Hi all, I currently have a ASI1600MM, but would like to upgrade the camera while keeping my 1.25” filters. I have heard the ZWO ASI294 has a lot of issues with calibration and software bugs, so I would like to dodge that. That basically leaves other camera manufacturers IMX294 equivalents. Does anyone have experience using the other cameras? One is the Player One Artemis-M Pro, another the Touptek ATR3CMOS10300KMA. Would be leaning toward the Touptek currently as it has the full usb hub in the back
ZWO ASI294MM vs other imx294 astro cameras
Well Written Engaging
I might be wrong but I was under the impression that the problems with the 294 are more to do with the chip than the manufacturer. If that's the case, you'll have the same issues no matter who makes the camera?
Engaging
Tony Gondola:
I might be wrong but I was under the impression that the problems with the 294 are more to do with the chip than the manufacturer. If that's the case, you'll have the same issues no matter who makes the camera?
Yeah, I agree with Tony. I own a ZWO ASI294MM and I have no software issues. I take 8 sec flats which removes the kinda odd kink the chip has, when taking short flats (under 2 secs in my experience). I can't speak to other brands but the flat issue comes from the chip - not the brand of the camera-casing.
The Artemis-M Pro comes with a tilt plate which is a plus. The ZWO does not.
Also if you use an OAG the Artemis-M Pro can be directly screwed to the filter-wheel which makes the the OAG and camera permanently aligned which is nice (if you attach the OAG to the filter wheel as well).
Helpful
I have both MM and MC and I had and have ZERO issues with calibrations. This said I'd probably go with the Artemis series if I had to buy again with its built-in tilt plate which is actually useable unlike ZWO's.
I own the ZWO ASI294MM and the QHY 294M Pro. Both have their pros and cons. The cooler of the ZWO is better, but I didn't like the dessicant tablets inside the sensor chamber. The QHY version does not cool as good as the ZWO, but the dessicant container that can be screwed on is a huge benefit in my opinion. Otherwise, I do not have any issues with both of them. I do regular calibration frames and although they're not as smooth as on newer sensors, they work just like any other thing I own. I really can't tell any difference.
Helpful
Need Help w/C8 - OAG & Starizona Corrector
To give a little background, I’ve been imaging now for about 3 years and have often used my C8/CGEMII with a 60mm guide scope with no real problems. I’ve often been warned about differential flexure and that an OAG was ideal for this focal length, wh...