Upgrading from Vaonis Vespera to modular ZWO setup for planetary and deep sky

Vaonis Vespera Integrated Camera Vaonis Vespera Equipment Backyard Astrophotography Buying Advice
8 replies•82 views
Philip Mortimer avatar
Philip Mortimer avatar

Hi everyone,

I'd like to reach out to the community for advice before finalizing my equipment choices.

My background:

I'm an amateur astrophotographer based in the French Alps (Savoie, 45°N). For the past 3 years, I've been using a Vaonis Vespera 1, which has been a fantastic tool for discovering deep sky imaging — I'm genuinely grateful for what it taught me. However, I now feel limited in my practice: no planetary imaging, no ability to swap tubes, and little flexibility overall. I'm looking to move to a more modular setup.

I'm not after the "best" setup on the market — just the right one for my actual use case: backyard sessions in the Alps + occasional car-accessible dark sites, planetary imaging of Jupiter, Saturn and the Moon, and more technical deep sky work with the flexibility to swap optical tubes. I plan to sell the Vespera to help fund the new setup.

The setup I have in mind:

ZWO base:

- ZWO AM5N mount (harmonic, 15kg payload without counterweight, EQ/AZ mode)

- ZWO TC40 carbon tripod

- ZWO ASI585MC Air (IMX585 4K + integrated ASIAir + integrated guiding + TEC cooling)

- ZWO EAF focuser

Optical tubes (used alternately):

- Askar FRA500 (90mm f/5.6, 500mm, APO quintuplet, integrated field flattener) for deep sky

- Skywatcher Maksutov 180/2700 for planetary

Total budget: ~3,600€ | Net after Vespera sale: ~3,000€

My questions:

1. Does this setup seem coherent for my use case?

2. Can the AM5N comfortably handle the Mak180 (7.8kg) without a counterweight?

3. Is the ASI585MC Air suitable for both high-frame-rate planetary imaging and deep sky with the FRA500?

4. Is the FRA500 a good choice as my only deep sky refractor, replacing the Vespera?

5. Are there any missing accessories you would recommend?

I'd really appreciate any feedback on this Vespera → modular setup transition, especially regarding the AM5N + Mak180 compatibility and the ASI585MC Air for planetary use.

Thanks in advance!

Well written Respectful Engaging
Tony Gondola avatar
Tony Gondola avatar

Honestly, I think this looks pretty solid. You could nit-pick this here and there but overall, this setup will do exactly what you want to do. The only thing missing is a filter wheel or drawer.

Cassio Pieroni Trevisani avatar
Cassio Pieroni Trevisani avatar

Hi Phillip,

As a newbie, I wish someone had told me when I was buying my equipment to invest a bit more in the camera. I have the ASI585MC Air, and I find it pretty limiting, grainy and noisy.

I have upgraded to the ZWO ASI2600 MC P25, if you want the air version ZWO ASI 2600MC AIR Wireless Smart Camera worth the investment. If you don’t need all the bells and whistles, you can go with the simple version I have.

All the best and clear skies!

Cassio


Well written Helpful Respectful Concise Engaging Supportive
Tony Gondola avatar
Tony Gondola avatar

Cassio Pieroni Trevisani · May 6, 2026, 07:23 PM

Hi Phillip,

As a newbie, I wish someone had told me when I was buying my equipment to invest a bit more in the camera. I have the ASI585MC Air, and I find it pretty limiting, grainy and noisy.

I have upgraded to the ZWO ASI2600 MC P25, if you want the air version ZWO ASI 2600MC AIR Wireless Smart Camera worth the investment. If you don’t need all the bells and whistles, you can go with the simple version I have.

All the best and clear skies!

Cassio


Tony Gondola avatar
Tony Gondola avatar

I would disagree with this assessment of the 585. It’s a lower pixel count than the 2600 and would generally not be magnified as much on the screen and that would certainly give the impression extra noise or graininess. Because of that it does take a bit more skill to get a good result but if you take a 3840×2860 crop from a 2600 and put it side by side with a 585, I doubt that you’d see much difference other than image scale if you exposed it properly.

Well written Engaging
Cassio Pieroni Trevisani avatar
Cassio Pieroni Trevisani avatar

One thing that confuses people about these two cameras is that the ASI585MC actually has incredibly low read noise for its price class. In certain gain settings, its raw read-noise performance is comparable to — and sometimes even slightly better than — the ASI2600MC on paper.

But in real-world deep-sky imaging, the ASI2600MC still tends to produce noticeably cleaner final images overall.

That advantage comes from the combination of:

  • 16-bit ADC

  • much larger full well capacity

  • better dynamic range

  • larger pixels

  • superior background handling

  • virtually zero amp glow

In practice, this gives the 2600MC smoother nebula gradients, cleaner faint detail, and much more processing headroom after stacking and stretching.

So while the 585MC is an amazing value and performs far above its price point, the 2600MC’s strength lies less in raw read-noise numbers and more in the overall quality and flexibility of the final deep-sky image.

Well written Helpful Insightful Respectful Engaging
Cassio Pieroni Trevisani avatar
Cassio Pieroni Trevisani avatar

Tony Gondola · May 6, 2026, 07:57 PM

I would disagree with this assessment of the 585. It’s a lower pixel count than the 2600 and would generally not be magnified as much on the screen and that would certainly give the impression extra noise or graininess. Because of that it does take a bit more skill to get a good result but if you take a 3840×2860 crop from a 2600 and put it side by side with a 585, I doubt that you’d see much difference other than image scale if you exposed it properly.

One thing that confuses people about these two cameras is that the ASI585MC actually has incredibly low read noise for its price class. In certain gain settings, its raw read-noise performance is comparable to — and sometimes even slightly better than — the ASI2600MC on paper.

But in real-world deep-sky imaging, the ASI2600MC still tends to produce noticeably cleaner final images overall.

That advantage comes from the combination of:

  • 16-bit ADC

  • much larger full well capacity

  • better dynamic range

  • larger pixels

  • superior background handling

  • virtually zero amp glow

In practice, this gives the 2600MC smoother nebula gradients, cleaner faint detail, and much more processing headroom after stacking and stretching.

So while the 585MC is an amazing value and performs far above its price point, the 2600MC’s strength is the overall quality and flexibility of the final deep-sky image.

Well written Helpful Insightful Respectful Engaging
Tony Gondola avatar
Tony Gondola avatar

I think more than anything else it really comes down to FOV verses sampling. If you need the FOV that the 2600 will give you than it’s the bast choice based on that alone. If you are after a smaller FOV at higher sampling then the 585 gets the nod.

I should mention that there are different flavors of the 585 out there. The Touptek 585 takes fuller advantage of what the 585 chip is capable of when compared to ZWO. I have the MM version and here are the numbers in HDR mode:

📷 ATR585M_HDR.webpATR585M_HDR.webpEspecially take note of the dynamic range. When doing comparisons it matters very much which version you’re talking about.

Well written Helpful Respectful Concise Engaging Supportive
Andrew Lamond avatar
Andrew Lamond avatar

Good to read that you are enjoying the hobby! I have 350mm and 1000mm scopes with an ASI2600. I am undersampling with the 350 scope. Your plans for a 585 with the 500 and 2700 are a better compromise than the 2600. I put the specs into astronomy.tools and produced the attached tables. Hope that helps, Andrew

FRA500_SKY180_ZWO585_2600.png

Well written Helpful Respectful Concise Engaging Supportive