Go Back   IceInSpace > Equipment > Astrophotography and Imaging Equipment and Discussions
Register FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #1  
Old 18-08-2016, 07:44 PM
tonez
Registered User

tonez is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 24
looking for a new ccd

hey guys,

im looking for a new mono ccd to go with my FS-102
ive been going back and forth looking at a qhy9 and atik one 6.0

i like the idea of self guiding but if its a hassle to get a guide star then im quite happy to abandon that idea

working out the overall cost of both with a set of LRGB and narrowband filters theres not a huge amount of difference since the atik uses 1.25" filters and the qhy uses 2"

i might be missing the blatantly obvious as far as other options go but i should mention that the atik would be at the top end of my budget

opinions, ideas?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 18-08-2016, 08:32 PM
Atmos's Avatar
Atmos (Colin)
Ultimate Noob

Atmos is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 7,001
With an FS I'd personally keep away from the Atik 6. It's a good camera but I think you'll have issues with any ICX694 sensor. It is incredibly sensitive in UV so you may get star bloat with a doublet.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 19-08-2016, 09:48 AM
Slawomir's Avatar
Slawomir (Suavi)
Registered User

Slawomir is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: North Queensland
Posts: 3,240
Although having less QE and being more noisy than ICX 694, IMHO KAF-8300 would be a better match for your telescope (FL 820mm ?), giving a wider FOV and a nice 1.36 arc-seconds per pixel resolution.

However, if you are planning to use a reducer, then personally, because I like narrowband imaging, I would go with a camera with ICX sensor that has an integrated FW, ideally also OAG integrated as well. Quality filters would help to reduce blue halos (filters that have a good out of band blocking (UV+IR)), and halos can be further reduced with software.

Just my five cents :-)
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 20-08-2016, 04:18 PM
tonez
Registered User

tonez is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 24
i decided to go with the qhy9, bang for buck and all that.
plus as mentioned it really is a better match for the tak at 820mm.

id love a reducer but for the price of the toa130 reducer and tak adapters i could buy a 10" f4 newt with mpcc and probably still have change.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 20-08-2016, 04:27 PM
multiweb's Avatar
multiweb (Marc)
ze frogginator

multiweb is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 22,071
I've had a QHY9 mono for a number of years and I love it. Very good for narrowband and the sensor is small enough to use with a small imaging circle.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 20-08-2016, 08:00 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 18,032
Yeah the 8300 has been the most popular sensor for a long time with lots of great images under its belt. Its got a decent field of view and good sensitivity and the noise is typical for a Kodak sensor with some manufacturers getting that lower than others.

Greg.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 24-08-2016, 08:39 PM
barx1963's Avatar
barx1963 (Malcolm)
Bright the hawk's flight

barx1963 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Mt Duneed Vic
Posts: 3,982
In a spurt of atro buying I picked up 2 CCDs a few months back, namely an Atik One 6.0 with OAG and a SBIG STT8300M with the integrated filter wheel and guider.
I have mainly been using the Atik for LRGB and am saving the SBIG for when I am a bit more cnfident and to have a crack it narrowband.
I love the Atik. Like any piece of gear it has a couple of things that could be done better but it is very low noise and quite sensitive. I have used a UV/IR block filter for my L frames and found the bloat to be easy to control. I have tested the SBIG and compared to the Atik, it is much noisier. Obviously dark frames will control that but I have been able to get acceptable (to me anyway) images without any darks using the Atik.
All the above is stated with the caveat that I am a novice imager!!

Cheers

Malcolm
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 25-08-2016, 03:17 PM
Atmos's Avatar
Atmos (Colin)
Ultimate Noob

Atmos is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 7,001
I have the QHY version, the ICX694 sensor is pretty good. I don't use darks with mine, as long as it dither I don't see any need for it. The dark current is almost non-existent and any hot pixels are removed during integration.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 29-08-2016, 09:49 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 18,032
You should definitely use the 694 chipped camera over the 8300 camera for narrowband. Chalk and cheese. The 694 is about the most sensitive ccd for narrowband. Its 66% QE in O111 and 70% in Ha. What other camera matches that with 6 megapixels and low noise? Answer - none.

The 8300 has a wider FOV and that's its main advantage but in all other ways the 694 is vastly superior. At around 12 electrons read noise the 8300 is more than twice as noisy as the Sony and far less sensitive in Ha and O111.

Having said that it really only means you have to do longer total exposure times. It has slightly deeper wells also which means better star control. But it really comes down to field of view in my opinion.

The new KAF16200 sets the new standard in low noise exKodak sensors and leaves them all for dead. Its like the Sony yet its a large field of view 27 x 21mm. Quite a vibrant sensor and one that is well balanced in its performance for astrophotography. Low noise, large field of view, quite deep wells, good QE, fast downloads, medium sized pixels that are high resolution - 16.2mp is quite noticeably more resolution. A winner. Its like the little brother of the KAF16803 cameras which are still the king.

I have been using one now for about 6 weeks and will post some images soon once I am happy with them. But I like what I see.
It'll probably become the new hot sensor being used once it gets better known. It suits most users as you go full frame and you need a large focuser and flatteners. This size is probably still fine with 2.7 inch style focusers and may still need a flattener or with some scopes you may not.

Greg.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 30-08-2016, 05:44 AM
Slawomir's Avatar
Slawomir (Suavi)
Registered User

Slawomir is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: North Queensland
Posts: 3,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregbradley View Post
You should definitely use the 694 chipped camera over the 8300 camera for narrowband. Chalk and cheese. The 694 is about the most sensitive ccd for narrowband. Its 66% QE in O111 and 70% in Ha. What other camera matches that with 6 megapixels and low noise? Answer - none.
Actually, according to FLI, ICX814 has about 72% QE in OIII and about 67% QE in Ha, 9 megapixels and only 2e read noise with their electronics.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-09-2016, 06:26 AM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 18,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slawomir View Post
Actually, according to FLI, ICX814 has about 72% QE in OIII and about 67% QE in Ha, 9 megapixels and only 2e read noise with their electronics.
FLI are definitely good. Impressive. If only the CCD were larger it would be even more attractive.

Greg.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


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 09:23 AM.

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