View Single Post
  #3  
Old 18-04-2021, 09:24 AM
Nikolas's Avatar
Nikolas (Nik)
Dazed and confused

Nikolas is offline
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,209
Glen I have the cooled 294mc pro and rarely if ever use flats, the issue was with a small number of those cameras, not a great scale issue, the reason there is not many reports on the 294mm is supply issues and that they are bloody expensive!



Quote:
Originally Posted by glend View Post
In my research, ( I recently bought an ASI294MC (non-cooled), for an EAA camera, I ran across many references to the sensor cooling problems associated with the back- lit architecture of the chip. It seems the complexities of the rear side mean that a full face cooling device (TEC) could not be used, and the manufacturers had to use smaller TECs that would fit. This results in uneven substrate cooling, and the resulting gradients or banding you mentioned. Now there are processing work around, but it means these cooled 294s must have Flats applied to resolve the issue. As a former ASI1600mmC owner I can report that camera never required Flats (although some people always use them). Further it was so black stable that Darks were not really required for subs of up to 60 seconds. Bias are a given.
My ASI294MC (non-cooled) is an excellent camera for EAA, where my sub lengths below 60 seconds are all that is required. The sensitivity of the camera is outstanding.
Here is a link to one fairly faint (mag +10) EAA image ( NGC6726 Reflection Nebula) from my ASI294MC, taken recently at ambient temperature via Sharpcap: ( 24 x 30s live stack, no post processing)

https://astrob.in/full/82uuif/0/

I realise you asked specifically about the Mono version, but architecturally they are the same. You also need to consider the cost differential.
As always, it depends on how you plan to use a particular camera.
Reply With Quote