#1  
Old 06-12-2020, 12:19 PM
Saturn488 (Chrys)
Registered User

Saturn488 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 161
Considering new camera

Currently got an ES 102ED triplet. I image at 514mm with the 0.8x reducer but the current camera I got hasnít got a big enough sensor to get the larger objects.

Itís great for smaller deep sky objects but I want a camera with a bigger sensor.

Budget will be no more then $2000 AUD and it has to be monochrome.

Eyeing off the 1600MM-Cool Pro but can anyone give me some feedback and other alternatives?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-12-2020, 07:37 PM
lazjen's Avatar
lazjen (Chris)
PI cult member

lazjen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Flaxton, Qld
Posts: 2,014
If you could stretch that budget just a bit more, the 294MM would be a better option than the 1600MM.

Otherwise, keeping to the budget, I think the only other option (within ZWO line) would be the 183MM. You would need to check if it's a good match for your setup.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-12-2020, 10:18 AM
Saturn488 (Chrys)
Registered User

Saturn488 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 161
Yep I was looking at the 1600 and 294, hard to choose between the two.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-12-2020, 11:31 AM
jahnpahwa (JP)
Registered User

jahnpahwa is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Canberra, AUS
Posts: 567
Hi Chrys,
A quick shout out to say the 1600mm sensor is working well and seems to be a good match for my focal lengths which are around your 514. I go from 1.7"/px to about 0.8"/px with it and have much higher success rate (surprise!) at the 1.7 end, which is where you would be with that set up. With the 294 things will be even more forgiving as it has bigger pixels, but will have the trade offs in resolution associated with that.

I have not used flats or biases with mine at all, but always use darks. I can see myself using flats at least soon, though, as I try more RGB imaging.

Do you already have filters? if so and they are 1.25", the 1600 will be ok with them, but perhaps the 294 will suffer mildly? Its a tiny bit (5% on the diagonal) bigger. The ZWO 294 page has a nice comparo table at the bottom. The 294 looks a fairly significant improvement in just about every way. I'd love one!
https://astronomy-imaging-camera.com...t/asi294mm-pro

Sorry if that's all stuff you already know
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-12-2020, 12:14 PM
Saturn488 (Chrys)
Registered User

Saturn488 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 161
Thanks for the insight, that was great.

I already have 31mm LRGB filters that I use now but will be investing in some 36mm narrowbands very soon.

Yeah was looking at that comparison table and some elements of both cameras are good and bad. 294 is newer but the 1600 looks like it still has that little bit of a gain and appeal.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-12-2020, 04:08 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 17,045
The 294m is generally regarded as the successor to the 1600 which sensor is no longer made.

The 294m outclasses the 1600 in most ways, 50% higher QE, slightly larger, lower read noise plus the option to run it at 47mp instead of 11 (the QHY version - the ASI version currently can't do that but rumours are it will gain this, not sure if retrospectively though).

The 294m is the clear choice over the 1600 except for cost as 2nd hand 1600s are starting to become common and the price will fall.

The 1600 also has the microlense reflection artifacts on bright stars, the 294m does not.

Greg.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-12-2020, 05:27 PM
Saturn488 (Chrys)
Registered User

Saturn488 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregbradley View Post
The 294m is generally regarded as the successor to the 1600 which sensor is no longer made.

The 294m outclasses the 1600 in most ways, 50% higher QE, slightly larger, lower read noise plus the option to run it at 47mp instead of 11 (the QHY version - the ASI version currently can't do that but rumours are it will gain this, not sure if retrospectively though).

The 294m is the clear choice over the 1600 except for cost as 2nd hand 1600s are starting to become common and the price will fall.

The 1600 also has the microlense reflection artifacts on bright stars, the 294m does not.

Greg.
So looks like the 294m looks like its the way to go but unfortunatelyit doesnt have any USB cables to piggy back a filter wheel or guide camera which is a bummer.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-12-2020, 06:56 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 17,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saturn488 View Post
So looks like the 294m looks like its the way to go but unfortunatelyit doesnt have any USB cables to piggy back a filter wheel or guide camera which is a bummer.
The QHY one doesn't. The ZWO probably does.

Greg.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-12-2020, 09:19 PM
Camelopardalis's Avatar
Camelopardalis (Dunk)
Drifting from the pole

Camelopardalis is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 5,175
The QHY cameras typically include a 4-pin connector controlling a QHY filter wheel.
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 12:31 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
NexDome Observatories
Advertisement
Limpet Controller
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement