Asi2600mc vs Asi533mm - Forums

Topic starter

Apr 16, 2022

Hey 👋

another short question.
One of the next things i want to get is a dedicated deep sky camera. Rn i am using a dslm.

i don’t want to spend more than around 2k.
that basically leaves me with the asi2600mc or the new asi533mm.

color sensor with apsc size vs mono sensor with smaller sensor (+filter wheel, filters).
the bigger sensor would be nice but as i own a full frame dslm i could use that for big fields.

i don’t really consider any other options rn. Asi1600 is to old to buy a new one today and the asi294 seems to produce to many problems.

Btw. I don’t really care if my camera will be a zwo, qhy, touptek or any other. I just used the zwo version in my question for simplicity reasons.

Jim Matzger

Apr 16, 2022

Just bought the asi2600mc for use on my Hyperstar. Looks good on paper, but haven’t tried it yet. I like the idea that it has a way to control tilt.

Michael Ring

Apr 16, 2022 · Edited: Apr 16, 2022

This question is a no-brainer.. If you can afford it go for the 2600mc, will give you a much wider view, pixel size is the same. No, I do not think this forum needs another mono vs color debate, so simply feel free to disagree.

vercastro

Apr 16, 2022

This is not apples to apples unfortunately. If the budget sticks, it depends on what your goals are. Are you interested in doing lots of emission nebula and playing with different narrowband pallets? In that case mono is a better choice. Therefore the 533MM.

However if your goal is more galaxies and reflection/dark nebula, and you have the dark skies to support it, you can get by with the 2600MC. You can certainly do emission nebula with OSC, but it's never going to be as good and you're never going to have the control of mono.

The good news is that both these cameras are cut from the same silicon. Meaning they are both latest generation CMOS with the best sensitivity and noise characteristics in the business.

Helpful Insightful Respectful Concise

kuechlew

Apr 16, 2022

Do you want an OSC or a mono workflow?
What targets are you aiming at and what does this mean in terms of pixel scale?
Are you forced to the ASI ecosystems or do you want to consider alternatives by other manufacturers with the same chip?
Does your current gear support the FoV of an APS-C chip?
Is your equipment able to handle the larger file sizes of the APS-C chip?

Both are very capable chips. With the IMX 571 chip you can cover the area of an IMX 533, won't work the other way round :-). So IMX 571 offers you a lot more flexibility in terms of FoV for the higher price.

I won't comment on the OSC vs. mono topic. In my opinion you should make up your mind between 2600 mm / 533 mm or 2600 mc / 533mc depending on what workflow you prefer.

Clear skies
Wolfgang

Helpful

Anderl

Topic starter

Apr 16, 2022

This is not apples to apples unfortunately. If the budget sticks, it depends on what your goals are. Are you interested in doing lots of emission nebula and playing with different narrowband pallets? In that case mono is a better choice. Therefore the 533MM.

However if your goal is more galaxies and reflection/dark nebula, and you have the dark skies to support it, you can get by with the 2600MC. You can certainly do emission nebula with OSC, but it's never going to be as good and you're never going to have the control of mono.

The good news is that both these cameras are cut from the same silicon. Meaning they are both latest generation CMOS with the best sensitivity and noise characteristics in the business.

Do you want an OSC or a mono workflow?
What targets are you aiming at and what does this mean in terms of pixel scale?
Are you forced to the ASI ecosystems or do you want to consider alternatives by other manufacturers with the same chip?
Does your current gear support the FoV of an APS-C chip?
Is your equipment able to handle the larger file sizes of the APS-C chip?

Both are very capable chips. With the IMX 571 chip you can cover the area of an IMX 533, won't work the other way round :-). So IMX 571 offers you a lot more flexibility in terms of FoV for the higher price.

I won't comment on the OSC vs. mono topic. In my opinion you should make up your mind between 2600 mm / 533 mm or 2600 mc / 533mc depending on what workflow you prefer.

Clear skies
Wolfgang

would be much easier if I could leave out the mono vs osc discussion.

facts for me are. 2600mm = to expensive, 533mc = I would rather go for the 2600mc as I can easily afford it.
so it basically comes down to - is the win in image quality worth the mono over the osc with the bigger sensor.

for me the camera will be a one will do it all camera. I will use it with 2 scopes.
one a nikkor 105 1.4 as a wide field setup
and two, on my esprit 120.

i will image both nebulas and galaxies with it.
my night sky is bortle 3-4, so reasonable dark.

vercastro

Apr 16, 2022

You cannot leave out the osc vs mono discussion when you are comparing OSC vs mono cameras.

But it sounds like you have a preference to the 2600MC, so go for it.

Jim Matzger

Apr 16, 2022 · Edited: Apr 16, 2022

I am always stunned with what can be accomplished using a mono sensor with ultra narrowband filters. All of that comes at a cost in terms of time and money. I have done quite a bit of imaging with mono cameras and really love the results. Unfortunately, when I have only a short imaging time to image an object due to extraneous factors, more efficiency has value too. If you have time and money to devote to the hobby, both color and mono sensors have a place. If you don’t, you have to make a choice. Great narrowband filters are extremely costly. OTOH, just because you have an OSC camera does not mean that you will not need a few filters like a dual band or light pollution filter. It is a tough choice, but if you stick to the hobby, you will probably be back in a year to get another camera or two and filters as well.

Helpful Engaging

kuechlew

Apr 16, 2022

This is not apples to apples unfortunately. If the budget sticks, it depends on what your goals are. Are you interested in doing lots of emission nebula and playing with different narrowband pallets? In that case mono is a better choice. Therefore the 533MM.

However if your goal is more galaxies and reflection/dark nebula, and you have the dark skies to support it, you can get by with the 2600MC. You can certainly do emission nebula with OSC, but it's never going to be as good and you're never going to have the control of mono.

The good news is that both these cameras are cut from the same silicon. Meaning they are both latest generation CMOS with the best sensitivity and noise characteristics in the business.

Do you want an OSC or a mono workflow?
What targets are you aiming at and what does this mean in terms of pixel scale?
Are you forced to the ASI ecosystems or do you want to consider alternatives by other manufacturers with the same chip?
Does your current gear support the FoV of an APS-C chip?
Is your equipment able to handle the larger file sizes of the APS-C chip?

Both are very capable chips. With the IMX 571 chip you can cover the area of an IMX 533, won't work the other way round :-). So IMX 571 offers you a lot more flexibility in terms of FoV for the higher price.

I won't comment on the OSC vs. mono topic. In my opinion you should make up your mind between 2600 mm / 533 mm or 2600 mc / 533mc depending on what workflow you prefer.

Clear skies
Wolfgang

would be much easier if I could leave out the mono vs osc discussion.

facts for me are. 2600mm = to expensive, 533mc = I would rather go for the 2600mc as I can easily afford it.
so it basically comes down to - is the win in image quality worth the mono over the osc with the bigger sensor.

for me the camera will be a one will do it all camera. I will use it with 2 scopes.
one a nikkor 105 1.4 as a wide field setup
and two, on my esprit 120.

i will image both nebulas and galaxies with it.
my night sky is bortle 3-4, so reasonable dark.

Most likely the Nikkor 105 will not play well with the 533 MM because usually the backfocus of lenses is not big enough for filter wheel + lens adapter. Of course you can work with 1 filter per imaging session if this is not a problem for you.

I'm confused. You prefer a 2600 mc over a 533 mc which in my humble understanding means you have some need for the larger FoV or more megapixels because you want to use binning. But then you're willing to accept the smaller FoV / less megapixels of the 533 mm just because the 533 mm may provide you with better quality due to the mono workflow - and yes it most likely will. But what is a higher quality of the individual pixel worth if you can't image some targets due to lack of FoV (or you have to multiply the effort by going for mosaics ...)?

To me it's still a two step decision process. First decide what specific objects you're aiming at. I don't mean the general category ("nebulae") but the full list of objects for the upcoming seasons. There are very tiny nebulae and there are enormous ones. Then decide upon the workflow mono or OSC. I don't think it's smart to let budget decide on mono vs. OSC. In my opinion it's more about your level of ambition and the amount of time you're willing to invest.

Good luck and clear skies
Wolfgang

Helpful Insightful Respectful

vercastro

Apr 16, 2022

Jim Matzger:
I am always stunned with what can be accomplished using a mono sensor with ultra narrowband filters. All of that comes at a cost in terms of time and money. I have done quite a bit of imaging with mono cameras and really love the results. Unfortunately, when I have only a short imaging time to image an object due to extraneous factors, more efficiency has value too. If you have time and money to devote to the hobby, both color and mono sensors have a place. If you don’t, you have to make a choice. Great narrowband filters are extremely costly. OTOH, just because you have an OSC camera does not mean that you will not need a few filters like a dual band or light pollution filter. It is a tough choice, but if you stick to the hobby, you will probably be back in a year to get another camera or two and filters as well.

I would argue that with recent software, mono is actually more efficient if you have limited time to image. The old procedure was image one filter for a period of time, then the next after that. Obviously if clouds roll in, now you have an imbalance.

However with NINA advanced sequencer and filter offsets, you can image each filter continuously one after the other, in a loop. When the clouds come you have a balanced selection of subs. And because each filter more efficiently hits every pixel on the mono sensor vs the bayer filter on the OSC, in practical terms you have a higher quality image from the same amount of imaging time.

Of course mono is still significantly more expensive.

Well Written Helpful Insightful Concise Engaging

Daniel Arenas

Apr 17, 2022

Hi @FuckFiat ,

In my opinion budget is the first important issue. If the budget is not an inconvenience for you, then you can conseider MM to MC.

I have an ESprit ED80 (I think you have an Esprit ED120) and I want to do the next step from a DSLR (a non modified APS-C Canon EOS 7D) to a dedicated and cooled camera. And I was considerin the ASI 533 MC Pro (yes the OSC) and the ASI 2600 MC Pro.

I think you know it but just in case if not, I share with you a link from ASI to compare 2 or more models with each other: https://compare.astronomy-imaging-camera.com/

Now OSC or mono?

Mates have told you many things. From price to workflow. I don't know if the cost of the ASI 533 MM is similar to the ASI 2600 MC but if that is the reason you must consider the cost of a filter wheel and RGB, H, S, O filters and maybe it gives you an idea if you can pay for it or not.

Someone told that budget is not the issue, that you have to think about what targets do you want to shoot the most. I agree with him but only if budget is not a limit for you. If it is (as me) then in my opinion the ASI 2600 MC would be better (16 bits depth, more Mpx just in case you want to crop, no needed of doing pannels in most cases, not needed of filter wheels...).

After that and after exploiting the targets you can do, with more experience and maybe budget you can think about going to mono. With mono you may need more exposure time (time for each filter) and more workflow time in your computer (maybe the results could be better but it will depend on your time and your processing skills).

That's only my vision of course.

Daniel

Helpful

Anderl

Topic starter

Apr 17, 2022

Daniel Arenas:
Hi @FuckFiat ,

In my opinion budget is the first important issue. If the budget is not an inconvenience for you, then you can conseider MM to MC.

I have an ESprit ED80 (I think you have an Esprit ED120) and I want to do the next step from a DSLR (a non modified APS-C Canon EOS 7D) to a dedicated and cooled camera. And I was considerin the ASI 533 MC Pro (yes the OSC) and the ASI 2600 MC Pro.

I think you know it but just in case if not, I share with you a link from ASI to compare 2 or more models with each other: https://compare.astronomy-imaging-camera.com/

Now OSC or mono?

Mates have told you many things. From price to workflow. I don't know if the cost of the ASI 533 MM is similar to the ASI 2600 MC but if that is the reason you must consider the cost of a filter wheel and RGB, H, S, O filters and maybe it gives you an idea if you can pay for it or not.

Someone told that budget is not the issue, that you have to think about what targets do you want to shoot the most. I agree with him but only if budget is not a limit for you. If it is (as me) then in my opinion the ASI 2600 MC would be better (16 bits depth, more Mpx just in case you want to crop, no needed of doing pannels in most cases, not needed of filter wheels...).

After that and after exploiting the targets you can do, with more experience and maybe budget you can think about going to mono. With mono you may need more exposure time (time for each filter) and more workflow time in your computer (maybe the results could be better but it will depend on your time and your processing skills).

That's only my vision of course.

Daniel

Thank you for your answer.

budget is a thing for me but both the 2600mc as the 553mm (+filter wheel and filters) are in my budget.

target selection is a non issue for me (ok a small issue) Bigger field is nice but in the end… i mean the targets are endless and i am sure that i will find suitable targets for the big and for the small sensor + i still own a modern full frame dslm i if want to get wide.

i really only care about the image quality and if the raise in image quality of the mono is worth it.

Lorenzo Siciliano

Apr 17, 2022

Well, what I can say is this.
I had used mono CCD (Sbig ST

, colour CMOS (both asi 294 and 2600) and now I'm sticked with an Asi294 mono with filter wheel etc.
You can see the results in my gallery.
But, in the end, I prefer using mono cameras: more effective, more sensitive and (to me) a simpler workflow.
But this is my opinion, maybe biased by the fact that I'm used to use mono cameras for the most part of this hobby.
If you are used to use a dslr, well, the OSC approach would be more manageable.
Just one thought: if you want to shot with lenses, maybe using osc cameras would be more effective with respect with the mono side.
So, considering that you are using a dslr since now, I would say to go with the Asi2600mc.
I owned it and it is a wonderful camera.
You won't regret it.
Ciao.
Lorenzo

Helpful

kuechlew

Apr 17, 2022

Maybe my statement was misunderstood due to my humble English. I didn't want to express the opinion that budget shouldn't be considered. I intended to state that the decision whether to go for a mono of osc workflow should not be based on budget alone. 533 MM costs less than half of 2600 MC so with filter wheel and filters you will end up in the same price range but with different amount of pixels and therefore different FoV and of course a different workflow. The decision for a smaller/larger FoV has to fit to your intended targets otherwise you're wasting money by buying a camera which doesn't fit your needs. And the decision for a mono/osc workflow has to fit to your level of ambition.

Clear skies
Wolfgang

Helpful Insightful Respectful

kuechlew

Apr 17, 2022

Didn't see your posting, sorry. So if image quality remains the only parameter then go for mono.

Have fun and clear skies
Wolfgang

Daniel Arenas

Apr 17, 2022

i really only care about the image quality and if the raise in image quality of the mono is worth it

In that issue there will be people in favor and people against. In mono there's no bayer matrix so all the light is profited. In a bayer matrix the light you'll catch has to be distributed in the different zones of the matrix so the information caught has to be divided. In mono all the light is for one single filter so, you might use time for each filter.

I do not know if one same target with same bortle and same total integration with mono and color sill be similar and that's difficult to know.

Daniel

kuechlew

Apr 17, 2022

There was a recent mono vs osc discussion which we shouldn't start again. In my humble opinion this link - taken from the previous thread - provides good evidence for mono as long as you don't shoot plain RGB images: Monochrome vs One-Shot-Color – By The Numbers Please - Experienced Deep Sky Imaging - Cloudy Nights

Clear skies
Wolfgang

Arun H

Apr 17, 2022

The link Wolfgang posted takes all the emotion and opinion out of the discussion.

If you do LRGB imaging, the mono will be about 2x more efficient than the OSC for a given period of time in the sky. And if you've done any LRGB imaging at al, it is hard to overstate how much better results you get if you choose to take pure luminance, something impossible in a OSC.

So the question is: do you want, for comparable cost, to get roughly 2x SNR using the 533MM in a given time for imaging? The price you pay is a reduced FOV. The answer will be different for different people.

For example, I own an 294MM and a 2600MC. The 294MM gets much more use and gives much better results. but I use the 2600 MC Pro when I know I have limited time under the sky at a dark sky site. I have also done where I have gathered color data with the 2600MC Pro, then supplemented it with Lum from the 294MM.

Helpful Insightful Respectful Engaging Supportive

Anderl

Topic starter

Apr 17, 2022 · Edited: Apr 17, 2022

The link Wolfgang posted takes all the emotion and opinion out of the discussion.

If you do LRGB imaging, the mono will be about 2x more efficient than the OSC for a given period of time in the sky. And if you've done any LRGB imaging at al, it is hard to overstate how much better results you get if you choose to take pure luminance, something impossible in a OSC.

So the question is: do you want, for comparable cost, to get roughly 2x SNR using the 533MM in a given time for imaging? The price you pay is a reduced FOV. The answer will be different for different people.

For example, I own an 294MM and a 2600MC. The 294MM gets much more use and gives much better results. but I use the 2600 MC Pro when I know I have limited time under the sky at a dark sky site. I have also done where I have gathered color data with the 2600MC Pro, then supplemented it with Lum from the 294MM.

Daniel Arenas:
i really only care about the image quality and if the raise in image quality of the mono is worth it

In that issue there will be people in favor and people against. In mono there's no bayer matrix so all the light is profited. In a bayer matrix the light you'll catch has to be distributed in the different zones of the matrix so the information caught has to be divided. In mono all the light is for one single filter so, you might use time for each filter.

I do not know if one same target with same bortle and same total integration with mono and color sill be similar and that's difficult to know.

Daniel

Thats the question!
i don’t want to start a new debate on the mono vs osc question but still it is the question.

I am able to search things like these past debates myself, what i am interested in is your and everyone else opinion.
what would the majority do?
until now it stands almost 50/50. seems the crowd is as undecided as i am.

a year or so ago, the 2600mc would have been my dream camera. It sure still is a great camera but with the 533mm out it is a hard choice.

In germany the 533mm costs around 1400 bucks + 300 for an efw and another at least 500 for good filters (only lrgb to start with).
so a little over 2k.

the 2600mc can be bought for around 1500 (same sensor in a omegon camera, which i don’t mind) + around 400 for a good duo narrowband filter.
so slightly cheaper as the 533 setup.

really hard decision for me as i haven’t had a mono until now. I am happy with my osc shots but sometimes i wish they would be just a little more crisp. No idea if mono is the solution.

Arun H

Apr 17, 2022

If opinion is what you are seeking - my experience is a transition from DSLR to mono (1600MM Pro). I purchased a 2600MC Pro to supplement rather than replace the mini I currently own (294MM). I have never regretted it. If I’m going for high quality, the mono always gets picked. If I had to choose between them, I’d pick the mono, no question about it. But again, this is based on the targets I shoot, my interests and other equipment I own.

Helpful Concise

kuechlew

Apr 17, 2022

From my own tough experience with getting started in AP sometimes we may have the tendency to try to fix issues with gear and money which may need addressed by patience, acquiring skill and investing more integration time. I purely judge about myself but I would advise everyone to consider his/her motivation to invest in additional gear. Is really the current gear limiting progress? Certainly not in my case …

I had a look at your images. They are all quite nice but except for the fascinating Polaris with IFN they are all below 4h of integration time, average may be even below 3h. Results will certainly improve with moving to a dedicated astro cam due to higher quantum efficiency and lower noise levels. But at some point you will need to put in the additional hours. If you look at the IOTDs you will rarely find one with a single digit integration time. What you consider lack of crispness may be caused by SNR.

Good luck with your decision and clear skies
Wolfgang

Helpful Insightful Respectful Engaging

John

Apr 17, 2022 · Edited: Apr 17, 2022

from what ive heard,the asi2600mc can leak oil to the sensor,if you get that,its allot of trouble.

the asi533 mono is more for narrowfield,but has no ampglow at all,that is very nice.

so you have to ask yourself,closer field or widefield. a mono can handle narrowband better then a color camera,if you want to use it only for broadband you should know that here in the netherlands and germany the summer will not give much dark nights,but with narrowband you can play better.

or get both..

Michael Ring

Apr 17, 2022

One thing I have asked myself is if you ever have used Stellarium and compared which targets are easy to image with those two cameras, always keeping in mind that by cropping the ASI2600 to 9MPx you will get the same field of view.

Before I decided on which camera/telescope combination was right for me I spent quite some time in Stellarium to look for things I wanted to image on Astrobin and then checked in Stellarium which combination works well without having to do too big mosaics.

So I came up with my decision of ~400mm telescope and APS-C size camera (Ignoring full frame because it is so much more expensive), a lot of the 'standards' work well with this combination, especially when you can crop a little bit.

Your Esprit 120 is in another league than my 40mm as it is arround 840mm so you will have another set of targets (or details of the standard targets) that you will want to cover.

If they all fit for the ASI533mm, you have a winner, if you need to do 2x3 or even bigger mosaics then you have something to think about.

A few posts above you mentioned that you would like to upgrade to get sharper images, when this is one of your goals, then how good is your average guiding and how is your seeing?

Michael

Helpful

Anderl

Topic starter

Apr 17, 2022

From my own tough experience with getting started in AP sometimes we may have the tendency to try to fix issues with gear and money which may need addressed by patience, acquiring skill and investing more integration time. I purely judge about myself but I would advise everyone to consider his/her motivation to invest in additional gear. Is really the current gear limiting progress? Certainly not in my case ...

I had a look at your images. They are all quite nice but except for the fascinating Polaris with IFN they are all below 4h of integration time, average may be even below 3h. Results will certainly improve with moving to a dedicated astro cam due to higher quantum efficiency and lower noise levels. But at some point you will need to put in the additional hours. If you look at the IOTDs you will rarely find one with a single digit integration time. What you consider lack of crispness may be caused by SNR.

Good luck with your decision and clear skies
Wolfgang

Thx and yes. Integration times need to go up.
i mean you are of course right and i could just go on and use my z6 for imaging (what i will do anyway).

there are 2 big reasons i want to get a dedicated deep sky camera to compliment my z6.

1. The z6 has a big limitation as i (and everybody else) basically needs to shoot at around 50% histogram illumination. Otherwise stacked pictures will produce artifacts that are impossible to process out.

2. the pixel scale of the z6 is quite big. Around 5.7 if i remember correctly. They suck light in like nothing else and the asi2400 fullframe (same sensor) cleans the floor with the smaller pixel sensors that are out there. (6200, 2600, 533).
but i really want smaller pixels for galaxies. Galaxy season is always around the corner.

Michael Ring:
One thing I have asked myself is if you ever have used Stellarium and compared which targets are easy to image with those two cameras, always keeping in mind that by cropping the ASI2600 to 9MPx you will get the same field of view.

Before I decided on which camera/telescope combination was right for me I spent quite some time in Stellarium to look for things I wanted to image on Astrobin and then checked in Stellarium which combination works well without having to do too big mosaics.

So I came up with my decision of ~400mm telescope and APS-C size camera (Ignoring full frame because it is so much more expensive), a lot of the 'standards' work well with this combination, especially when you can crop a little bit.

Your Esprit 120 is in another league than my 40mm as it is arround 840mm so you will have another set of targets (or details of the standard targets) that you will want to cover.

If they all fit for the ASI533mm, you have a winner, if you need to do 2x3 or even bigger mosaics then you have something to think about.

A few posts above you mentioned that you would like to upgrade to get sharper images, when this is one of your goals, then how good is your average guiding and how is your seeing?

Michael

I regularly spend hours in stellarium, just ask my wife 😅 i really think i will find objects to photograph with both sensors. The size of the of the 2600 (same pixel scale) would be a benefit of course.
can’t really say anything about my guiding. Until now i used a star adventurer with camera lenses and a mgen.

i build (with help of astrobin users) my new rig. (Eq6r, esprit 120, mgen, mini pc with nina).
guiding could become a problem at long focal length and small pixels but i am not worried to much about that.
if it turns out to make problems i can always go off axis guiding.

Michael Ring

Apr 17, 2022 · Edited: Apr 17, 2022

EQ6R will be just fine, you will likely not see issues with guiding. What I absolutely do not understand is why you want to save a few Euros by going with the ASI533 when you will already spend a lot of money for the rest of your equipment.

So from nowing what I now know from your comments I'd recommend that you totally forget about the ASI533 and start with less limitations with an ASI2600MC or MM (or Orion or Touptek ). It is not worth to suffer with 3000x3000 pixels when you can fix that issue with 10-20% more invest on what you have already planned. And as written in my first comment, for Mono vs. Color there are tons of threads already out there, perhaps the best discussion was already mentionend here.
And also for color I'd go with a 7 position color wheel (36mm, actually I already went down exactly that path), if you count savings on filter investments (36mm vs 2") it is suddenly a bargain and makes life a lot easier also for color. Did you also plan for an autofocusser?