New camera

I.C.D (Ian) · #1 20-08-2021, 11:42 AM

Hi all I am looking at getting a new camera osc $1000 to $1600 any ideas.

xelasnave · #2 20-08-2021, 12:34 PM

ZWO2600

No question the extra investment is really worth it.
Alex

Startrek (Martin) · #3 20-08-2021, 01:15 PM

I echo Alex’ advice
I’ve had a 2600MC for 1 year and the camera blows my mind every time I use it
Worth stretching your budget if you can do it
Just check your image scale and FOV with your existing scope to see if it satisfies your needs as it has an APS C sized sensor
The QHY268MC is equally as good ,similar price

Martin

I.C.D (Ian) · #4 22-08-2021, 03:30 PM

Which is best CCD or CMOS chips

Startrek (Martin) · #5 22-08-2021, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I.C.D

Which is best CCD or CMOS chips

They are both “good”
The latest generation of Astro cameras are Cmos ( ZWO and QHY ). They have the Sony IMX571 back illuminated chip. Extremely good Cmos Astro cameras in both OSC and Mono versions
Cmos is slowly replacing CCD

gregbradley · #6 22-08-2021, 05:08 PM

I would choose the QHY268 over the ZWO ASI 2600. More features, larger memory, better build, drivers are fine. Price is similar.

Some number of ASI2600 have a problem with excess thermal grease smearing the sensor after several months.

QHY also are more orthogonal with their sensors.

Greg.

toc (Tim) · #7 22-08-2021, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregbradley

QHY also are more orthogonal with their sensors.
Greg.

By this you mean less sensor tilt issues?

Startrek (Martin) · #8 22-08-2021, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregbradley

I would choose the QHY268 over the ZWO ASI 2600. More features, larger memory, better build, drivers are fine. Price is similar.

Some number of ASI2600 have a problem with excess thermal grease smearing the sensor after several months.

QHY also are more orthogonal with their sensors.

Greg.

Thermal grease issue was resolved back in April
I was one of the unlucky ones but rectified in a 1 week turnaround , a non issue now
All orders from May onwards are ok , no issues
I assume you have used a 2600MC or 2600MM ?

astro744 · #9 22-08-2021, 05:34 PM

See https://skyandtelescope.org/astronom...rophotography/

There are arguments for both. For scientific imaging then perhaps CCD, for pretty pictures it probably doesn’t matter, for planetary and lunar ’lucky imaging’ then perhaps CMOS.

See also

https://www.atik-cameras.com/news/di...-cmos-sensors/

There are many other references online.

Disclaimer. I am not an astro photographer. There are just too many quality images by too many others for me to want to pursue that interest. I like and prefer seeing astro objects through an eyepiece. When I want to look at pretty pictures I browse through the coffee table book on IIS galleries. Whichever camera you get I’m sure I and many others will enjoy your images there.

gregbradley · #10 22-08-2021, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toc

By this you mean less sensor tilt issues?

Yes.

QHY spec their orthogonality to 20 microns. ZWO, from what I read on Cloudy Nights is not at that level.

Greg.

gregbradley · #11 22-08-2021, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toc

By this you mean less sensor tilt issues?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Startrek

Thermal grease issue was resolved back in April
I was one of the unlucky ones but rectified in a 1 week turnaround , a non issue now
All orders from May onwards are ok , no issues
I assume you have used a 2600MC or 2600MM ?

I use a QHY600M and a QHY294M. I had an ASI183M earlier.
The QHY600m has the same 3.76 micron pixel structure so basically a scaled up version of the 2600.

I spent a lot of time researching the pluses and minuses of each.
Both are good cameras but QHY offers more for much the same cost.
Different read out modes which are useful, larger memory buffer (much larger), 20 micron spec for sensor orthogonality. Also the Photographic version offers the industrial grade sensor which has a higher spec and ceramic base instead of plastic.

The usual concern with QHY was driver issues. I think they like the grease issue are old and now resolved with a few problems surfacing from time to time. ZWO may have the better drivers but I can't really fault the drivers for the QHY600m but for the 294 they were briefly defective but corrected very quickly.

Both are good cameras, so no real wrong decision here. The extra readout modes and larger memory buffer being the 2 main pluses for QHY.

Greg.

AdamJL · #12 22-08-2021, 09:00 PM

I thought about the QHY, was was going to get it, but the driver issues turned me to ZWO.
Plus, at least with ZWO you have an option in future to use things like the ASIAIR, which is a fantastic little device and a real all-in-one solution.

Yes, I was impacted by the thermal grease issue and it's frustrating. But NINA for instance is only really getting decent QHY support now because of QHY's weird drivers.

xa-coupe (Jeff) · #13 22-08-2021, 09:30 PM

I'll third the 2600MC. I sold my spare mount and other stuff to get it and it has turned my imaging around. Nothing against QHY I just ended up with the ZWO.

The_bluester (Paul) · #14 23-08-2021, 08:09 AM

In the $1500'ish range you would nearly buy a new ZWO ASI294MC Pro, but while an ASI2600MC Pro is twice the money, it is the one I would go for if I could manage it. I have had both and the 2600 was a big step forward. I now have a 2600MC Pro and a 2600MM Pro. If I had the money to spare I would buy another 2600MM to replace the MC, but that is another story!

At the $1500-1600 mark you are really in the "Intro" level of OSC astro cameras, a solid step forward from a typical DSLR due to cooled sensors making longer exposures much more useful but if the bug has bitten, you might well find yourself trading up again in a year or two.

gregbradley · #15 23-08-2021, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamJL

I thought about the QHY, was was going to get it, but the driver issues turned me to ZWO.
Plus, at least with ZWO you have an option in future to use things like the ASIAIR, which is a fantastic little device and a real all-in-one solution.

Yes, I was impacted by the thermal grease issue and it's frustrating. But NINA for instance is only really getting decent QHY support now because of QHY's weird drivers.

Definitely advantages to both makers. There is also a 3rd maker that is cheaper again that may suit the OP budget. I think its called Altair or something like that. Ali Baba site lists them. They may be elsewhere as well.

It looked like an ASI camera but a purple body. About 255 cheaper but its new on the market and the drivers, software support is all unknown unless its a rebadged ASI.

Greg.

Peter Ward · #16 23-08-2021, 09:22 AM

At the current state of the art, I can say with some confidence CMOS (regardless of manufacturer) do not surpass CCD sensors in scientific and extremely faint object imaging.
Pixel to pixel variations inherent in the CMOS readout architecture is the problem and only seems to be tamed by statistical noise reduction techniques (e.g. dithering sub exposures).
Binning CMOS pixels is also not the same as binning CCD pixels, where the former is effectively a post-readout combination as opposed to an effectively real/larger pixel size at the capture stage with CCD’s.

But the reality for many is, they will never perform millimagnitude photometry or spectroscopy or image 23rd magnitude objects.

CCD’s will not disappeared either, but it is likely they will become very expensive as the number of fabrication lines making them dries up.
Technologies such as emCCD (read single photo detection) while eye-wateringly expensive at present, may trickle down into the amateur sphere in the next decade.

This leaves us with CMOS. My main gripe with made in ROC cameras is the lack of build quality. QHY are likely the best of the bunch
(they also use industry grade, rather than consumer grade sensors in their larger cameras) but even they lack the precision (i.e have sloppy fittings) and elegance (70 fiddly parts needed to install a filter set!!)
of the engineering that you get long established manufacturers such as SBIG/FLI . But they can deliver great results and won’t break the bank.

Compared to the diminutive Texas instruments Ti211 192x164 pixel sensor that I took my first CCD images with in the early 1990’s,
you are now spoilt for choice, but maybe focus a tad more on specification rather than price.

If a camera won’t do what you want, you’ve wasted you money no matter how cheap it was.

xelasnave · #17 23-08-2021, 01:22 PM

Peter which one requires 70 fiddly parts for a filter set?
Alex

Hans Tucker (Hans) · #18 23-08-2021, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Peter which one requires 70 fiddly parts for a filter set?
Alex

Me thinks the QHY600M Combo. I read his review of the QHY600M ... wasn't overly flattering in the Filter Wheel area ... 'Agricultural' was a word used

xelasnave · #19 23-08-2021, 02:13 PM

So how many?
Alex

Peter Ward · #20 23-08-2021, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Peter which one requires 70 fiddly parts for a filter set?
Alex

Placing 7 unmounted AstroDon filters into a QHY CFW3 will require
3x 2mm screws + 2 spacers plus +1 washer per screw (12 parts per filter
x 7 filters ).

So, yes my apologies, not 70. It's 84 fiddly bits !!

(P.S. Buckeye stargazer sells aftermarket inexpensive 3D printed masks that
drop over the filter, making a much more manageable 4 parts per filter )