Choosing a fullframe camera

Very very much agree that you should go monochrome for this — an OSC full frame camera would be wasted potential, IMO. I’d rather have APS-C mono than OSC full frame… or I’d even rather take 533 mono vs OSC FF.

Also I’ve been eyeing Player One’s astronomy cameras. I appreciate the amount of details and data they publish about the camera’s performance.

As for the 410 vs the 455, make sure you consider your desired pixel scale. IMO pixel scale really drives gear selection, rather than the other way around.

I recently upgraded from my ASI 533 MC Pro to ASI 2600 MC Pro which has a IMX 571 sensor and is a APS-C type with zero amp glow and good resolution for going after Deep Sky Objects

Worth a consideration as it has a Mono version as well

Tip 1: Go mono, unless you have a very specific need for OSC

Tip 2: If you want to add a full-frame camera to the Epsilon, pay good attention to the focuser. The standard focuser is often considered to be insufficient for full-frame, resulting in flexing of the camera, showing up as a kind of sensor tilt in your images (but isn’t). There are great options out there for solid Epsilon focusers (Optec has an Epsilon specific kit) but be prepared for significant cost.

Tip 3: Matching a camera with telescope is mainly about pixel-size. Too small is fine, too big not so much. A 3.8 micron size is about the maximum you want to put on a 500-ish mm telescope. Anything bigger than that and you’ll want to do a lot of drizzling. A Celestron 9.25” would work well with all the options you mention. Within the pixel-size selection choose the largest surface-size that your scope and wallet allow.

Tip 4: There is no camera that is a good match for telescopes ranging from 200mm to 2400mm. If you get a 200mm scope, I would put the 585 on it that you already have.

I love my canon Ra, definitely worth a look!

With an epsilon 160, based on the focal length alone, the imx455 is the best option, but then the IMX410 is actually a really good option too, as it will not be as sensitive to collimation due to its larger pixels…

All the other performance metrics of the cameras etc pale in insignificance next to pixel scale.. and that’s a personal choice.. imx410 will be undersampled, but that’s not a big deal, dither and drizzle… The imx455 is a better scale for the e160, but its nearly $1000 more.

I would go an imx410 if you dont need mono, and if you already plan to dither and drizzle the data. Otherwise, 455.

I have both - OSC and Mono in APS size and OSC and Mono in Full Frame size (QHY 296 and 600). OSC is an option if you live in a region with a very limited amount of clear nights. Mono is certainly the first choice if you can count on a reasonable amount of clear nights and good to excellent seeing.
Full frame - think about the file size, my QHY600 files are about 120Mb per file - if you take LRGBHaOIIISII and only 30-50each, you can calculate the end result - you need a lof or RAM, a fast PC and a very reliable stacking program.
APS is certainly a valuable alternative and if you do not hesitate to go sometimes for a mosaic, then it is maybe worth to be considered.
I also shoot sometimes with my Canon Ra - fine for long focal length and not too dim targets and very limited clear nights, but not really good for fl below about 400-500mm imo. 24Mpx is not my recommendation due to undersampling (dithering every single frame and drizzling helps), 61Mpx would be fine - I do imaging with it on my RASA11 and on the SQA70 (there it is already on the border of undersampling) - would be optically my first choice.