Planetary Standoff: 585 vs 533 - Forums

Topic starter

Jun 3, 2024

Hi AstroBinners and planetary imagers,

I tested both 585 and 533 during my short planetary career, and I always wanted to compare them.

The FPS they provide on the ZWO website, however, is relative to the usage of the full sensor, 585 and 533 sensors have different area and scale tho.

Here is my attempt to compare them;

Let's take 585 as a sample, it has a 3840px by 2160px or 11.2mm by 6.3mm sensor that can run at 46fps

Its pixel size is 2.9um

To have a fair comparison, we should use the same area;

And now let's see what the FPS is like at such settings;

Turns out it's 35.5fps, which is just 10 fps shy of 585

You still have a pixel size difference, tho Im not sure which one is better - I guess it all depends on your sampling and focal length

and the sensor on 533 is larger meaning that you can cover a larger area of the sky

But FPS wise its roughly the same - Ive used both 585 and 533 - I don't feel that FPS difference

Tho I do feel that the larger sensor gives me more freedom with ROI selection

So what does this mean? Could one say that 533 is just as good for planetary as 585, if not better?

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

Helpful Engaging

NaQirex

Jun 3, 2024

Both are amazing sensors, and I happen to own both from ZWO: a cooled 533MC and a 585MC (non-cooled).

I have to say, the 533MC gets you a lot of the way there with planetary. It has a decent frame rate and plenty of coverage.

But the 585 is a planetary BEAST.

A couple of things to consider:

Sensor size.

This becomes largely irrelevant, as you will end up cropping down to 640 X 480 (or even smaller) to both reduce frame size, and achieve even higher frame rates.

Bigger sensor can be useful in finding planets though a Barlow, but once found and centred you will want to crop in anyway.

Over cropped in, there is plenty of leeway for region of interest. Just make sure your polar alignment is spot on.

Frame rate.

The quoted frame rates on ZWOs site are the highest possible at maximum resolution. Shooting planetary at max resolution is a huge waste - as even Jupiter will only cover a fraction of the sensor.

With my 585MC I have achieved some ridiculous frame rates of 150FPS + which is great for beating the seeing.

I've gotten close with the 533, but 585 is simply faster. I think even higher frame rates are possible with quicker SSD cards and the like - I have been capturing on a Mele Quieter 3Q.

Pixel size.

Both sensors have what are considered small pixels. For planetary imaging, oversampling is the norm, and the 585MC has the edge here again. The smaller pixels lend towards oversampling and the arguable advantages of such a method of capture.

Full well and bit depth.

(From memory) The 533 has the advantage here. However, both of these things aren't really that important for planetary, as you will generally want to shoot in 8 bit mode anyway ( for faster frame rates - frame rate is KING) and at higher gain (I've shot up to about 450 gain with the 585MC and it still gives amazing results).

Food deep sky - invert everything I just said.

Near IR sensitivity.

The 585MC wins out here again. It has greater sensitivity in the near infrared. What's the advantage there? Well, to be honest, using and IR pass filter, I have managed to eek out some additional minor detail, but never been able to successfully combine those IR images with colour captures to gain greater detail.

But the capability is there with the 585MC.

In summary.

From a purely planetary/solar/lunar perspective - I think you have to give it to the 585MC. If you already have the 533 - then you could get 85% of the way there - maybe more.

If I had two comparison images - I would show them here, but in every instance I want to shoot some planetary, I've used the 585 as the capture camera - and used the 533 on a guide scope to help me centre targets

I've certainly shot planets with the 533, but i've always swapped it out for the 585 if ever the seeing got good, or a was having a serious crack at a planet.

For reference:
Image 1: 585MC With Skywatcher 127 Maksutov

Image 2: Skywatcher 127 Mak with the 585mc again

Image 3: 585mc through an svbony 80ED

These images are through tiny scopes! The power of these cameras is amazing.

I wish you luck with whichever camera you get.

The new cooled version of the 585MC looks like one of the greatest jack-of-all-trades cameras you can get today.

Helpful Insightful Engaging

andrea tasselli

Frequent contributor

Jun 3, 2024

There is no such thing as "beating the seeing" in hi-res planetary imaging and neither is this obsession with frame rate going to help you in selecting a planetary camera both of which are not. Incidentally, higher bit depths are not going to affect your frame rate once a sensible ROI (or at all) is set but they become largely redundant at higher gains.

Niraj

Jun 3, 2024

What's the highest frame rate at 16bit recording in 585mc? they mention their max frame rate around 45-48fps but when one does 16-bit recording, it goes down. But they don't mention how much.

TiffsAndAstro

Jun 3, 2024 · Edited: Jun 3, 2024

Both are amazing sensors, and I happen to own both from ZWO: a cooled 533MC and a 585MC (non-cooled).

I have to say, the 533MC gets you a lot of the way there with planetary. It has a decent frame rate and plenty of coverage.

But the 585 is a planetary BEAST.

A couple of things to consider:

Sensor size.

This becomes largely irrelevant, as you will end up cropping down to 640 X 480 (or even smaller) to both reduce frame size, and achieve even higher frame rates.

Bigger sensor can be useful in finding planets though a Barlow, but once found and centred you will want to crop in anyway.

Over cropped in, there is plenty of leeway for region of interest. Just make sure your polar alignment is spot on.

Frame rate.

The quoted frame rates on ZWOs site are the highest possible at maximum resolution. Shooting planetary at max resolution is a huge waste - as even Jupiter will only cover a fraction of the sensor.

With my 585MC I have achieved some ridiculous frame rates of 150FPS + which is great for beating the seeing.

I've gotten close with the 533, but 585 is simply faster. I think even higher frame rates are possible with quicker SSD cards and the like - I have been capturing on a Mele Quieter 3Q.

Pixel size.

Both sensors have what are considered small pixels. For planetary imaging, oversampling is the norm, and the 585MC has the edge here again. The smaller pixels lend towards oversampling and the arguable advantages of such a method of capture.

Full well and bit depth.

(From memory) The 533 has the advantage here. However, both of these things aren't really that important for planetary, as you will generally want to shoot in 8 bit mode anyway ( for faster frame rates - frame rate is KING) and at higher gain (I've shot up to about 450 gain with the 585MC and it still gives amazing results).

Food deep sky - invert everything I just said.

Near IR sensitivity.

The 585MC wins out here again. It has greater sensitivity in the near infrared. What's the advantage there? Well, to be honest, using and IR pass filter, I have managed to eek out some additional minor detail, but never been able to successfully combine those IR images with colour captures to gain greater detail.

But the capability is there with the 585MC.

In summary.

From a purely planetary/solar/lunar perspective - I think you have to give it to the 585MC. If you already have the 533 - then you could get 85% of the way there - maybe more.

If I had two comparison images - I would show them here, but in every instance I want to shoot some planetary, I've used the 585 as the capture camera - and used the 533 on a guide scope to help me centre targets

I've certainly shot planets with the 533, but i've always swapped it out for the 585 if ever the seeing got good, or a was having a serious crack at a planet.

For reference:
Image 1: 585MC With Skywatcher 127 Maksutov

Image 2: Skywatcher 127 Mak with the 585mc again

Image 3: 585mc through an svbony 80ED

These images are through tiny scopes! The power of these cameras is amazing.

I wish you luck with whichever camera you get.

The new cooled version of the 585MC looks like one of the greatest jack-of-all-trades cameras you can get today.

that's an amazing image of saturn
imx585 is top of my list to upgrade from my stock 600d, one day. Im only interested in DSO astro, but if I ever get the planetary bug it should do both.

Alien_Enthusiast

Topic starter

Jun 3, 2024

Thanks everyone for sharing your thoughts!

Here is how I use my planetary cameras;

1. I have a very small setup, usually with an FL of 200~400mm (with the usage of barlows 700~1200) - at that FL planets are out of reach

2. My main targets are;
- moon
- sun
- ISS transits (lunar and solar)

When I'd use my 585 with a roughly ~750mm setup, full moon simply wouldn't fit into the frame. Mosaics are possible, but it's a pain to get them perfect. So in this case sensor size of 533 allows me to use higher FLs and still get the moon/sun in the frame

As for ISS transits, framing is even more important. On a recent solar transit, I used a big part of the sensor (way bigger than what 585 has to offer), therefore allowing me to use higher FLs and therefore resolve more details. To fit the whole sun in a frame with 585, you need to "zoom out" a bit which drops resolution.

Here is that transit I mentioned; (about 35 fps with this one)

Another interesting aspect I noticed - 533 doesn't drop FPS when used in 16bit mode

137.5fps at 8bit - 600x400

137.9 fps at 16bit - 600x400

It seems to me that 533 provides more flexibility.

Helpful Engaging

Dale Penkala

Jun 4, 2024

This thread come out in perfect timing for me. I’m actually working on setting up a 3rd setup with my C9.25 for lunar and planetary work. I’ve always used my newts for this work with my 290mm strictly for lunar work.
I was looking at the 585mc for a planetary setup but always wondered if there would be a good choice that would do both. It sounds like this one would be that camera???
https://www.zwoastro.com/product/asi585mc-pro/
I like the idea of the cooled version as well.

Any thoughts on this would be appreciated!

Dale

andrea tasselli

Frequent contributor

Jun 4, 2024 · Edited: Jun 4, 2024

Cooled cameras are not a really a thing for planetary imaging so it is just wasted money (when not wasted opportunity). In general square sensors should be preferred since they give the best match to generally round objects. Personally, I think there are better choices out there for planetary imaging. For solar work a monochrome camera is to be preferred, especially for work in Ha light. Global shutter also is a very nice feature with bright large objects. Higher bit depth (effective) and very low read noise when coupled with high sensitivity (especially in the blue end where many cameras are lacking) are the main buying points.

Helpful Insightful

andrea tasselli

Frequent contributor

Jun 4, 2024

Preferred type of sensor, per subject:

Jupiter -> OSC
Saturn -> OSC
Mars -> Mono
Venus -> Mono
Mercury -> Mono
Moon -> Either
Sun > Mono
Neptune/Uranus -> Mono

Dale Penkala

Jun 4, 2024

andrea tasselli:
Cooled cameras are not a really a thing for planetary imaging so it is just wasted money (when not wasted opportunity). In general square sensors should be preferred since they give the best match to generally round objects. Personally, I think there are better choices out there for planetary imaging. For solar work a monochrome camera is to be preferred, especially for work in Ha light. Global shutter also is a very nice feature with bright large objects. Higher bit depth (effective) and very low read noise when coupled with high sensitivity (especially in the blue end where many cameras are lacking) are the main buying points.

Well thanks for the cooling tip Andrea, it will save me some money.

Dale

Dale Penkala

Jun 12, 2024 · Edited: Jun 12, 2024

Does the 585 have the option to do MONO8 & 16 for lunar work? Asking as this could be an excellent camera to do both lunar and planetary work. 1 camera for both rather then 1 for planetary and 1 for lunar.

Actually thinking more about this I could just image in color and switch/convert it to grayscale in PI so I guess it don’t really matter then.

Dale