I am just about to getting Mono camera … at the beginning wanna buy ASI1600 but since I shoot with short focal length telescopes (" TV 101"540mm with reducer 430mm and "WO star71"360 mm ) my second thought is maybe better match will be ASI 183 ( pixel size 2.4mn) Considering sampling, seeing etc.. what do you think guys?
ASI1600 or ASI183? Short focal length
I would recommend test few options (different cameras and scopes) on imaging toolbox: test.blackwaterskies.co.uk/p/imagingtoolbox.html
For example, with TV 101 and ASI 1600 ypu will have 1.79” per pixel and with ASI 183 -1.15”. I think that with very short focal lenght ASI 183 makes more sense
For example, with TV 101 and ASI 1600 ypu will have 1.79” per pixel and with ASI 183 -1.15”. I think that with very short focal lenght ASI 183 makes more sense
Concise
The Astronomy Tools website is also pretty handy for playing around with different combinations of gear - https://astronomy.tools/calculators/field_of_view/
My own view, for what it’s worth, is that if your going to go widefield, then the larger the chip the better. I use an 8300 with my Star 71 and am reasonably happy with that combo. Imaging at 1.15” (or less according to that Astronomy tools website) might prove a bit demanding.
My own view, for what it’s worth, is that if your going to go widefield, then the larger the chip the better. I use an 8300 with my Star 71 and am reasonably happy with that combo. Imaging at 1.15” (or less according to that Astronomy tools website) might prove a bit demanding.
Thanks guys I think I will end up with ASI 1600 because of field of view advantage…
Undersampling results in square stars but these can be taken care of in processing. Often this can be used to great advantage like Steve said, also shorter exposure time…. to this day I was shooting with DSLR and One shot CCD … but the place I live is screaming for narrow band images
(red zone)
Undersampling results in square stars but these can be taken care of in processing. Often this can be used to great advantage like Steve said, also shorter exposure time…. to this day I was shooting with DSLR and One shot CCD … but the place I live is screaming for narrow band images
(red zone)Absolutely agreed, ASI 1600 is a wonderful camera, I enjoy it a lot 
Clear skies!
Clear skies!
why not both 
I just went through the same debate with myself. Went with the 1600.
Hey George, I mean which one should I buy first
Both are amazing cameras. I am still getting used to my 1600MC-Cool Pro. I should have bought the 1600MM and filters first (since I live in a 6-7 zone), but I will eventually. I just got the 183MC uncooled today (for future projects) and also considering the 290MM uncooled as well for galaxies. I am not ready for a bigger telescope yet, but these cameras will give me many options to image (while I learn and gain experience on myequipment). What I find useful, is the astronomy.tools FOV image calculator (as mentioned above). Hope this helps.
I think your choice for the ASI1600MM is wise More FOV is usually better. Yet, if you want to see with your eyes before you buy, I suggest to go to the website DSO-Browser. There you can choose any deep-sky object, put the chip size, your focal length and you will see how the object will look in an example picture.
More FOV is usually better. Yet, if you want to see with your eyes before you buy, I suggest to go to the website DSO-Browser. There you can choose any deep-sky object, put the chip size, your focal length and you will see how the object will look in an example picture. Helpful
I have a 183mm with a WO z73mm. With a reducer x0.8 it frames most things and perfect sampling. When i used a 3.8um camera i much prefer the 183 image. A huge plus was imaging big bright galaxies and being able to crop and zoom in and still have great resolution… I think if i wanted wider i would just do a camera lens with the 183. Plus it's a fair bit cheaper.
If you read through Jon Rista's 183 test thread on the Cloudy Nights forum it examines the pros and cons of the 183 and compares it with the 1600. To quote Jon, "the 183 is not a 1600 killer", its small pixels have less well depth than the 1600. As an all-rounder, the 1600 is hard to beat.
Helpful
Yes very tue…. But sorry for a short focal length scope the 183 is a far better match for pixel scale. That was my point…as I actually image with one on a 430mm fl. It just produces very hi res images the larger pixel cameras cant match and at 1"/pixel…
i-telescope.net - experience shared
I would like to share with you my personal experiences with the i-telescope.net operation. Just to clarify - it is my personal experience and I would like to ask you for your comments on this post if you have used or are still using the same telescop...