Quote:
Originally Posted by I.C.D
Hi All I am tossing up between a qhy 163 c pro or zwo asi533mc pro . I have heard that qhy had some trouble with their driver is that true
|
The 163 is a bit old now. Some artifacts from microlense reflections when very bright stars. Lots of great images using them though.
533 has no amp glow but the sensor is smaller.
The 294 is seen as the successor to the 163. The 294 still has amp glow (annoying but calibrates out) but is also micro 4/3rds size sensor. Highly sensitive at 90% QE with Sony tech. 163 is Olympus and is more like 60% QE.
The QHY 2600 MC or M is the one to strive for if you can stretch your budget. Its more future proof. The 533 is quite a small sensor.
Driver issues? That is an old complaint. I have 2 QHY cameras and there was an issue with the 294's driver at the start but it was rapidly fixed.
I have had no issues with drivers since. I use Sky X to run the cameras.
Some have commented QHY drivers don't play nicely with some software, I forget which one - perhaps NINA?
The QHY268 ( same as ASI2600) has advantages over the ZWO ASI version. Different read modes that are handy when you switch from narrowband imaging to normal visible light or a scene with some really bright features.
ASI has a built in hub, QHY does not. From memory the power cable on the ASI just plugged in the QHY one screws on so won't pull out accidentally.
Both really need a high quality USB 3 cable, ditch the one supplied.
QHY in the QHY600 ( and perhaps the QHY268 offer an industrial grade sensor. This has longer life and a ceramic base not plastic as in the consumer grade. Also presumably less sensor defects like CCDs have class 1, class 2, engineering grade.
I have had an ASI 183m and it was really nice too.
I personally really dislike amp glow even if it "calibrates out" it doesn't 100%. You can still see residual artefacts from it when you process a final image. So the 533 for no amp glow is a big plus. The other is the 90% QE, the downside is the smallness of the sensor. Also the the small pixel size really only suits a widefield refractor although I would not fret about that too much but keep it in mind. 20mp for such a small sensor means you can comfortably bin it 2x2. That gives smaller file sizes as well. The 163 has larger pixels so suits longer focal length scopes.
The QHY is mostly better built but I was a bit surprised that the dovetail top attachment is loose out of the factory - huh? It seems to be designed like that.
With my custom adapter it makes no difference but what the hell.
Apart from that they have both been reliable performers and drivers not an issue. I think that report about bad drivers is from years ago when they apparently were crap.
Greg.
