The “better” FOV is the one that fits your instruments and targets.
Format: Some like the square format better because it means you don’t have to worry about rotation. You can compose to the square or crop to get the composition you want. The 585 is more restrictive because it really forces you to think about and commit to a composition up front.
Pixel size: This comes down to what your target sampling is. For faint extended objects you might want to under sample a bit, of Galaxies and PN are your bag then you might want to over sample. Here in the middle of Oklahoma I usually sample at 0.66” and 0.33” per pixel with good results.
Versatility: Due to pixel size and frame rate the 585 is a much more capable camera for lucky imaging of the moon, Sun and Planets while still being great for DSOs.
QE: 585 - 91%, 533 - 80%
Read noise: 585 - 1.1 at HCG, 533 - 1.5 at HCG
Bit depth: 585 -12, 533 -14
Max Dynamic range in stops: 585 -12.5, 533 -13.8
I can’t finish this overview with mentioning that the 585 has capabilities that are not fully exploited in the ZWO version. The version offered by ToupTek gives you a dew heater, something both the ZWO 585 and 533 lack. The Touptek version also offers a third shooting mode beyond LCG and HCG. Its HDR mode uses both the low gain and high gain amps together improve the output. In this case the dynamic range in stops goes to 14 stops (over 15 stops in the mono version) with a super tiny read noise figure of just 0.6. They claim that it also somehow makes the sensor act as a 16 bit chip. That is subject to debate but that’s the version I have and it does live up to the claims.
Both cameras can give you beautiful results, that’s not really the question. Which one fits your needs best is.
