Mono camera advice: 2600mm vs 6200mm for bortle 8+ astrophotography - Forums

Topic starter

Dec 7, 2025

I currently have a 2600mc that Ive been using for a little over 3 years and need some camera advice for a possible mono setup. I live in bortle 8+ and only get to dark sky once a month or so. I’m more into clusters and galaxies than nebula, but I end up shooting a lot of nebula with a dual band filter because of my location….

If you were in my shoes would you rather have a 2600mm with Chroma filters or a 6200mm with something like Antlia or Astronomik? Both my scopes (550mm and 990mm focal length refractors) can handle full frame without issue, but Im not sure my wallet can at the moment. My budget would be around $5-6k for camera, wheel, oag, and filters. My current computer will have a tough time processing full frame, but I need to upgrade at some point next year so I’m not crazy worried about that (unless I should be!). The current sales are sort of enticing, but I want to get some people’s thoughts/advice before I do anything.

Engaging

Quinn Groessl

IOTD Staff

Dec 7, 2025

The cameras themselves are extremely similar except the FOV. So I’d rather the 2600 and better filters.

Brian Puhl

IOTD Staff

Dec 7, 2025

I wouldn’t even consider the Chromas. I’ve run antlias since I started now and they’re top notch. Plenty of folks in my circle of friends running Antlia’s. We’re all very happy with them. Get the 6200 and some 50mm antlias, you’ll be golden.

Charles Hagen

IOTD Staff

Dec 7, 2025

Antlia filters are fantastic, Ive been using them for 5 years or so and I’ve never had an issue. In my opinion, chromas and Antlias are basically identical in terms of qualitative results. The 6200 seems like the clear choice to me. You have an excellent scope that is more than capable of handling it. You may as well utilize the giant image circle you’ve already paid for.

Helpful Concise

Chuckbnobo

Topic starter

Dec 7, 2025

Good point on having already paid for scopes that can handle full frame. It sounds like there’s little, if any, real advantage to going Chroma, so it’s not money well spent.

Well Written

Jon Main

Dec 7, 2025

Here's some images I took with the 6200MM and Antlia filters:

https://www.astrobin.com/fst46j/

https://www.astrobin.com/xxnpul/

If I were in your shoes I'd consider a 2600MM, Antlia filters, and using the extra $$ to send it to a dark remote site.

Heck, maybe save all the $$ and send your existing setup 😂

Ashraf AbuSara

Dec 7, 2025

The choice between the 6200mm and the 2600mm is just a question of FOV. I agree with Charles. If your scope can handle the larger sensor and it frames objects you are interested in nicely, then go for it.

As to Antlia vs Chroma. I have a couple of points to make. I have personally tested Chroma 8nm/ 5nm filters and pitted them against Antlia 3nm filters, and the Chroma filters produced consistently better contrast than the 3nm filters after just 1 hour of integration time. That’s just my personal experience, your milage may vary. Here is my thread comparing the two:

https://www.cloudynights.com/forums/topic/906164-chroma-8nm-ha-5nm-siioiii-vs-antlia-3nm-sho-50mm-round-filters/

There has been more recent testing by other users that compared 3nm Chroma vs Antlia, and showed a difference too in favor or Chroma. It is less drastic than the original post, but if you read the entire thread the Chroma comes still ahead.

https://www.cloudynights.com/forums/topic/977153-antlia-3nm-vs-chroma-3nm-results/#comments

Another point to note is that Antlia refuses returns for filters that produce halos around bright stars. Agena has a posted disclaimer specifically saying that they will not accept returns of filters that exhibit halos around bright stars. Chroma has no problem returning filters if you are not happy with their performance.

Most likely you will get great performance out of the Antlias, but there is a difference both in performance and customer service compared to the Chromas. Is it worth the extra cost? That is just up to each user. I personally would chose a bigger sensor over spending the extra money on Chroma filters.

Helpful Insightful

Gamaholjad

Dec 7, 2025 · Edited: Dec 7, 2025

I run 6200mm with antilia 3.5nm filters on william optics 81gt, been happy as Larry. I found I like flexibility of 6200mm. You can crop down which is handy if you want too. If I had chance to buy chroma filters I would ( see post above with link to cloudynights for the reason ) with 2600. I simply cannot get a full set of chroma filters so I've opted for 2.5nm filters from antilia, as my daughter lives in China and is bringing them home for me.

having both 2600mc and a 6200mm is a good combo with the flexibility especially as you have 2 different focal length to play with.

I've just tried my 6200mm on my Askar 151phq,with antilia 3.5nm filters.,haven't processed the data but looks interesting.

Camera tilt could be a bane, but that's a standard issue. What ever choose you'll not be disappointed with your images and the detail you'll get which ever route you take .

Supportive

Oscar H.

Dec 7, 2025 · Edited: Dec 7, 2025

6200mm with Antlias, easy choice for me; more FOV, less time spent on mosaics

I have used the 3nm SHO myself; the only problem I've ever gotten (with a 2600), is a, sort of, "huge microlensing pattern" *only* when pointed at the, maybe, 5-6 brightest stars of the sky, which is not a deal breaker for me.

Chuckbnobo

Topic starter

Dec 8, 2025

It definitely seems like the consensus is get the 6200. I think only one person said they had personal experience with both filters, and he is saying go Chroma. It’s much more for their filters though. Are Chroma LRGB worth the premium if I could get them for about 70% of the new cost but as new? Then since both are 3mm thick could those be mixed with Antlia for narrowband, or is that just a bad/dumb idea?

Arun H

Dec 8, 2025 · Edited: Dec 8, 2025

You've got some great advice from some very accomplished astrophotographers.

The only thing I will add here is that, with the 6200, you will have much larger files which will demand more processing power and storage space. So factor that in. Also, tilt and backspacing issues will make themselves more obvious though, of course, software helps a lot.

It is a highly personal decision. I too own a 2600 MC Pro which I find to be an excellent camera. I currently own the 294MM with 31mm Chromas, which I have found to be excellent; Chroma's customer service is top notch - they readily exchanged an OIII filter that showed halos a couple years after purchase. My personal choice here would be a 2600MM with 36mm Chromas.

Helpful Insightful Respectful

Noah Tingey

Dec 8, 2025

Ashraf AbuSara · Dec 7, 2025, 08:30 PM
[…] There has been more recent testing by other users that compared 3nm Chroma vs Antlia, and showed a difference too in favor or Chroma. It is less drastic than the original post, but if you read the entire thread the Chroma comes still ahead.
www.cloudynights.com/.../977153-antlia-3nm-vs-chroma-3nm-results...
[…]

If you read the entire thread, the Chroma sub doesn’t really clearly come ahead. Quoting from the analysis of the closest attempt that OP got to a “real” comparison (after posting several bewildering, apples-to-oranges comparisons in a row):

The Chroma sub has 11% more nebula signal, while Antlia sub has 12% more background signal. However, the Chroma sub was taken at an altitude of 41 degrees, while the Antlia sub was taken at an altitude of 28 degrees

(Emphasis mine). Really a shame that the OP in that thread did not edit their initial post to say that literally all of their results up until their final results are completely unusable and should not be referenced, and that even their final results are not very comparable….

Editing to add: That said, I’m sure that Chromas are better. But I’m really not convinced that they’re so much better that the OP of this thread should buy Chromas + a 571 instead of Antlias + a 455.

Editing to add, again: Actually, @Ashrafhs, do you mind posting a link to the unedited stacks in your comparison? I really like your acquisition process — it seems very fair to both filters — but I am curious to see how they compare when you don’t use image-aware AI tools on them (since, IMO, that defeats the point of trying to treat them equally, as even with the same settings the AI tools will operate on different images differently).

Well Written Helpful Insightful Engaging

C.Sand

Dec 8, 2025

I’ve used Chroma 5nm and 3nm, and Antlia 4.5nm and 3nm. 533mm and 2600mm, though “same” pixels as I’m sure everyone is aware. There is little difference, except that the 4.5nm Antlia’s didn’t correct for halos as well (still incredibly impressive). If you want to spend more money, get Chroma’s, if you don’t, get Antlia’s.

Chuckbnobo

Topic starter

Dec 8, 2025

Thank’s for all the input. If can get the cash together, it seems like 6200 and Antlia is the way to go. I’m glad to know that my processing skills, and not the filters, will be the problem 😂

Rick Krejci

Dec 8, 2025

I agree, since you have already paid for a scope that can handle FF, the IMX455 mono (my preference is the Player One Zeuss) is the way to go. Depending of your SW, you can capture a cropped image for smaller targets if processing power/space are a consideration. Just have to have matching Darks and Flats, which is a little extra work.

I’ve used Antlias (4.5nm Ha and Sii, 3nm Oiii) and now have Chromas (3nm Oiii and Sii, 5nm Ha).

The Antlia set was perfectly fine and wouldn’t hesitate to recommend…no major haloing issues at all. I will say the Chromas handle everything with complete aplomb, including the brightest stars with no glow or artifacts and have great throughput and contrast in the dimmest nebula areas. But really the effective difference is small, but like most of my stuff, I don’t want to have to think or worry about it. I went with Chromas since I got them used and I know I can re-sell them if needed and not take any loss. I would not pony up the new price for them personally.

I really don’t see any advantage of mixing Antlia for NB and Chroma for LRGB, since Antli V series are excellent.

Definitely go for the 50mm unmounted to ensure no vignetting in all but the fastest systems. I have the Player One Phoenix wheel for 50mm, which has 49mm clear aperture. The Zwo 2”/50mm one has a clear aperture of 48mm. Either should work for you.

Helpful Engaging

Ashraf AbuSara

Dec 8, 2025

Noah Tingey · Dec 8, 2025, 03:04 AM
Ashraf AbuSara · Dec 7, 2025, 08:30 PM
[…] There has been more recent testing by other users that compared 3nm Chroma vs Antlia, and showed a difference too in favor or Chroma. It is less drastic than the original post, but if you read the entire thread the Chroma comes still ahead.
www.cloudynights.com/.../977153-antlia-3nm-vs-chroma-3nm-results...
[…]
If you read the entire thread, the Chroma sub doesn’t really clearly come ahead. Quoting from the analysis of the closest attempt that OP got to a “real” comparison (after posting several bewildering, apples-to-oranges comparisons in a row):
The Chroma sub has 11% more nebula signal, while Antlia sub has 12% more background signal. However, the Chroma sub was taken at an altitude of 41 degrees, while the Antlia sub was taken at an altitude of 28 degrees
(Emphasis mine). Really a shame that the OP in that thread did not edit their initial post to say that literally all of their results up until their final results are completely unusable and should not be referenced, and that even their final results are not very comparable….
Editing to add: That said, I’m sure that Chromas are better. But I’m really not convinced that they’re so much better that the OP of this thread should buy Chromas + a 571 instead of Antlias + a 455.
Editing to add, again: Actually, @Ashrafhs, do you mind posting a link to the unedited stacks in your comparison? I really like your acquisition process — it seems very fair to both filters — but I am curious to see how they compare when you don’t use image-aware AI tools on them (since, IMO, that defeats the point of trying to treat them equally, as even with the same settings the AI tools will operate on different images differently).

I have to dig back to find the data but that is a fair point. If I would be able to do it again, I would have just calculated filter offsets and just cycled through each filter through the night.

That being said I got no halos on the Antlia when I tested them. Ironically I had two Ha Chroma filters since that had strong halos around bright stars, but chroma replaced both of them with no questions asked after just an email.

I also agree that getting the larger sensor is a much better investment than a marginally better filter.

Helpful

Arun H

Dec 8, 2025 · Edited: Dec 8, 2025

Rick Krejci:
I will say the Chromas handle everything with complete aplomb, including the brightest stars with no glow or artifacts and have great throughput and contrast in the dimmest nebula areas. But really the effective difference is small, but like most of my stuff, I don’t want to have to think or worry about it.

For me, this will likely become the major consideration when I upgrade to a 36mm set. The cost difference for a 36mm set of 7 is roughly $1300? But I know that Chroma would stand behind their product better than Antlia would, and if I do have a problem with a filter, they'd replace it, even well after purchase and without hassle. That's a major plus for me personally.

Well Written

Natalie Sigalovsky

Dec 8, 2025

I own both the 2600 and the 6200. From my experience, on the same scope the 6200 gives you about 1.5× more FOV in each dimension (36 mm vs 24 mm), which works out to roughly 2.3× the total area. The 2600 is essentially a crop of the 6200—if you crop the 6200 down to APS-C, the result looks almost identical to what the 2600 produces at the same settings. Using a 2600 on the same rig feels like permanently cropping the center of your 6200 frame.

The 6200 is more finicky with fast scopes like the RASA—it will reveal every corner aberration, tilt issue, and tiny reducer/flattener error. But that larger FOV also means you’re simply capturing much more sky at the same resolution. Overall, I’ve been much happier since upgrading to the 6200MM.

As for filters, those can always be upgraded later. I personally upgraded to Chroma narrowband first, because my research—and my results—showed that Chroma narrowband performs better when it comes to halos compared to other brands. For LRGB, the differences in halos between brands are much smaller, so narrowband was the clear priority for me.

Well Written Helpful Insightful Engaging Supportive