ASI183mc pro or ASI533mc Pro with Redcat51

Hello all!

I've done a bit of research on it but I feel it's going to be easier to ask straight out.

I'm currently using a stock Canon 600d with a WO Redcat51 on star adventure pro 2i, I plan on staying with the Redcat for a while but, I really do need a new camera considering the one I'm using is my partners

Going off the CCD calculator the 183 looks to be a better choice for my setup, but seeing as I'm still fairly new to AP I'm after some first-hand advice/ experiences.

Thanks

The ASI 533MC PRO is the better camera, it has a square sensor with 0 amp glow . And its much newer sensor , i think it will perform great on the RedCat51

I am a big fan of the 183 had the MC and switched to the MM. My main objection to the 533 is the square sensor which just feels wrong to me.

I was in the same boat last month. I did a lot of digging and finally decided on the 533mc mainly for future proofing. The 183mc seemed the perfect fit for the Redcat 51 but to my thinking it would be a one trick pony. I'm sure others will disagree. The 533 allows me to acquire a 400-500 mm focal length telescope which I am seriously looking at and still be in the sampling range. I would love to have a 2400/2600/6200 but the 533 or 183 were the only candidates to fit my budget.

Good luck with your choice.

Same here. I use the ZWO ASI533mc with my SpaceCat (Gray version of the Redcat). You can see my images here in Astrobin. Awesome camera! Good luck!

The 533mc has a newer sensor which has a lot of advantages as others have mentioned. Here are some additional points:

The larger pixels will undersample your images (which isn't a bad thing), and that gives you the opportunity to drizzle if you need higher resolution (just make sure you dither between each frame). You won't be able to drizzle with the 183mc because you will not be undersampled.
The square aspect ratio actually is ideal for phone screens when holding the phone vertically.
In a small way, the square sensor actually is more forgiving with framing. If you image over multiple nights and don't exactly match the framing from night-to-night it's not as much of a "hit" when you crop.

I use the 533mc with the Redcat as well, and it's a great match. I've very rarely have felt that the smaller sensor has been a disadvantage. I also use the 533mc with a Samyang 135mm and couldn't be happier.

Good luck!

Hi,

I'm considering switching to a dedicated astro camera too and therefore looked at ASI 183, ASI 294 and ASI 533. I quickly dismissed the ASI 183 due to significantly lower full well capacity and "only" 12 bit ADC compared to 14 bit ADC for the other two models. Read noise looks somewhat worse to me too. With your equipment I assume you're aiming at DSO's and the additional bit depth should play some role there. To me it's still a close race between ASI 294 and ASI 533. Reports about amp glow with the older ASI's are for sure an argument for ASI 533 and the square format certainly has some advantages. On the other hand the ASI 294 has a wider FoV than the ASI 533. On occasion this is an advantage. Of course if you only consider ASI 183 and ASI 533 the argument of broader FoV doesn't hold for the ASI 183.

The only argument I see in favor of the 183 is that there is a 183 MM model, so at some point in the future you may consider shooting your color channels with the 183 and narrow band with 183 MM. The same holds for the 294. There is no mono model for the 533 (yet).

Personally I postponed my decission since I realized that my current results are not limited by my camera or my sensor. I bought a small planetary cam that will serve me as a guiding cam later on, in order to get some hands on experience with astro cameras. After all when moving from a Canon - or in my case from an Olympus - to a dedicated astro cam you have an additional learning curve when dealing with the computer in the field and with the capture software.

I hope my thoughts on the topic were helpful and didn't confuse by introducing a third (ASI 294) or even fourth option (postponing).

Best regards
Wolfgang

Hi,

I'm considering switching to a dedicated astro camera too and therefore looked at ASI 183, ASI 294 and ASI 533. I quickly dismissed the ASI 183 due to significantly lower full well capacity and "only" 12 bit ADC compared to 14 bit ADC for the other two models. Read noise looks somewhat worse to me too. With your equipment I assume you're aiming at DSO's and the additional bit depth should play some role there. To me it's still a close race between ASI 294 and ASI 533. Reports about amp glow with the older ASI's are for sure an argument for ASI 533 and the square format certainly has some advantages. On the other hand the ASI 294 has a wider FoV than the ASI 533. On occasion this is an advantage. Of course if you only consider ASI 183 and ASI 533 the argument of broader FoV doesn't hold for the ASI 183.

The only argument I see in favor of the 183 is that there is a 183 MM model, so at some point in the future you may consider shooting your color channels with the 183 and narrow band with 183 MM. The same holds for the 294. There is no mono model for the 533 (yet).

Personally I postponed my decission since I realized that my current results are not limited by my camera or my sensor. I bought a small planetary cam that will serve me as a guiding cam later on, in order to get some hands on experience with astro cameras. After all when moving from a Canon - or in my case from an Olympus - to a dedicated astro cam you have an additional learning curve when dealing with the computer in the field and with the capture software.

I hope my thoughts on the topic were helpful and didn't confuse by introducing a third (ASI 294) or even fourth option (postponing).

Best regards
Wolfgang

*** I didn't realize the sensor was the same size! Well then FOV is a non-issue!***

Hi Codey,

I have the 183MC Pro and use it exclusively with a Redcat 51. With what I know now, I should have gone with the 533. Bigger dynamic range, bigger pixels, deeper full well and NO AMP GLOW. It seems that the redcat and the 533 would be a really great match. About the only draw back would be the slightly smaller FOV.

All that being said, I am seriously looking at getting the ASI2600MM for the above reasons. Some of the ASI1600 pictures here are fabulous and from what I understand the 2600 is a more modern chip. And while a mono camera seemed daunting to learn last year when I started, it is really starting to make much more sense now. Of course a better camera will need a better lens too ;-) but that little redcat is such a lovely and simple telescope.

best
Christine

I hope my thoughts on the topic were helpful and didn't confuse by introducing a third (ASI 294)

I was actually only considering the 294 until I started to do some research with the CCD Calculator. thanks for your reply!

Christine Zacharer:
Hi Codey,

I have the 183MC Pro and use it exclusively with a Redcat 51. With what I know now, I should have gone with the 533. Bigger dynamic range, bigger pixels, deeper full well and NO AMP GLOW. It seems that the redcat and the 533 would be a really great match. About the only draw back would be the slightly smaller FOV.

All that being said, I am seriously looking at getting the ASI2600MM for the above reasons. Some of the ASI1600 pictures here are fabulous and from what I understand the 2600 is a more modern chip. And while a mono camera seemed daunting to learn last year when I started, it is really starting to make much more sense now. Of course a better camera will need a better lens too ;-) but that little redcat is such a lovely and simple telescope.

best
Christine

Pretty much convinced me to go with the 533, I do think the square sensor is a little weird but after a little play in Stellarium, I think it will be easy to get used to.

I think maybe in a couple of years ill look at getting into MONO after I've upgraded everything else if I'm not broke that is

Thanks for all the replies,

Keep adding more advice if any.

Christine Zacharer:
Hi Codey,

I have the 183MC Pro and use it exclusively with a Redcat 51. With what I know now, I should have gone with the 533. Bigger dynamic range, bigger pixels, deeper full well and NO AMP GLOW. It seems that the redcat and the 533 would be a really great match. About the only draw back would be the slightly smaller FOV.

All that being said, I am seriously looking at getting the ASI2600MM for the above reasons. Some of the ASI1600 pictures here are fabulous and from what I understand the 2600 is a more modern chip. And while a mono camera seemed daunting to learn last year when I started, it is really starting to make much more sense now. Of course a better camera will need a better lens too ;-) but that little redcat is such a lovely and simple telescope.

best
Christine

I've owned the 183MC and used it with my Redcat 51... I ended up returning it. It was a great decision because I ended up buying a used ASI533MC locally and I was immediately impressed with its sensitivity, lack of amp glow and improved dynamic range compared with the ASI183MC

I have owned the 183mc, 533mc and the 294mc. The choice would be between the 533 and the 294. No amp glow on the 533 is nice but some people don't like the square sensor. If the square sensor doesn't bother you then the 533 is the right choice. Good Luck!

I use both 183s, the MC and the MM and I am very happy with them. Yes - the ampglow is not very pleasant but with good darks, it is gone - at least with my cameras.
The advantage of the 533 is certainly that it has got no ampglow, thats a big advantage and that one can use almost the entire square FOV of a telescope. However, most galaxies require rectangular images, therefore one needs to crop the image to place the target nicely into the FOV.

An advantage of the 183 series are the small pixels - 2,4micon ist very pleasant for low focal lengths with good optics - like at 100, 135, 180 or 200mm - if you have a good seeing and dark skies (which I fortunately get most of the time).

Anyway, the more versatile and more modern camera seems to be the 533… if your budget calls for one only camera, then I would buy the 533 (today, now…:-))

CS, Georg

Georg N. Nyman:
I use both 183s, the MC and the MM and I am very happy with them. Yes - the ampglow is not very pleasant but with good darks, it is gone - at least with my cameras.
...

Good reminder to all of us in this discussion, that all of these cameras are very capable tools. We're living in great times for AP and as so many fantastic images here at astrobin prove, the end result is not determined by the camera. Just like in normal photography most cameras are better than their user

.
Main reason why I postponed my decision so far. Work at the weakest link in the chain (my own skillset) first instead of hoping new gear will help.

In another post I compared the AP hobby with hifi. There are certainly differences between different pieces of equipment but - maybe except for the mounts - the level of precision and performance is already so high that for most of us the difference may not matter much in the end result.

Of course I'm falling into this trap myself. Above I pointed out the difference in bit depth (12 vs 14). Admittedly I doubt wether I would be able to detect this difference in the final image with my aging eyes. Doesn't keep me from comparing sensor specs, oh well ...

Christine Zacharer:
Hi Codey,

I have the 183MC Pro and use it exclusively with a Redcat 51. With what I know now, I should have gone with the 533. Bigger dynamic range, bigger pixels, deeper full well and NO AMP GLOW. It seems that the redcat and the 533 would be a really great match. About the only draw back would be the slightly smaller FOV.

All that being said, I am seriously looking at getting the ASI2600MM for the above reasons. Some of the ASI1600 pictures here are fabulous and from what I understand the 2600 is a more modern chip. And while a mono camera seemed daunting to learn last year when I started, it is really starting to make much more sense now. Of course a better camera will need a better lens too ;-) but that little redcat is such a lovely and simple telescope.

best
Christine

I have a 1600mm Pro on my Redcat 51 and also use a 2600mm Pro on my larger Esprit 100ed, there’s a lot of imagers who go for the 183 for the Recat because of the pixel size as the 1600 undersamples the image. All I would say is it totally depends if you want more detail (183) or a wider field of view (1600/2600)… I have found the resolution with the 1600 to produce beautiful, detailed images and cover a big piece of sky… below is an image done in Ha using Recat/1600, I wouldn’t swap the field of view for slightly more detail than this, personal choice at the end of the day I suppose… Clear Skies‼️

NGC7822 Cepheus Star Factory … H-Alpha

Olly Barrett:
Christine Zacharer:
Hi Codey,

I have the 183MC Pro and use it exclusively with a Redcat 51. With what I know now, I should have gone with the 533. Bigger dynamic range, bigger pixels, deeper full well and NO AMP GLOW. It seems that the redcat and the 533 would be a really great match. About the only draw back would be the slightly smaller FOV.

All that being said, I am seriously looking at getting the ASI2600MM for the above reasons. Some of the ASI1600 pictures here are fabulous and from what I understand the 2600 is a more modern chip. And while a mono camera seemed daunting to learn last year when I started, it is really starting to make much more sense now. Of course a better camera will need a better lens too ;-) but that little redcat is such a lovely and simple telescope.

best
Christine

I have a 1600mm Pro on my Redcat 51 and also use a 2600mm Pro on my larger Esprit 100ed, there’s a lot of imagers who go for the 183 for the Recat because of the pixel size as the 1600 undersamples the image. All I would say is it totally depends if you want more detail (183) or a wider field of view (1600/2600)… I have found the resolution with the 1600 to produce beautiful, detailed images and cover a big piece of sky… below is an image done in Ha using Recat/1600, I wouldn’t swap the field of view for slightly more detail than this, personal choice at the end of the day I suppose… Clear Skies‼️

NGC7822 Cepheus Star Factory … H-Alpha

that's a great image and very little noise...
this is the 183 on the Redcat

NGC6888 - Crescent Nebula

as you can see it's noisy which is either my poor processing skills (most probably) or the bit depth of the camera coupled with the bayer matrix of a color camera. and over processing it...
All in all, I wasn't getting the 2600 for the Redcat, but plan to go a little longer in focal length and more aperture. I can really see the benefit of a mono camera, since I image with filter's now anyhow, eliminating the Bayer matrix is a huge step up and perhaps may be the biggest jump regardless.

Hello, my path was little different than yours: I was looking for wider filed of view, and already had the 183MC and MM, as well as the Esprit 100. I couldn't convience myself that the 2600MM was worth the pricetag; therefore decided to go with the Redcat. Here are the first lights with it, and 183MC pro camera (color l-eXtreme). Pretty happy about my decision so far. Good luck with your choice!

Heart nebula

Soul nebula

Georg N. Nyman:
I use both 183s, the MC and the MM and I am very happy with them. Yes - the ampglow is not very pleasant but with good darks, it is gone - at least with my cameras.
...

Good reminder to all of us in this discussion, that all of these cameras are very capable tools. We're living in great times for AP and as so many fantastic images here at astrobin prove, the end result is not determined by the camera. Just like in normal photography most cameras are better than their user .
Main reason why I postponed my decision so far. Work at the weakest link in the chain (my own skillset) first instead of hoping new gear will help.

In another post I compared the AP hobby with hifi. There are certainly differences between different pieces of equipment but - maybe except for the mounts - the level of precision and performance is already so high that for most of us the difference may not matter much in the end result.

Of course I'm falling into this trap myself. Above I pointed out the difference in bit depth (12 vs 14). Admittedly I doubt wether I would be able to detect this difference in the final image with my aging eyes. Doesn't keep me from comparing sensor specs, oh well ...

I agree completely to your opinion - most of us, if we were honest to ourselfes, do not have a deep enough knowledge of how to process our subs properly and how to get the best possible parameters for our cameras. For myself speaking, I went through a long learning curve to finally approach a status where I think I probably use my cameras at least significantly better than before - not perfect, but significantly better. Regarding processing same situation - PixInsight is such a powerful and complex tool but delivers phantastic results if used at its best. My knowledge of that program is very shallow but I watch tutorials, read manuals and fellow AP´s experiences and keep learning - and the results become slowly better.
it is like in "normal" photography - it is primarily not the camera, which makes the result good, it is the photographer. Yes - however, with AP, there is some more depth into all - a technically better camera delivers theoretically better results, provided the user knows how to draw from its features and a better telescope sees more - unfortunately there is no limit to spend money on equipment.....you can easily spend half a million Euros/Dollars etc on equipment and still think - there is more outside...
Just my thougths on a non-clear-skies day....
Cheers,
Georg

I would have gone for the 533. Newer sensor with less noise and more sensitivity would count more than the "disadvantage" with square sensor and bigger pixels. I think that bigger pixels is even more important for a color than mono camera.
I had the 1600 before I bought the SpaceCat and was a bit concerned to pixel size, same as 533 3.8/3.7, but in practice I am very satisfied. Have a problem with tilt on the images reference but from my point of view still OK details for wide-field images.

https://www.astrobin.com/04io1p/?nc=&nce=

https://www.astrobin.com/pzrq2r/B/

Erik

I use the 533 on my Redcat, check out my galery! It is an amazing camera, but in that combination it leads to some degree of undersampling. Smaller stars are square, if you are a pixel peeper ;). But that can be fixed by using drizzle, which needs dithered data.

Dark frames are a pain to take I find. If I take for example ,4/5 hours on an object at 360 sec, then at the end I like to take a minimum of 20 dark frames. That equates to 2 hours. I know you can take them later with same settings etc etc or build a library that may be useable for 6-12months (which I have some for different exposures/filers/gain etc), but I find it a pain. However, if you don’t mind the effort in taking calibration frames then the asi183mc pro is a far far better camera - 20mega pixels compared to less than half of that in the asi533mc pro. When processing I find calibration frames completely remove the amp noise and the extra pixel count is very important in getting the best possible image.

With proper calibration, the amp glow becomes a non-issue. For the 533, you're stuck with a square format so the 183 wins in framing versatility. The 533 wins in the newer generation of sensor. You won't go wrong with either and when it comes to these two choices, for me it would come down to if I like the square format of the 533 or 2/3'rds format of the 183mc. I like the 183mc and use it with my redcat.

I went back and forth between the 183MCPro and the 533MCPro. The 183 won out for a couple of reasons: 1) the pixel size and my 130mm refractor make for a great combination. 2) the 20 megapixel resolution vs the 9 megapixel resolution of the 533 seemed better to me as I understand things. Of course, my skill set is the limiting factor and I've seen great images produced by both. My one big complaint is the amp glow of the 183. It's very prominent and hard to subtract out.

So, factoring in my limited understanding; does the amount of megapixels make for a better camera in resolution? Seems the 533 produces outstanding images and I might consider getting one.

Pat

Patrick Graham:
does the amount of megapixels make for a better camera in resolution?

No. Resolution comes down to pixel scale (the relationship of pixel size and focal length), not megapixels. Two sensors with the same pixel size will have the same resolution on the same scope. The MP at that point just tells you which has the larger FOV.

Thanks for the info. Always learning something new.

Pat

Related discussions