Monochrome or color camera for astrophotography?

I think another part of the equation to look at besides the cameras is integration processing and if your current set-up can handle compiling and storing more data. With the switch to mono you will need to process data differently and it could impact your speed.

Lukas Bauer:
Hello guys,

My old astromodified DSLR just died (Canon 40D) and I am currently searching for a dedicated astrophotography camera.
At the moment I have two cameras in particular which both seem like a good choice. The first camera is the Player One Ares and the second is the Player One Poseidon.

My question is, if a monochrome camera is really that much better than a osc camera.

I wrote a table and listed all the options I have to see what would be the cheapest offer. Taking all the prices off the official Player One Website, I calculated the following prices:

Player One Ares MONO: ~1500€
Player One Ares COLOR: ~900€

Player One Poseidon MONO: ~2750€
Player One Poseidon COLOR: ~1400€

For calulating the prices of the mono cameras, I combined the prices of the camera, a fitting filter wheel, a full set of filters (LRGB + SHO) and a autofocuser (I didn’t choose a particular focuser, I just estimated ~250€).
For calulating the prices of the color cameras, I just added the prices of the camera, a filter drawer and a light pollution filter, as I live in a small town (Bortle 4 sky) and have bright street lamps all around me.

I also looked at photos here on astrobin captured by the different cameras and I think that I like the pictures taken from the Poseidon a bit more. Maybe it’s the higher MP (Ares: 9 MP; Poseidon: 26 MP). I just think that the pictures taken with the poseidon look just a bit cleaner.

Furthermore I read that it is easier to frame the pictures with the ares because of the square sensor, which isn’t really a valid point for me, as I only have to frame it once in the beginning of the night and don’t have to reframe it if I’m shooting the same object the following night.

My question now is, which camera would you think is the best choice for me? Keep in mind, that I am still a student and am really uncomfortable to spend more than ~2000€ for my first dedicated astro-camera. That’s why I am currently unsure, if the Ares mono or Poseidon color would be the better choice. Or would the Poseidon mono be worth the 700€ more? Do you have any experience with any (or both) of the cameras mentioned above?
Or would you even recommend a completely different camera? I just looked into the Player One cameras as they have a very appealing design, take really nice pictures as I have heard in reviews and are praised by their amazing costumer support by a lot of people.

Thanks a lot in advance!
Lukas

You have 3000×3000 Pixels = 9MP image.When you have to crop to 2500×2800 (because of stacking issues, guiding issues, etc) you suddenly remain with a 7 MP image.

I guess maybe in the astrophotography community there is a clear difference between the uses of the word resolution compared to other terms (are we talking about image scale?), which unfortunately wasn’t clarified by the posters who preferred to only point out there was a ‘mistake’.

If you have an image with less pixels horizontally and/or vertically, and you scale it up to full screen, I’d say that image also has less resolution than an image with more pixels where you can actually goto 200% to have a 1:1 view.

Point of the matter for the 533 sensor was that: If you have have to cut off part of the image for whatever reason, you quickly lose megapixels in the final image.

Thank you for all the replies!

Based of the discussion about the cropping with the smaller sensor, I am pretty sure that the Poseidon would be the better choice for me.
My next question is if it is worth the extra 1300€ for the monochrome setup.

I get that the monochrome camera captures more details and probably would lead to nicer pictures. The extra processing time wouldn’t be that much of a problem for me.
But I also don’t know if it is a good idea to switch from a DSLR to a fully monochrome setup. At the other hand, I’m thinking that the monochrome setup would be more futureproof than a osc camera.
Do you think that the extra 1300€ is worth going monochrome (short term and long term)?

@andrea tasselli Thank you again for the 40D. I agree, it’s sad to see it passing, but it served me very well over the last two years. As far as I know and searched in the internet, the shutter motor is broken (Err. 99). I tried various different approaches to fix it. But I also noticed the last few nights when I took photos with it, that the image quality dropped significantly. By the way, you can see the best images I captured with the camera on my instagram account (lukasbauer_astrophotography).
Would be happy to see you over there 😀

Thanks!
Lukas

The question is whether you care about photo quality and resolution, or whether a lower-quality result is enough.

If you're looking for beauty and resolution, you can only choose mono, especially in narrowband, where even with multiband filters it is significantly inferior.

Lukas Bauer · Sep 12, 2025, 08:51 PM

Thank you for all the replies!


I get that the monochrome camera captures more details and probably would lead to nicer pictures. The extra processing time wouldn’t be that much of a problem for me.


Thanks!
Lukas

From my experience the idea that monochrome data requires “extra processing” time is not accurate. The accommodations necessary to take care of debayering data has significant overhead in time and complexity. Everything from the way hot pixels are treated, interpolation methods, drizzling and more. In addition, one of the popular modes of OSC is to do narrowband imagery- especially with dual band filters. As I am sure has been covered extensively elsewhere, by double-filtering the light with “leaky” broadband color filter arrays- there is a greater challenge there as well. Finally, since there are some comets coming around again- I would add that to do certain kinds of processing are very hard (and most people would not care to go through the machinations).

Eventually once there are color calibrated stacked images- there really isn’t a difference from this point between OSC and an RGB combined image. It is just an RGB image at that point.

It is easier to acquire data with OSC… but not necessarily process it.

-adam

James Peirce · Sep 14, 2025 at 05:14 PM

My 2¢

Mono camera’s aren’t specifically better than color cameras; they are different than color cameras for different types of imaging, and can be better for some types of imaging in exchange for certain aspects of greater complexity.

Managing the extra filters comes at a cost in money, mechanical complexity, and time. It makes it possible for more things to go wrong (e.g. a deviation in focus between two color filters introducing considerable post-processing complexity or a need to re-image a filter), or simple environmental limitations like high clouds moving in during one of the exposure rounds. More flats (which matters for something when imaging on the road, but is of little consequence when the setup isn’t dismantled). Potentially more focusing (even parfocal filters may warrant refocusing depending on how well any involved refractive optics or the general optical design corrects light across spectrum, which can be addressed with some technical options like filter offsets). When comparing color vs RGB the individual color channels are less well-sampled which can mean a need for more imaging time or more dithering to get equivalent outlier rejection). These things aren’t dramatic problems by any means, but they do account for some degree of consideration and learning curve.

I’d take broadband imaging with a color sensor over mono RGB quite happily in most cases. LRGB can allow a mono camera to get a leg up in exchange for some additional complexity (and luminosity adds considerable complexity to post-processing which becomes quite a bit less fussy with relevant experience).

Mono offers considerable upsides for false color palette narrowband imaging, however. Once there is a desire to separate the channels and balance them for false color palette imaging there are characteristics of color sensors (e.g. extended spectrum sensitivity allowing some Hα to be recorded in greens—prominently so, if the OIII signal is weak and the Hα is strong). SII cannot be recorded effectively alongside Hα on a color sensor. Mono lets you pick and choose between which channels are focused on more, which can matter if there’s a desire to focus on, say, faint OIII, and you can also enjoy some upside of focusing on OIII with little to no moonlight (it is affected more prominently than Hα and SII, although both of the later are still affected to a noteworthy extent).

Lovely narrowband images can still be produced with color sensors. There are scripts which can help to produce some interesting palettes with less work. But if it’s a major point of interest, I think the answer on this count is a solid win for mono. And this is a case where mono post-processing is easier if there’s a desire for some material control over the process.

Is post-processing mono data harder?

I see Adam’s take above. I’d say LRGB is distinctly harder to learn, and objectively involves more complexity (harder for mono). Color vs RGB is comparable in terms of editing time with experience, but mono can be a bit harder to learn in some ways (complexity that can be introduced if conditions vary across filters; post-processing advice which can cause headaches like applying background extraction to each individual color channel or balancing color channels with linear fit). On the other hand, a color sensor can add a little bit of extra challenge for color calibration (in Pix language, a good helping point is to dither and use a CFA drizzle—WBPP uses a CFA drizzle by default with color data—and then SPCC; helps in nuanced ways by bypassing some limitations of demosaicing and some interpolation). And I’d much rather edit mono narrowband data than color.

One nuanced aspect of ‘harder’ vs ‘easier’ on some of these topics is the difference between learning curve and experienced process. There are multiple points that can be harder to learn and prepare, but which may be much more comparable in terms of ease with experience.

Sometimes people argue about things like ‘mono has better detail’ or the like. These are minor considerations—pixel peeping details—at best, and not so relevant given reduction in resolution for sharing or post-processing tools, and they are broadly mitigated by dithering and using a CFA drizzle (don’t need to upscale to enjoy the benefits). Broadband color isn’t ‘better’ in mono than color. It can be different in some subtle ways (e.g. OIII tends to be accented a small amount more than Hα in broadband color than in mono due to sensitivity and allocation of pixels by the color filter array). In my opinion, these arguments are a pretty good example of not seeing the forest for the trees. Other considerations are more substantive.

So anyway...

I’d argue what is right depends on the photographer and what they want to image. If someone values mechanical simplicity and prefers broadband imaging, I think color sensors are a clear win. If someone loves narrowband imaging, I think mono is a clear win. And you can also mix-and-match the worlds (e.g. collect color with a color sensor and luminance with a mono sensor).

I’d also argue that a color sensor would generally be the way to go starting out unless someone specifically knows what relevant-for-their-imaging upsides they want to enjoy from a mono sensor. And it’s not the end of the world to get a second or different camera down the road unless on a rough budget, in which case we’re back to color sensors now affording a considerable cost upside.

I fall into the mix-and-match camp: an OSC narrowband imager in an urban environment.

The equipment cost-to-personal time to dedicate to photography has been the highest contributing factor in not pursuing a mono set-up. Since my time to pursue astrophotography is limited, I’ve opted to stay with OSC.

bigCatAstro · Sep 14, 2025 at 05:41 PM

I fall into the mix-and-match camp: an OSC narrowband imager in an urban environment.

The equipment cost-to-personal time to dedicate to photography has been the highest contributing factor in not pursuing a mono set-up. Since my time to pursue astrophotography is limited, I’ve opted to stay with OSC.

I do as well. Generally I prefer to use OSC for my broadband imaging—at least most of it—and mono for my narrowband imaging or when I want luminance. I have one color camera set up and one mono camera set up, and sometimes I image with two rigs, so in that case sometimes I’ll shoot RGB along with luminance as well.

But I can honesty say I find OSC is more enjoyable and less fussy or time consuming to use, for me, for broadband. Part of that owes to some challenges of imaging on the road.

Natalie Sigalovsky · Sep 14, 2025 at 11:03 PM

I use a color camera ZWO 6200 MC with my RASA for simplicity, and mono cameras for all my other setups. Just to remind some folks who may not be aware of the technical side: a Bayer matrix…

• Sensitivity Loss

  • A mono pixel collects all incoming light.

  • A color pixel only collects ¼ to ½ of it (since filters block other wavelengths).

An important clarification ought to be pointed out here.

On a color sensor each pixel, due to the color filter array, is allocated to record some range of reds, greens, or blues (typically and with a range which extends beyond what that label strictly implies—“green” pixels share overlapping sensitivity transitioning toward and into both blues and reds). In a simplified sense, it is as if each pixel has one of a red, green, or blue filter. (Color sensors are essentially mono sensors, color-filtered by the color filter array.)

Three hours spent imaging with a color sensor is allocated to each of these filtered color-ranges by way of the color filter array. For a common RGGB Bayer CFA, that means, in this simplified example, the equivalent of 45 mins reds, 90 mins greens, and 45 mins blues exposed relative to surface area (as pixels) on the sensor. If you image with RGB filters in mono that means 60 mins red, 60 mins green, 60 mins blue. We get reasonably comparable signal across filters in either case because while one filter is being recorded in mono the others are not, and in a side-by-side comparison, the color sensor continues imaging all filters, with corresponding fractions of the sensor, contiguously.

Or to put it differently, in both cases each pixel of each sensor spends the duration of time recording some representation of either reds, greens, or blues.

You do get relatively deeper exposure the green range on the color sensor, but given color calibration this does not have a materially negative impact on the depth of the resulting exposure. And color sensors tend to also make up a bit for this with the extended sensitivity across filters (which can also be a drawback when recording narrowband). And you also have a better-sampled dataset with the color sensor in this comparison (e.g. for rejection purposes) because you are dealing with a 3-hour dataset of exposures vs 3 separate filters. Not too big a deal once the mono filters are well-sampled and well-dithered, but it can matter when trying to make an image with a relatively limited session.

There is no significant sensitivity loss with a color sensor, and even some upsides.

The very small difference in potential resolution can also be considerably mitigated by dithering and using a CFA drizzle when stacking, and wouldn’t have been so apparent anyway given some amount of downsampling for sharing. It becomes a sort of astrophotography pixel-peeping.

Mono = More detail, efficiency with narrowband (essential for emission nebulae in light-polluted areas), but requires filter wheel + filters + extra complexity.

OSC (One-Shot Color) Cheaper, simpler, faster workflow, less gear. You’ll lose some fine detail and narrowband flexibility, but you’ll get results faster.

Player One options

Ares (IMX533, 9MP, square sensor)

Mono: €1500 (with filters, wheel, focuser ~€2000+)

Color: €900 (just camera + filter drawer).

Pros: clean sensor, zero amp glow, square format is nice for framing.

Cons: lower resolution than Poseidon.

Poseidon (IMX571, 26MP, APS-C)

Mono: ~€2750 (with filters, wheel, focuser → €3500+).

Color: €1400 (camera + filter drawer).

Pros: higher res, bigger FOV, cleaner images.

Cons: significantly more cost for mono setup

Reality check with your budget (~2000€ max)

Poseidon Mono not realistic (setup >€3500).

Ares Mono technically possible, but you’ll blow your full budget and still need filters.

Poseidon OSC Best value. €1400 leaves room for filters/drawer, still under budget.

Ares OSC Cheapest entry, but less resolution and smaller FOV. Good starter if budget is very tight.

Recommendation

Since you’re a student, want clean results, and don’t want to sink €3k:

Poseidon OSC is the sweet spot.

Higher resolution, modern sensor.

Lower complexity than mono.

Still affordable (<€2000 all-in).

You can always sell and upgrade to mono later once you’ve gained more experience + budget.