Go Back   IceInSpace > Beginners Start Here > Beginners Equipment Discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #1  
Old 23-08-2021, 08:26 AM
Jasp05 (Aaron)
Registered User

Jasp05 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Rockhampton
Posts: 226
Best Imaging Camera for 72mm Refractor

Hi guys,

Been a while since I posted here. Been having some dramas with my DSLR and the hot temps here in north QLD.

My question is around what the best imaging camera for a Skywatcher 72ed Evostar would be.

I've been looking at the ZWO 183MM or 1600MM as the 2 most suitable and closest to my budget.

I believe the 183's pixel size is more suited to my widefield FOV, however the 1600 would be a bit more future proof if i was to ever upgrade my scope and go bigger.

My mount is a HEQ5Pro so I wouldn't be going too much bigger. (maybe an 8 inch newt sometimes if i feel like a challenge..)

My main interest is in widefield currently, so using my refractor and the odd Canon camera lens.

Any input as to which you would prefer and why. Or if you have a different recommendation for a camera I'm all ears. (My one requirement is it must have cooling).

Thanks in advance.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 30-08-2021, 08:41 PM
Spacer (Shar)
Registered User

Spacer is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 11
I have looking for one too. Will keep an eye on this thread.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-10-2022, 08:26 PM
AstroViking's Avatar
AstroViking (Steve)
Registered User

AstroViking is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2022
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,037
Coming into this conversation a bit late, sadly.

I have pretty much the same setup as Aaron, and am looking at what astro-cam to get.

Right now, it looks like the ZWO ASI533M (either Mono + filters, or OSC). I'm leaning towards mono+filters because I do most of my imaging from light-polluted suburbia.

To any of our more experienced members, what upgrade path did you follow?

Cheers,
V
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-10-2022, 10:52 PM
Drac0's Avatar
Drac0 (Mark)
Registered User

Drac0 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Nowra, NSW
Posts: 522
Hi Steve,

You don't mention if you're using the reducer with the 72ED. This can make a difference.

Based strictly on the numbers, the 183MM would be more suited to your current setup & not bad with a larger scope like an 8" SCT or Newt, while the 1600MM would be the reverse, better for the larger scope but still quite useable with the 72ED.

Another option to consider is the 294MM. These have an "unlocked" bin 1x1 mode that the colour models don't. This gives you access to a pixel size very suitable for wider setups while the bin 2x2 is more suitable for a larger setup. Of course there are some drawbacks to this versatility you will need to consider - though it does still work well in 2x2 even with the smaller scopes.

The biggest 'drawback' for me is the file size of the unlocked 1x1, over 90MB each vs 22MB in 2x2. But depending on the size of the target I often use a ROI setup, greatly reducing the file sizes. I've never personally used either the 183MM or 1600MM, but I am very happy with the 294MM on both my 102mm refractor & 8" SCT.

And I do like the looks of the 533, was actually going to get an OSC version before the 294MM fell into my lap instead.

Cheers,
Mark
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-10-2022, 12:36 PM
AstroViking's Avatar
AstroViking (Steve)
Registered User

AstroViking is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2022
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,037
Hi Mark,

Ah yes. I forgot about the flattener/reducer. I do have one, and have used it quite a bit. Lately I've been going for smaller targets and decided I needed the extra focal length. (And you should see how stretched the stars are in the corners of the non-flattened images!)

I've been using the astrophotography tools CCD selector to try and narrow down which camera works best with my scope - both with and without the reducer.

Whilst the 183 and 294 fit more into the "green" region of the selector than the 533, I have heard a lot about their amp-glow and being a bit difficult to work with - hence my leaning towards the 553.

I can't see myself getting a bigger scope for quite a while (and the HEQ5 limits me to smaller OTAs anyway) so a reduced "future-proofing" is acceptable.

Cheers,
Steve
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-10-2022, 06:02 PM
Camelopardalis's Avatar
Camelopardalis (Dunk)
Drifting from the pole

Camelopardalis is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 5,425
I’ve not used one, but the 533 looks a pretty solid performer on paper and from the images I’ve seen from owners of them.

Try not to get too carried away with absolute resolution…it spoils the fun in a lot of ways…
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-10-2022, 07:45 PM
Drac0's Avatar
Drac0 (Mark)
Registered User

Drac0 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Nowra, NSW
Posts: 522
Hey Steve

Haven't found any issues with amp glow on the 294MM, calibrates out easily. I have seen the reports of a pattern problem on the OSC versions but never seen it on my mono.

But as I said, I was quite happily going to purchase an OSC 533 before the 294MM came my way - and that was just before the mono 533 was released. I'm happy with the 294MM, but it is likely I would have gone with the 533MM if it had been out at the time, something about that camera just caught me.

While the 183 & 1600 have been great cameras, and a still good performers for those with a more restrictive budget, I think they are now falling behind the similar sized sensors in the newer 533/294 cameras and I was willing to pay that little extra.

Whichever way you do go, I don't think you will be disappointed with the results, even if, based on the numbers, the resolution of the 533 isn't a perfect match for the 72ED with the reducer.

Cheers,
Mark

Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroViking View Post
Hi Mark,

Ah yes. I forgot about the flattener/reducer. I do have one, and have used it quite a bit. Lately I've been going for smaller targets and decided I needed the extra focal length. (And you should see how stretched the stars are in the corners of the non-flattened images!)

I've been using the astrophotography tools CCD selector to try and narrow down which camera works best with my scope - both with and without the reducer.

Whilst the 183 and 294 fit more into the "green" region of the selector than the 533, I have heard a lot about their amp-glow and being a bit difficult to work with - hence my leaning towards the 553.

I can't see myself getting a bigger scope for quite a while (and the HEQ5 limits me to smaller OTAs anyway) so a reduced "future-proofing" is acceptable.

Cheers,
Steve
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-10-2022, 09:50 AM
AstroViking's Avatar
AstroViking (Steve)
Registered User

AstroViking is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2022
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,037
Thanks very much for all the advice. Time to start saving the pennies...

Cheers,
V
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-10-2022, 12:35 PM
Drac0's Avatar
Drac0 (Mark)
Registered User

Drac0 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Nowra, NSW
Posts: 522
Sadly, the way the weather has been you may have plenty of time to save...
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-10-2022, 04:58 PM
AstroViking's Avatar
AstroViking (Steve)
Registered User

AstroViking is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2022
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,037
Just an update - I have a '183MC on the way. And an EAF to go with it.

My humble apologies for all the clouds and rain these purchases will cause for all the other South-East-Oz-based astro people.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 14-10-2022, 04:37 PM
agprasun (Prasun)
Registered User

agprasun is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2021
Location: Parramatta
Posts: 5
I use the 533mc pro and find it great at that focal length
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 12:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement