Recommend camera for FSQ106

[Spookyer]

Hi all

What would be the camera recommendation be for a FSQ106 to do wide field type work including mosaics. I may use the reducer with it at times. The setup will be mounted on a Mach1 mount.

For guiding at this focal length I could guide with a guidescope if required.

My preference would be for a mono with filters but I will consider a one shot camera setup.

What pixel size should I be aiming at? I find the small pixels give a better arcsecond/pixel value but they significantly reduce the field of view.

I currently have an SBIG STT 8300M but will probably use that on my new RC12.

Any advice welcome.

[Atmos]

Brett,

It is a real struggling trying to find a good telescope camera combination.

Personally, I would go with either the...
QHY12 with its 5.12 icon pixels it gives ~2 arctic/pixel. http://qhyccd.com/en/left/aps-color-cooled-ccd-1/qhy12-1/
Atik 490EX at 3.69 giving 1.44
Atik 460EX at 4.54 giving 1.77 http://www.atik-cameras.com/camera-specification-tables/

The QHY is a colour, the Atik's can be either colour or mono. Just my take :)

Cheers,
Colin

[DavidTrap]

Rick is producing some nice images with the 8300 chip.

DT

[Hans Tucker]

If you search out the experienced Astrophotographers that are imaging with FSQ-106N/ED/EDX/EDXIII you will see a common camera choice being the STL-1100M for wide field. Yes an older sensor and camera but the results produced are still impressive and still stack up against the latest modern ccd sensors.

[Atmos]

If you're talking about the STL-11000M, you'll be getting 2.7x4 degrees FOV, massive! You'll also be getting ~3.64 arcsec/pixel. Don't get me wrong, it'll make it an absolute monster for wide field astrophotography and would work wonders on something like the North American Nebula, the whole Flame Nebula complex, even being able to capture a good portion of the Virgo Supercluster :)

Being a researcher, I am biased towards trying to get a near perfect sample :thumbsup:

Cheers,
Colin

[RickS]

Thanks, David :)

The KAF-8300 is a decent combination with the FSQ-106 from an image scale POV. It's just over 2 arcsec/pixel and drizzled to around 1 arcsec/pixel has worked for me well in good seeing at SRO. Things I don't like are the small FOV and star spikes from the micro-lenses.

Given the choice I'd rather a KAI-11000 or KAF-16803 and I've used both of those with my FSQ at home. If you're using a wide field scope like the FSQ-106ED then you might as well have a big FOV. The big pixels will get you good SNR quickly, the image scale is largely immune to seeing and you can drizzle to get some extra resolution.

Cheers,
Rick.

[alocky]

This scope is screaming out for someone to stick the FLI50100 camera on the back. I've had the QSI683 and a D800 on the back of mine, and it works well with either camera. I'm really looking forward to seeing how the D810a goes on it. The corrected field is huge - big enough for medium format, and the fl is so short you are never going to have pixels that are too small.
Cheers,
Andrew.

[RickS]

The KAF-50100 looks great except for the 11.5e- read noise which would make it sucky for low signal imaging (i.e. narrowband.)

Cheers,
Rick.

[Spookyer]

Maybe I will just attach my Nikon D4 to it then?

[gregbradley]

11.57 electrons read noise is actually better than normal for Kodak chips. The 6303 is 16. The KA16803 is 9 and that is one of the best and also has the best dynamic range.

16803 and FSQ106ED is a setup I used for some time. Its a huge wide field and you can even add the reducer and still get corner to corner round stars. Its a bit lens like though with the reducer. Similar to a 300mm lens.

Greg.

[SpaceNoob]

I would stick with the 8300 on the FSQ.... it is a very good match. Anything smaller is a waste of FOV for that scope.

Regarding the RC12, don't bother using the 8300. At least not at native focal length. I have been imaging at 2541mm, 0.44" sampling, with 1.3-2" FWHM most nights and it still doesn't match well. Anything above fwhm 2" is unusable and has to be rejected due to washiness/smearing. AO will not solve this if that's what you're hoping to counter it.

I have a PL16803 coming some time in the next 8 weeks, which will hopefully be a more suitable match. If you're using a reducer, still consider something with at least 7micron pixels. The 8300 is very well suited to the FSQ, don't expect to bin 2x2 on the RC12, it won't work and you'll overwhelm the horizontal shift register quite quickly with that much aperture

[clive milne]

Which 6303 camera is that noise figure in reference to Greg?
SBIG quote a total system noise on their STL6303 of 11e
https://www.sbig.com/products/cameras/stxl/stxl-6303e/

Richard Crisp measured his FLI IMG6303e at around 9e
Images taken with a 6303/FSQ can be seen here:
http://www.narrowbandimaging.com/img6303_halpha_collection_page.htm

The 11.57e read noise of the 50100 also needs to be taken in context with it's smaller 6micron pixels and 40%(relative) well depth. None of which will pose much of a problem for LRGB imaging, but it would be far from ideal with narrowband filters or slow focal ratios.

[LewisM]

I bought the OTHER FSQ106ED from the trader the other day. I am going to be using an 8300 chipped CCD on it - tried it last time I had one, really liked the result (works wonderfully in the FSQ85 too)

Will keep looking out for a used 11000 too... big noisy pixels in a fast wide FOV scope works wonderfully.

[Slawomir]

Hi Brett,

If I may...I feel that putting a one shot colour or a dslr on this beautiful scope mounted on Mach1 would not allow for taking a full advantage of this setup.

Since you are after wide field and you already have 8300 camera, then a natural choice is a larger chip - either KAI11000 or KAF16003. Both would also perform better than your SBIG on your larger telescope due to having larger pixels.

Having said that, maybe wait a bit before getting a new camera, and see what results you will be achieving with your current cameras - let your experience guide you :)

[Spookyer]

Thank you to all contributors so far. Please keep it coming.

So far the summary seems to be the 8300 would be pretty good for the FSQ106 but I could go better and wider with a larger pixel camera.

For the RC-12 I also should go for something with bigger pixels! The downside of this as I see it is that I got the RC12 to go after some smaller targets. If I put a 9micron chip on it I increase my field of view substantially which kind of defeats the purpose of going longer in the first place?

Please chime in if I have go this wrong.

[alocky]

You will get something like these if you do.

http://www.astrobin.com/20395/B/

http://www.astrobin.com/24974/

As a portable setup on your Mach-1 for trips to dark skies it will be hard to beat.
Cheers,
Andrew.

[Spookyer]

Nice work mate.

[RobF]

Hi Brett, the 8300 really is a bit of a waste of all that flat field real estate on the FSQ. You certainly wouldn't be disappointed but the 11000 is something I'd love to be able to use on mine. Small well size the other issue on 8300s, with consequent tendency to stars bloating a bit. Checking back on what Rick, Peter Ward (and others) have posted with 16803 and 11000 chips could be worthwhile if you haven't already.

There is the minor detail of money with those big chip cameras, but also don't forget focusing. Jase had to upgrade the Robofocus standard motor on his FSQ rig using a big Apogee camera to get reliable slip free focus. Rick relies on FLI atlas focuser for his FSQ lightpath.

Have you bought an FSQ, out of interest, or sketching out your next dream rig?

[Spookyer]

Yes mate, the $$ stack up fast with the big rig mono cameras. I might even give the D4 a run for a while with it while I save up. Gotta recover from the RC-12 and FSQ purchase first.

[LewisM]

Just TRY the high-end OSC's first - you might be surprised, plus narrowband is remarkably easy with OSC anyway (just fiddly in processing later).

Best CCD I ever had was an FLI ML8300C.

You might like to look at the KAI 04022 chipped cameras too - large chip and reasonable price (Atik ones can be had cheap enough). I had the Atik 4000, and besides a few Atik sensibilities (slow read, weird cooling regulation) performed well.

[Logieberra]

No harm done there. Give the Nikon a good run before going whole hog into mono. I love my full-frame Canon 6D on the FSQ.

[Paul Haese]

Here's my take on it.

FSQ106 and KAF8300 work well in the good seeing I have. All my images taken with this combo look pretty good out of the camera. However, the field of view is a little small for what I would like.

I am contemplating putting the STXL on the FSQ and imaging with that after I buy a 6303E for the RC. That will provide a good happy medium for both scopes. The flattener I have right now for the RC cannot seem to correct for a large sensor but the next one down would be fine.

Ideally, I want the STXL11 on the FSQ now, but it will have to wait. If I was in your position that is what I would do right now if you had the money. With your budget right now, then a 8300 will work and produce good images.

[gregbradley]

STL11 and FSQ were always a great match when I used that setup.

There are plenty of nice KAF8300/FSQ images around at the moment. As Paul says that is a nice setup. I imagine the 8300 FOV is taking the sharpness of the optics to the limit.

Starlight Express Trius 694 or 814 would also be a good match. Perhaps the 814 (QSI 690 would be ideal as filter wheel and OAG all together).

That would be slightly better sampling but I don't think its that vital with an FSQ. Sampling seems more important with longer focal length scopes.

Greg.