Back to forums

Zwo ASI 533 MC pro vs Zwo ASI 294 MC pro

Sky-Watcher Esprit 80ED Equipment CMOS One-Shot Color
23 replies•1.6k views
Which OSC Dedicared camera do you recommend for my 400mm f/5 superapo triplet ?
Single choice poll 91 votes
63% (57 votes)
30% (27 votes)
8% (7 votes)
You must be logged in to vote in this poll.
Daniel Arenas avatar
Daniel Arenas avatar
Well I want to give my fisrt step with an OSC dedicated camera.
In the beginning I liked the ASI2600 MC pro but its price is twice the price of the ASI 533 MC or ASI 294 MC. 

My telescope is an ESPRIT 80ED 400mm f/5

With my DSLR the resolution is 2.2 “/pixel a little bit undersampling according to Astronomytools in an “Ok Seeing”. 


The ASI 533 MC is a 1.94 “/pixel




The ASI 294 MC is a 2.36 “/pixel





What I don’t know is if 2.36 in front 2.2 is a big difference or I will no notice anyrthing. 

Doubts, doubts and more doubts!
Stuart Taylor avatar
Stuart Taylor avatar
With that scope, I am guessing you're more interested in larger objects (nebulae) rather than galaxies. In which case I think I'd accept the slight undersampling and go with the larger sensor of the 294 to get a bigger FOV.
Well Written Concise
andrea tasselli avatar
andrea tasselli avatar
I have both (one from ASI, one from Altair). Overall the 533C has a slight edge in overall performance. On a 400 FL scope you get 1.6x1.6 degree square which is big enough to capture most of the nebulae (M31 won't fit though but it wouldn't either with the 294MC).
Rafał Szwejkowski avatar
Rafał Szwejkowski avatar
The answer is 2600MC, get a budget version from Omegon or RisingCam unless you need AsiAir compatibility.  They are 20-30% cheaper than ZWO's version.

It's about 10x better than any of the 2 you mentioned and it's worth eating peanut butter sandwiches for the summer to step up to it.
kuechlew avatar
kuechlew avatar
I wonder whether the ugly amp glow of the 294 is an issue for people who use it as the first astro cam. It seems to be "easy" to deal with by proper calibration frames. Not 100% sure if this applies to beginners too.

Clear skies
Wolfgang
Stuart Taylor avatar
Stuart Taylor avatar
The answer is 2600MC, get a budget version from Omegon or RisingCam unless you need AsiAir compatibility.  They are 20-30% cheaper than ZWO's version.

It's about 10x better than any of the 2 you mentioned and it's worth eating peanut butter sandwiches for the summer to step up to it.

I was actually going to recommend this too. I think the 2600 is great, but I wasn't sure if the OP had ruled that out on price.
Well Written
Daniel Arenas avatar
Daniel Arenas avatar
I wonder whether the ugly amp glow of the 294 is an issue for people who use it as the first astro cam. It seems to be "easy" to deal with by proper calibration frames. Not 100% sure if this applies to beginners too.

Clear skies
Wolfgang

Many thanks @kuechlew 
That's a good piece of advice. I appreciate it.
The answer is 2600MC, get a budget version from Omegon or RisingCam unless you need AsiAir compatibility.  They are 20-30% cheaper than ZWO's version.

It's about 10x better than any of the 2 you mentioned and it's worth eating peanut butter sandwiches for the summer to step up to it.

 
Stuart Taylor:
I was actually going to recommend this too. I think the 2600 is great, but I wasn't sure if the OP had ruled that out on price.


Thanks dudes,
After thinking a lot (again, and again cause I'm doing it for more than a month) and talking to my wife (I'm always honest with her in all that involve my two hobbies: photography and astrophotography) I think you two were right. And most important she supports my decision.

In fact, in the very beginning my thoughts were the ASI 2600 MC Pro, cause I love that APS-C sensor relation. After that I thought that maybe ASI533 were a 2600MC similar but with square relation 1" and cheaper but I realised that I don't like square formats, neither in photography nor in astrophotography cause I think that I'll get tired sooner of doing mosaics. When I asked a astroshop they told me to consider the 4/3 format from the ASI294 better than the 1" square from the ASI533 and that were my doubts....

After talking to a lot of people, to you an to my wife... I will follow my first sight: the ASI 2600 MC Pro. And I think that will be a camera for many years or at least I hope so.

IF you want to see a mate that is doing really well with taht camera here in Astrobin you can see the gallery of Jaume Zapata  https://www.astrobin.com/users/Zapo/?utm_source=astrobin&amp&utm_medium=email&amp&utm_campaign=notification&amp&from_user=95216

I think he owns both (I'm not sure) the 2600 MC Pro and the 2600 MM

Kind regards and thank you all again!
andrea tasselli avatar
andrea tasselli avatar
If you think you would prefer the format then fair enough. In terms of performance, however, I'd think the 533MC would outperform the 2600MC (or equivalent) in terms of sensitivity.
Daniel Arenas avatar
Daniel Arenas avatar
andrea tasselli:
If you think you would prefer the format then fair enough. In terms of performance, however, I'd think the 533MC would outperform the 2600MC (or equivalent) in terms of sensitivity.

Why do you say that?

Chase Newtson avatar
Chase Newtson avatar
I wonder whether the ugly amp glow of the 294 is an issue for people who use it as the first astro cam. It seems to be "easy" to deal with by proper calibration frames. Not 100% sure if this applies to beginners too.

Clear skies
Wolfgang

As long as you take proper Dark frames, amp glow is super easy.  The 294MC Pro is my first dedicated cam, coming from an unmodded Canon.  The cooling feature on the pro models make dark frames super easy.  Create a dark library and go, don't need to spend time every night making matching darks.

With that said, flat frames can be a bit tricky with the 294, but once you get that figured out, isn't difficult either.

-Chase
Helpful
andrea tasselli avatar
andrea tasselli avatar
Daniel Arenas:
Why do you say that?

I read the Sony specs. The IMX533 is about 10% more sensitive than the IMX571, if the figures are correct.
Well Written
Dave Ek avatar
Dave Ek avatar
No experience with the 294, but I really like my 533–enough that using the color version for a couple years convinced me to buy the mono version that just came out. Very low dark current and zero amp glow are very nice, and it's well suited to my Esprit 100. Nice cameras that are more affordable than, say, the 2600.
Well Written Concise
Björn Arnold avatar
Björn Arnold avatar
From my experience with the 294MM (emphasis on MM here), one could have issues with amp glow. I had cases where I couldn’t calibrate it out. Hence: never buy any camera with amp glow. 

That‘s why I‘d prefer the 533 over the 294.

As to the 2600 vs. 533: make a thorough analysis of the FOV for both cameras an judge if you really need the larger sensor. I do use a 1“ sensor after doing the analysis on my setups and I don’t miss the 4/3 or APS-C. Don‘t fall into the megapixel trap. You don’t need 20, 40 or 100 MP on a 2 or 4 MP screen. Even posters are possible with lower res.

Another point: the 2600 has an IR-cut window where the 533 apparently doesn’t (only anti-reflection coating). For planetary, having IR open can be helpful.
At least your won‘t close any roads with the 533.

My two cents to that.

Björn

EDIT, PS: with a smaller sensor you might even get away without using a corrector on your (possible) scopes. Corrector backfocus can sometimes be a headache. So again, if FOV is fine, the smaller sensor isn’t necessarily a disadvantage.
Helpful
Benny Colyn avatar
Benny Colyn avatar
I have an Esprit 80, and I have paired it in the past with an ASI294 and an ASI183. 

80mm of aperture really doesn't pull in much light. The wide field of view is nice tough. As such it's a nice scope for wide nebulae and bigger (but not huge) DSOs, not so much for small dim galaxies. Because of that, I think it's a bit of a shame to use a sensor that is significantly smaller than the image circle of the flattener (which is good up to APS-C, it worked well with my EOS 200D). The 294 still covers most of the image circle, and has some nice framing options for the larger DSOs (see telescopius telescope simulator). I never had problems calibrating the data unless it was clearly my fault (bad darks, light leak, …). Most of my images with it were slightly under sampled, which wasn't that big a deal most of the time (and for small, bright targets drizzle integration was useful to get at least round stars).

That said, the 2600 didn't exist back when I got my 294 and I may have just saved up for that one if it was an option back then. Don't get a used 2600 tough, see the oil leak issue (should be fixed in recent stock).
Helpful Respectful Engaging Supportive
dkamen avatar
dkamen avatar
andrea tasselli:
Daniel Arenas:
Why do you say that?

I read the Sony specs. The IMX533 is about 10% more sensitive than the IMX571, if the figures are correct.

On the other hand the 571 has a 16 bit ADC instead of 14. Might be more useful than 10% extra sensitivity if one goes for longer and fewer exposures. (Might not be)
andrea tasselli avatar
andrea tasselli avatar
On the other hand the 571 has a 16 bit ADC instead of 14. Might be more useful than 10% extra sensitivity if one goes for longer and fewer exposures. (Might not be)


How many out there are taking 1 (or 2 or 3) shots for a single subject? I doubt there are many. I do, but with CCDs so it doesn't count. Let's be realistic and assume you would take quite a few of them, to take advantage of the intrinsic low read noise of the CMOS, and the difference pretty quickly disappears. Besides, I don't see anyone complaining about daytime photography being essentially 14-bit at best, do I?
Phil Creed avatar
Phil Creed avatar
I wish ZWO would just make a 294-sized version of the 533.  I don't like having the choice of either an 11.3mm x 11.3mm sensor and an APS-C but no micro-4/3 like the 294 when it comes to back-illuminated sensors.

Clear Skies,
Phil
kuechlew avatar
kuechlew avatar
andrea tasselli:
On the other hand the 571 has a 16 bit ADC instead of 14. Might be more useful than 10% extra sensitivity if one goes for longer and fewer exposures. (Might not be)


How many out there are taking 1 (or 2 or 3) shots for a single subject? I doubt there are many. I do, but with CCDs so it doesn't count. Let's be realistic and assume you would take quite a few of them, to take advantage of the intrinsic low read noise of the CMOS, and the difference pretty quickly disappears. Besides, I don't see anyone complaining about daytime photography being essentially 14-bit at best, do I?

And we even took pictures with 12 bit sensors for years ...

Clear skies
Wolfgang
Benny Colyn avatar
Benny Colyn avatar
Phil Creed:
I don't like having the choice of either an 11.3mm x 11.3mm sensor and an APS-C but no micro-4/3 like the 294 when it comes to back-illuminated sensors.


All recent sensors (that includes the 183 and the 294) are BSI (back illuminated)

https://astronomy-imaging-camera.com/product/asi294mc-pro-color
https://astronomy-imaging-camera.com/product/asi183mm-pro-mono

you have to go back to the 1600 for a traditional, front-illuminated sensor and it was precisely this tech which enables the jump in QE you saw for CMOS in the generation after the 1600. Really the latest gen has a better DAC (useful, but not ground breaking) and better control over amp glow - which is nice but more of an incremental upgrade than BSI was.
Helpful Insightful Concise
Phil Creed avatar
Phil Creed avatar
Benny Colyn:
Phil Creed:
I don't like having the choice of either an 11.3mm x 11.3mm sensor and an APS-C but no micro-4/3 like the 294 when it comes to back-illuminated sensors.


All recent sensors (that includes the 183 and the 294) are BSI (back illuminated)

https://astronomy-imaging-camera.com/product/asi294mc-pro-color
https://astronomy-imaging-camera.com/product/asi183mm-pro-mono

you have to go back to the 1600 for a traditional, front-illuminated sensor and it was precisely this tech which enables the jump in QE you saw for CMOS in the generation after the 1600. Really the latest gen has a better DAC (useful, but not ground breaking) and better control over amp glow - which is nice but more of an incremental upgrade than BSI was.

Sorry.  Meant to say I wish there was a camera that had 533/2600 "tech" in a 294 size, particularly in regards to having no amp glow and low thermal noise.  Something at an intermediate price between $900 and $2,000.

Clear Skies,
Phil
dkamen avatar
dkamen avatar
andrea tasselli:
On the other hand the 571 has a 16 bit ADC instead of 14. Might be more useful than 10% extra sensitivity if one goes for longer and fewer exposures. (Might not be)


How many out there are taking 1 (or 2 or 3) shots for a single subject? I doubt there are many. I do, but with CCDs so it doesn't count. Let's be realistic and assume you would take quite a few of them, to take advantage of the intrinsic low read noise of the CMOS, and the difference pretty quickly disappears. Besides, I don't see anyone complaining about daytime photography being essentially 14-bit at best, do I?

How many people complain that daytime photography has half the sensitivity? But it also has like a million times the SNR, you don't have to bring up details that differ by an ADU and a half.

But my point was 10% sensitivity = you expose 10% more = you take ~10% fewer subs = 16 bits become more important. Not much more important, but then again neither is a 10% difference in sensitivity.
kuechlew avatar
kuechlew avatar
Phil Creed:
Benny Colyn:
Phil Creed:
I don't like having the choice of either an 11.3mm x 11.3mm sensor and an APS-C but no micro-4/3 like the 294 when it comes to back-illuminated sensors.


All recent sensors (that includes the 183 and the 294) are BSI (back illuminated)

https://astronomy-imaging-camera.com/product/asi294mc-pro-color
https://astronomy-imaging-camera.com/product/asi183mm-pro-mono

you have to go back to the 1600 for a traditional, front-illuminated sensor and it was precisely this tech which enables the jump in QE you saw for CMOS in the generation after the 1600. Really the latest gen has a better DAC (useful, but not ground breaking) and better control over amp glow - which is nice but more of an incremental upgrade than BSI was.

Sorry.  Meant to say I wish there was a camera that had 533/2600 "tech" in a 294 size, particularly in regards to having no amp glow and low thermal noise.  Something at an intermediate price between $900 and $2,000.

Clear Skies,
Phil

When I pondered whether to buy the 533, 294 or 183 and then went for the QHY 268C triggered by a significant rebate, I argued that for the quite steep price I get all those smaller format sensors for free.  Admittedly not with the same pixel pitch.  It's really tough to decide between 533 and 294 and for those interested in compact rigs with shorter focal lengths there is even a lot to say in favour of the small pixels of the 183. In my eyes the main difference is fov and the amp glow. If the amp glow doesn't bother you, just decide based on your preferred fov.

Clear skies
Wolfgang
Helpful Insightful Respectful
andrea tasselli avatar
andrea tasselli avatar
But my point was 10% sensitivity = you expose 10% more = you take ~10% fewer subs = 16 bits become more important. Not much more important, but then again neither is a 10% difference in sensitivity.

The point is that you don't have to, the 10% is already baked in when you get the 533. You would, however, take tens if not hundreds of shots with the full or nearly as full DR (assuming you expose just below the saturation point) in either cases at which point the effective DR of the final stacked up image will bear no difference between being orginally 16bit or 14bit. The hystogram below show the effect of stacking ~300 images @ 14bit (with the actual dynamic range probably somewhat less). There are no gaps on a 16bit gamut that I can see.

Daniel Arenas avatar
Daniel Arenas avatar
Finally…