Camera Upgrade from ZWO ASI585MC Pro

Jean-David Gadina:
The 2600 looks great, and I might still consider it at some point, but I won’t put that as a priority.
For now, spending time getting more and better data and improving my processing seems like a better investment.

Ancient.Photon:

Jean-David Gadina:
I've started considering some options to upgrade my camera in the near future.
I currently use a ZWO ASI585MC Pro with a Celestron Nexstar Evolution 6.

I mostly use it with a .63 focal reducer (150mm aperture, 945mm focal length, f6.3).
I sometimes use a Starizona HyperStar on the Celestron (300mm focal length, f2).
I also don't want to move to a mono setup yet as I still have many things to learn using an OSC camera.

I'm happy with my current setup, and I've been able to improve the quality of my images moving from my Canon EOS R7.

That said, I wonder how much of a difference a higher-end camera would make, especially regarding noise.
Now, I should spend more time on targets and acquire more data for sure.

But I've been looking mainly at the specifications of the ZWO ASI2600MC Pro, with a 16-bit ADC versus 12-bit for the 585, bigger full well capacity, etc.

How much of a difference would such a camera make with my current setup for deep sky images (I'll most likely keep the 585 for planetary because of the frame rate).
Would it be worth upgrading, or should I keep using the 585 and simply spend more time on targets?

Also, the 585 has 2.9um pixels while the 2600 has 3.76um.
Is it going to be an issue with the HyperStar regarding undersampling?

Thanks a lot for any insights and recommendations.
Clear skies!

Hi ​​​@Jean-David Gadina , Based on what you have mentioned, my advice would be to decide based on the FOV and cost that your would like. You have already won over the battle of deciding between mono vs OSC. and your FOV from your telescope setup is also great i.e. 300 at f2 and ~945 at f6.3. So check the FOV with a asi2600 or 533mc pro etc. (533 is half the price of 2600). If you decide to keep the 585mc pro then the 2600mc pro with the aps-c sensor is a better option based on FOV.

the QE response of the 585mc is great and it has higher QE at the near-IR/IR wavelength which is good for smaller galaxies imaging. 
The other factor(theoretical) that I look from the specs is the read noise and dark current (again based on your bortle skies or sky noise this may not be that relevant). the 2600MC and the 533mc pro has a great thermal noise response meaning theoretically let say at -10deg sensor cooling you can go for ~45min (again theoretically ) subs before the thermal noise start to overcome the read noise, whereas this theoretical exposure sub length at -10deg would be ~10mins with the 585mc. I barely go above 2~3mins so this is useless but good to keep in mind.

So my recommendation will be play with FOV with different targets and see what you like. 2nd if price is not a concern, go for the apsc 2600 and definitely keep the 585. you can always sell the 585 if you no longer use but I think 585mc is a good option for smaller planetary nebulas or galaxies.  

All the best and clear skies

Clayton Ostler:
I am a 180 second guy and occasionally do 3 minutes

Dan Kearl:
There is a HUGE difference between the 2600 and the 585... 9mp vs. 26mp.
I have the 294 and the 533 and they are not in the same ballpark as the 2600mc.
If you are planning to stick with this hobby you won't regret the upgrade at all.
I can do a 50% crop on a 2600mc and still have 1 1/2 times the pixels of a 585.

Dan Kearl:

Dan Kearl:
There is a HUGE difference between the 2600 and the 585... 9mp vs. 26mp.
I have the 294 and the 533 and they are not in the same ballpark as the 2600mc.
If you are planning to stick with this hobby you won't regret the upgrade at all.
I can do a 50% crop on a 2600mc and still have 1 1/2 times the pixels of a 585.

OP was specifically asking about quality of the images. Yes, the 2600 will have a much bigger sensor, but the quality of the images themselves will be nearly identical.

There is no way a camera with 9mp will have any where close to the quality of a 26mp camera.

Dan Kearl:

Tony Gondola:

Dan Kearl:

Dan Kearl:
There is a HUGE difference between the 2600 and the 585... 9mp vs. 26mp.
I have the 294 and the 533 and they are not in the same ballpark as the 2600mc.
If you are planning to stick with this hobby you won't regret the upgrade at all.
I can do a 50% crop on a 2600mc and still have 1 1/2 times the pixels of a 585.

OP was specifically asking about quality of the images. Yes, the 2600 will have a much bigger sensor, but the quality of the images themselves will be nearly identical.

There is no way a camera with 9mp will have any where close to the quality of a 26mp camera.

Size isn't quality. If you cropped down the image from the 2600 to the same size as the 585 I would wager that you wouldn't see a difference. The only way it makes sense is if you want and can cover the much larger FOV the bigger sensor provides. Part of the reason people are so impressed with the results from large sensor is because the enlargement needed to cover your screen is much less so yeah, it looks great. I know that's another discussion but it is relevant.

Image size in pixels is quality in the photography world.  Try to make a 24 x 18 print of an image captured with a 9 mp camera.
There is a reason that Crop and full frame sensors in any camera discipline cost a lot more is because they provide much better image quality.
Size does matter.
If the only thing you care about is what an image looks like on a phone then I agree with you but most professional photographers would not.

Dan Kearl:

Rick Krejci:
If you are slightly under sampled with the 2600 and want to shoot small targets that easily fit on the 585 chip, then I’d contend that the 585 could produce better image even if you want to print.   More pixels on target, so more pixels to print and potentially more detail on the target.     

Of you’re well sampled with the 2600, then you just have to crop the 2600 a lot

I’m considering getting a minicam8 585 mono camera to complement my 2600 since I image at 1000mm f4.    On good seeing nights, it could better resolve the small targets.   For average  seeing, the 2600 could do slightly better with better well depth and dynamic range.

I have wasted a lot of money in this hobby trying to "save" money.
I am attempting to save the 0P money.

I just... like... what?

The OP already has a 585. The 2600 would be costing him money. We are saying that he won't get an increase in QUALITY, only an increase in SIZE. If the OP is happy with the size, as he stated, then from his point of view upgrading to the 2600 is not a good value yet.

If you took a crop of 3800x2100 of any 2600 MC pro image and compared it to a similar one of the 585mc pro, assuming both the data and the processing is well done, then the majority of people looking at it would not be able to tell the difference between them.