeing, but will have twice the field of view.
the 1600 can do ROI at very high frame rates if need be (not as fast as the 183 though
Thnx again, Ray, I am thinking/wanting to do Galaxies, PN's and planetary - so no need the larger frame/chip, I assume, but plenty of room for when a real steady night drops by, could be interesting
Not sure if going about it the right way tho, would I lose out with 2arc seeing with the small pixels and 1200 F/L - it can get down to 1 - 1.5 arc here, not often tho, like anywhere




Quote:
Originally Posted by Merlin66 View Post
OK, here we have it.....
Directly from Sony.

"
With regards to your inquiry about “Does the Sony 183 chip have an AR coated cover plate?"

I’ve checked with our Japan engineers and they indicated that IMX183 has an AR coated cover panel.
"
That should remove any ambiguity on the subject!!
Cheers for confirmation, Ken, and every one, on this good point, ,
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 13-04-2018, 10:09 PM
Camelopardalis's Avatar
Camelopardalis (Dunk)
Drifting from the pole

Camelopardalis is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 5,425
Bob, I have both a 1600 and a 178 that I use with my Esprit 100 (550mm F/L).

I find the 1600 is just collects signal more quickly (larger pixels) and calibrates very consistently, whereas the 178 has some whacky amp glow that makes it more challenging. The dark frames I've seen from a 183 are similarly haunted.

The objects you want to chase would no doubt be better served by a larger scope than I'm using, in which case I'd say it swings in favour of the 1600. The reality of the conditions in SE QLD the majority of the time means that we'd be really lucky to see any improvement in resolution with the smaller pixels of the 178/183, and they're a bigger hassle to use
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 08:43 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement