Best astro cameras out there

[gregbradley]

Originally Posted by Slawomir

Hi Greg, actually I did not have any camera in mind when I suggested one with low read noise. I just thought it could be an important factor to keep in mind.

That 50mp one sounds very impressive, I think you could always bin in for the CDK? That would yield over 12mp 12 micron pixels, and perhaps well depth would about double too when binned?

Yes I suppose you could bin and get some large pixel stuff going. At 62% QE 2x2 binning would be very sensitive per Ray's formula.

It needs 65mm filters as well so that adds quite a bit. But yes it potentially could be a nice fit with the Honders and perhaps not so much with the CDK but as you say binned it could be quite good.

Greg.

[rally]

Hi Greg,

Its a nebulous question with a nebulous range of answers !

I know I am stating the obvious . . . but

The real issues are what are the conditions of use, how do you intend to use it - eg what equipment (aperture, focal length, filters) is it to be matched with, what type of imaging do you intend to do with it - pretty pics, deep or widefield, what sort of seeing and dark skies etc etc
What budget.

This then (helps) determine - the CCD size, the pixel size, the well depth, the read noise and dark noise characteristics of the ccd/camera combination.

Do you need/want binning, sub framing, fast downloads, deep cooling, ASCOM compliance, antiblooming etc etc

The "Best Astro camera" for widefield is not going to be the "Best Astro Camera" for deep galaxies and that is just comparing two extremes, and a trivial comparison compared to all the real world variations and disciplines.

Lots of smaller pixels is always going mean a sacrifice for well depth - thats a simple statement with huge ramifications.

Do you want to go deep - eg 60-120 minute exposures ? or capture a small fraction of the light but separate it into more pixels ?

The perfect camera could be at two opposite ends of the spectrum with two people using identical gear due to their personal interests and what they hope to achieve.

My suggestion is to break down what you do (or intend to do) and create a list of the requirements and create a tree of the options
You will end up with a bunch of different tree branches with each one requiring a different camera for the "best" results
I dont see that there is any other considered option.

The best camera will always be more than one camera and that is the first part of the answer, that the original question I suspect did not assume.
Evidenced by the variety of suggestions and opinions expressed in the thread.

Producing great results is typically not a result of the gear but the imagination of the imager - look at the APODs and award winning images
These are frequently looking at the stock standard targets but processing or looking at them in unusual new ways.

Just my two bobs worth.

Cheers

Rally

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

I dunno what your finances are like (although it has never seemed to be toooo much of an issue with you over the years ) but If I had your gear (well I almost have one of'em ) I would get:

THIS for the Honders and take deep high res wide field shots from Bigga with it, in relatively short exposures.

and use your ProLine 16803 with the 17" for galaxies from home (or Bigga if you decide to move it) seems pretty simple to me

No mumbo jumbo from me

Mike

[Atmos (Colin)]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

I dunno what your finances are like (although it has never seemed to be toooo much of an issue with you over the years ) but If I had your gear (well I almost have one of'em ) I would get:

THIS for the Honders and take deep high res wide field shots from Bigga with it, in relatively short exposures.

and use your ProLine 16803 with the 17" for galaxies from home (or Bigga if you decide to move it) seems pretty simple to me

No mumbo jumbo from me

Mike

As much as I love the idea of the camera, I still think I would prefer the 16803. You do lose some resolution but that can potentially be drizzled out. My ONLY concern with the mega camera is the ~40,000 well capacity against the 100,000 of the 16803.

For myself personally, I would prefer the extra dynamic range. Although having never actually really used a CCD (I have one that hasn't actually seen the skies yet due to 6 solid weeks of clouds) you could try to convince me that having half the dynamic range isn't as important

[gregbradley]

Originally Posted by Atmos

As much as I love the idea of the camera, I still think I would prefer the 16803. You do lose some resolution but that can potentially be drizzled out. My ONLY concern with the mega camera is the ~40,000 well capacity against the 100,000 of the 16803.

For myself personally, I would prefer the extra dynamic range. Although having never actually really used a CCD (I have one that hasn't actually seen the skies yet due to 6 solid weeks of clouds) you could try to convince me that having half the dynamic range isn't as important

40K well depth is pretty reasonable and is similar to the KAI11002 which is around 40-50K. The 16803 does have good dynamic range, one of the best. 6 microns is a better match for the focal length though.

Greg.

[gregbradley]

Originally Posted by Atmos

As much as I love the idea of the camera, I still think I would prefer the 16803. You do lose some resolution but that can potentially be drizzled out. My ONLY concern with the mega camera is the ~40,000 well capacity against the 100,000 of the 16803.

For myself personally, I would prefer the extra dynamic range. Although having never actually really used a CCD (I have one that hasn't actually seen the skies yet due to 6 solid weeks of clouds) you could try to convince me that having half the dynamic range isn't as important

Originally Posted by rally

Hi Greg,

Its a nebulous question with a nebulous range of answers !

I know I am stating the obvious . . . but

The real issues are what are the conditions of use, how do you intend to use it - eg what equipment (aperture, focal length, filters) is it to be matched with, what type of imaging do you intend to do with it - pretty pics, deep or widefield, what sort of seeing and dark skies etc etc
What budget.

This then (helps) determine - the CCD size, the pixel size, the well depth, the read noise and dark noise characteristics of the ccd/camera combination.

Do you need/want binning, sub framing, fast downloads, deep cooling, ASCOM compliance, antiblooming etc etc

The "Best Astro camera" for widefield is not going to be the "Best Astro Camera" for deep galaxies and that is just comparing two extremes, and a trivial comparison compared to all the real world variations and disciplines.

Lots of smaller pixels is always going mean a sacrifice for well depth - thats a simple statement with huge ramifications.

Do you want to go deep - eg 60-120 minute exposures ? or capture a small fraction of the light but separate it into more pixels ?

The perfect camera could be at two opposite ends of the spectrum with two people using identical gear due to their personal interests and what they hope to achieve.

My suggestion is to break down what you do (or intend to do) and create a list of the requirements and create a tree of the options
You will end up with a bunch of different tree branches with each one requiring a different camera for the "best" results
I dont see that there is any other considered option.

The best camera will always be more than one camera and that is the first part of the answer, that the original question I suspect did not assume.
Evidenced by the variety of suggestions and opinions expressed in the thread.

Producing great results is typically not a result of the gear but the imagination of the imager - look at the APODs and award winning images
These are frequently looking at the stock standard targets but processing or looking at them in unusual new ways.

Just my two bobs worth.

Cheers

Rally

I agree Rally. No scope is totally ideal for all although some are more flexible for multiple formats than others. Same with cameras one camera tends not to do all tasks.

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

I dunno what your finances are like (although it has never seemed to be toooo much of an issue with you over the years ) but If I had your gear (well I almost have one of'em ) I would get:

THIS for the Honders and take deep high res wide field shots from Bigga with it, in relatively short exposures.

and use your ProLine 16803 with the 17" for galaxies from home (or Bigga if you decide to move it) seems pretty simple to me

No mumbo jumbo from me

Mike

It is an appealling idea. The Honders does seem to be made to be a widefield astrograph first and foremost.

Greg.

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by gregbradley

It is an appealling idea. The Honders does seem to be made to be a widefield astrograph first and foremost.

Greg.

Well of course and with those sensitive little pixels you could still get great resolution in galaxies, PN's etc ...mate, it would have to be truly the ultimate imaging machine AND you STILL have the bloody 17" CDK into the bargain ...I mean you would seriously be one lucky guy Greg

Mike

[Eratosthenes (Peter)]

The KODAK 620 Hawkeye

http://www.toffsandtinks.com/shop/im...005598_485.jpg

....and large plates with curtains and ropes

http://stargazerslounge.com/uploads/...1410227945.jpg

...and one of my favourites, Edwin Hubble, the pipe smoking cat lover who started off as a Lawyer then "saw the star-light" and became one of the most important observational astronomers in the world

http://faculty.humanities.uci.edu/bj...hubblecopa.jpg