Flea 3 camera range

[trent_julie]

Hi all,
I had a small casino win last night which has enabled me to buy a new planetary imaging camera. What I would like to know is what is everyone's thoughts on pixel size when it comes to planetary and solar imaging? Obviously there are trade offs in sensitivity and resolution. I am more inclined to get the most smallest pixel size for hope of resolution.There are a lot of Flea 3 variants to choose from, my only limitations being a USB 3 device. Any advice would be appreciated.

Trent

[Paul Haese]

Hi Trent,

I own both a Flea3 and a Grasshopper Express 2.8mp cameras. If I could buy one camera again I would buy the later to do both types of work. In the coming months Point Grey Research will be selling the later camera in USB3 models and that might be worth waiting just to get the camera you want.

With the Grasshopper you can ROI with programs such as FireCapture and that means you can image at the same speed as the flea3. The downside of course is the price. However, if you consider what you are saving from buying one camera instead of two, then it makes monetary sense.

Now directly to your question, I think using smaller pixels might be ok, so something like 4.54um is not much of a size reduction over the 5.6um and will only have a small effect upon image scale. Well depth is quite a lot smaller but I have found that the grasshopper express has little if any noise. So the electonics are better in the Grasshopper I think than in the Flea3. Anthony Wesley is using the Grasshopper for planetary imaging at present, so that might also stand for something.

Hope this has helped.

[Peter Ward]

While I really like the chip size in my Grasshopper Express my earlier Skynyx had a way more predictable DSP chip....it didn't introduce any odd processing artefacts. To be blunt, I'd go SkyNyx USB 3.0

[originaltrilogy (Petr)]

I have the grasshopper 2 camera, you are welcome to borrow it if you want to see how they go.
There is less noise on my grasshopper than on the Flea3, I had both for a while.

[trent_julie]

Originally Posted by Paul Haese

Hi Trent,

I own both a Flea3 and a Grasshopper Express 2.8mp cameras. If I could buy one camera again I would buy the later to do both types of work. In the coming months Point Grey Research will be selling the later camera in USB3 models and that might be worth waiting just to get the camera you want.

With the Grasshopper you can ROI with programs such as FireCapture and that means you can image at the same speed as the flea3. The downside of course is the price. However, if you consider what you are saving from buying one camera instead of two, then it makes monetary sense.

Now directly to your question, I think using smaller pixels might be ok, so something like 4.54um is not much of a size reduction over the 5.6um and will only have a small effect upon image scale. Well depth is quite a lot smaller but I have found that the grasshopper express has little if any noise. So the electonics are better in the Grasshopper I think than in the Flea3. Anthony Wesley is using the Grasshopper for planetary imaging at present, so that might also stand for something.

Hope this has helped.

Thanks Paul, that really helped a lot, I hadn't considered the Grasshopper at all, thanks for the tip on well sizes also.

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

While I really like the chip size in my Grasshopper Express my earlier Skynyx had a way more predictable DSP chip....it didn't introduce any odd processing artefacts. To be blunt, I'd go SkyNyx USB 3.0

Hi Peter,
Thanks for the heads up, the Skynyx is certainly a premium unit, but it is also in keeping with Paul's suggestion that I will only end up buying 2 cameras in the long run if I don't get something of substantial quality. In the interim i will drool a little.