Trying to figure out the correct camera - Forums

Topic starter

Jun 10, 2022 · Edited: Jun 10, 2022

First of all, I'd like to thank you all reading this post. I know it has to be for sure one of the most asked things.

I decided to step forward and jump from a dslr to a dedicated and cooled camera.

After checking a thousand times the ccd suitability tool, checking the ratio of the guiding respect any of the ccd checked, I still completely lost.

My equipment is a skywatcher newton 200/1000, an eq6r. And for guiding, a svbony scope (60/240) and a qhy5L-II.

Hope someone could help me to find out which camera should I buy.

I would use it for DSO, nebulae and galaxies. It doesnt matter if I have to make panels.

Again, thank you in advance to all of you responding.

andrea tasselli

Frequent contributor

Jun 10, 2022

You didn't set a financial threshold nor said whether you'd fancy going monochrome and using filters or an OSC would suffice. Give us a bit more to work on.

juankarenf

Topic starter

Jun 10, 2022 · Edited: Jun 10, 2022

Sorry, you're right. I'm thinking on an osc and maybe the financial limit would be something like the asi 2600mc.

Thank you.

David Nozadze

Jun 10, 2022

Hello Juankarenf,

There are many choices of brands on the market. But I suppose you are looking at ZWO line-up first of all.

They have two very nice and affordable models: the 533 and 294. 294 is a larger sensor - Micro Four Thirds , has slightly higher quantum efficiency, but has an amp glow. the 533 has 1" sensor and has no amp glow and just a tiny bit lower quantum efficiency.

Both models have color and monochrome versions.

If you want to invest additional money into filter sets and also spend at least 3x more time shooting the DSO, then definitely go for the monochrome camera. The result is well worth the effort and cost. The color camera will work wonderfully as well, especially for broadband targets, like galaxies and star clusters.

I have a 294 monochrome and totally love it! I can use it on basically all of my scopes (250mm to 1600 mm focal length) in 1x1 to 3x3 binning modes.

Hope this helped

CS

D

Helpful Respectful Engaging Supportive

juankarenf

Topic starter

Jun 10, 2022

David Nozadze:
Hello Juankarenf,

There are many choices of brands on the market. But I suppose you are looking at ZWO line-up first of all.

They have two very nice and affordable models: the 533 and 294. 294 is a larger sensor - Micro Four Thirds , has slightly higher quantum efficiency, but has an amp glow. the 533 has 1" sensor and has no amp glow and just a tiny bit lower quantum efficiency.

Both models have color and monochrome versions.

If you want to invest additional money into filter sets and also spend at least 3x more time shooting the DSO, then definitely go for the monochrome camera. The result is well worth the effort and cost. The color camera will work wonderfully as well, especially for broadband targets, like galaxies and star clusters.

I have a 294 monochrome and totally love it! I can use it on basically all of my scopes (250mm to 1600 mm focal length) in 1x1 to 3x3 binning modes.

Hope this helped

CS

D

*** Thanks for your answer David. In fact, I'm open to any brand, not only ZWO...I've checked qhy, omegon... the thing is that I don't know which camera will fit with my telescope and guiding and that's why I came here to ask to the pros ☺️ ***

David Nozadze

Jun 10, 2022

David Nozadze:
Hello Juankarenf,

There are many choices of brands on the market. But I suppose you are looking at ZWO line-up first of all.

They have two very nice and affordable models: the 533 and 294. 294 is a larger sensor - Micro Four Thirds , has slightly higher quantum efficiency, but has an amp glow. the 533 has 1" sensor and has no amp glow and just a tiny bit lower quantum efficiency.

Both models have color and monochrome versions.

If you want to invest additional money into filter sets and also spend at least 3x more time shooting the DSO, then definitely go for the monochrome camera. The result is well worth the effort and cost. The color camera will work wonderfully as well, especially for broadband targets, like galaxies and star clusters.

I have a 294 monochrome and totally love it! I can use it on basically all of my scopes (250mm to 1600 mm focal length) in 1x1 to 3x3 binning modes.

Hope this helped

CS

D

*** Thanks for your answer David. In fact, I'm open to any brand, not only ZWO...I've checked qhy, omegon... the thing is that I don't know which camera will fit with my telescope and guiding and that's why I came here to ask to the pros ☺️ ***

I Think you can use even an APS-C size sensor on your scope. The guiding resolution of your set-up should be fine. It is just a matter of how much you are willing to invest in the new gear. In this hobby, larger is always better. At the same time larger is always more expensive

Werner Stumpferl

Jun 10, 2022

Hello Juankarenf,

I have a 294m, 294c, 533m and a 268c (is like the 2600mc).
In Mono for nebulas (Narrowband), I love the 294m, for galaxies I take the 533m (resolution). OSC is nice but not the same as mono. In addition to amp glow, the 294c has also visible banding, difficult in processing but she is more sensitive then the 268c, but the 268c has no amp glow, no banding and a bigger FOV.
So sorry, each camera has its life entitlement.
If your decission is more narrowband — 294m
If your decission is more in broadband, sometimes narrowband (f.e. Antlia ALP-T or Optolong l-eXtreme) — 268c

Hope this can help you.
CS
Werner

Helpful

Tim Hutchison

Jun 10, 2022

As Andrea said, more detail would help us to make better recommendations, but consider this. You want to be somewhere between 0.65 - 2"/pixel. At your focal length, just about any camera you can buy today will put you in that range. I much prefer being in the lower end so that I can take advantage of better seeing when I get it.

If you're planning on deep space targets, you likely want an APS-C sized chip or a full frame sized chip. The size of the chip will dictate the field of view. I prefer the field of view I get from full frame at that focal length.

Use a tool like Telescopius or Stellarium and define your scope and add a ASI6200MM Pro camera and look at a few targets. This is a full frame sensor camera. Your field of view will be nice and wide so large nebulae will fit nicely. Then change the camera to an ASI2600MM Pro an do the same thing. This is an APS-C sized camera. Your field of view will be smaller, but still big enough. See which one you prefer.

Either of these cameras would be a great choice. They are a bit pricy, but they are worth it. They are both available as color cameras as well if you don't want to shoot mono.

QHY has the QHY600M and the QHY268M, which are the same sensors, but are the industrial versions of those sensors. They are, in my opinion, a little nicer than ZWO, but many would argue that the ZWO are just as good, and they are probably right.

I have the QHY600M on a 1000mm focal length telescope and I couldn't be happier with the images that I get from it. Here are some example images from my profile so that you can see the field of view:

https://astrob.in/p6j5i1/0/
https://astrob.in/toddfr/0/
https://astrob.in/m5djuy/0/
https://astrob.in/9rvjqe/0/
https://astrob.in/hut9z1/0/

My focal length is the same as yours, so I hope that is helpful.

I don't think you can make a bad choice between these 4 cameras, but if they aren't what your looking for, give me some more details and I'll try to help.

Best.
Tim

Helpful Engaging Supportive

juankarenf

Topic starter

Jun 10, 2022

Tim Hutchison:
As Andrea said, more detail would help us to make better recommendations, but consider this. You want to be somewhere between 0.65 - 2"/pixel. At your focal length, just about any camera you can buy today will put you in that range. I much prefer being in the lower end so that I can take advantage of better seeing when I get it.

If you're planning on deep space targets, you likely want an APS-C sized chip or a full frame sized chip. The size of the chip will dictate the field of view. I prefer the field of view I get from full frame at that focal length.

Use a tool like Telescopius or Stellarium and define your scope and add a ASI6200MM Pro camera and look at a few targets. This is a full frame sensor camera. Your field of view will be nice and wide so large nebulae will fit nicely. Then change the camera to an ASI2600MM Pro an do the same thing. This is an APS-C sized camera. Your field of view will be smaller, but still big enough. See which one you prefer.

Either of these cameras would be a great choice. They are a bit pricy, but they are worth it. They are both available as color cameras as well if you don't want to shoot mono.

QHY has the QHY600M and the QHY268M, which are the same sensors, but are the industrial versions of those sensors. They are, in my opinion, a little nicer than ZWO, but many would argue that the ZWO are just as good, and they are probably right.

I have the QHY600M on a 1000mm focal length telescope and I couldn't be happier with the images that I get from it. Here are some example images from my profile so that you can see the field of view:

https://astrob.in/p6j5i1/0/
https://astrob.in/toddfr/0/
https://astrob.in/m5djuy/0/
https://astrob.in/9rvjqe/0/
https://astrob.in/hut9z1/0/

My focal length is the same as yours, so I hope that is helpful.

I don't think you can make a bad choice between these 4 cameras, but if they aren't what your looking for, give me some more details and I'll try to help.

Best.
Tim

*** Wow, I love your photos, they're awesome! Because a fact of free time, I'm interested in a osc camera. I wish I had the time for mono (and getting something even close to your work) but I don't 😭. Anyway thank you for giving me your time and advice.***

andrea tasselli

Frequent contributor

Jun 10, 2022

As a matter of fact bigger isn't always better, far from it. Given the scope and mount your best bet is still an OSC, probably one of those with 294c sensor (ASI, QHY, Omegon or directly from the Far East for less money, they are essentially all the same, with maybe an exception being the ASIs). The only way you can use it profitably on a f/5 newton is to pair it with a good coma corrector (more money), TSGPU or the SkyWatcher equivalent are a good choice and would cover up to APS-C size, should you need one larger sensor in the future.

Should you follow this advice you'd end up with an image scale of around 1"/px and a field of view of 1.1 dgrees x 0.75 degrees, which would allow covering most of the DSOs out there and do pretty well on galaxies and smaller stuff. Also, you'd need to buy a 2" filter holder if not immediately then in the future, as you'd need at least an IR/UV cut filter (2" size) and maybe a LP filter down the line, if not dual or triple band narrowband filters if you'd feel the need depending on you light pollution situation.

Helpful

kuechlew

Jun 10, 2022 · Edited: Jun 10, 2022

Hi,

in my humble understanding you have to look for these parameters:
1) Does the image scale of the camera fit to my seeing conditions with my scope
2) Am I able to guide with my existing setup
3) What FoV am I looking for
You may care for further aspects like Deep well capacity, read noise, amp glow, reputation of the manufacturer etc. This is personal preference and up to you

Ad 1)
According to CCD suitability calculator you should not go below 3.3 micormeter pixel pitch for ok seeing. The ASI 2600 (or QHY 268 MC) is just a smidge above with 3.76 micrometers. A somewhat bigger pixel pitch may be better suited. ASI comparison tool shows these cameras:

In my opinion all of them would fit to your setup

Ad 2)
There is a rule that the ratio of the image scales between image train and guide train should be less than 10 (better less than 5 ...).
Your guide scope has a pixel pitch of 3.75 micrometer. So with IMX 533, IMX 571 and IMX 455 - which basically have the same pixel pitch - the ratio of image scale is equal to the ratio of focal lengths of main scope and guide scope, in your case 4.17, so you're fine. For cameras with larger pixels the ratio gets smaller e.g. down to 2.63 for the IMX 410. So, no issues with any of the cameras.

Ad3)
Based on number of pixels and pixel size you will get different field of view. Look at various targets you intend to image with astronomy tools or telescopius and decide which FoV you prefer. There is no general rule, it's completely up to your preference.

Once you decided for a sensor with your preferred field of view you may compare the offerings of various manufacturers. In my opinion the GHY 268 is a better camera compared to the ASI 2600 but others may think differently.

Good luck and clear skies
Wolfgang

Helpful

juankarenf

Topic starter

Jun 10, 2022

andrea tasselli:
As a matter of fact bigger isn't always better, far from it. Given the scope and mount your best bet is still an OSC, probably one of those with 294c sensor (ASI, QHY, Omegon or directly from the Far East for less money, they are essentially all the same, with maybe an exception being the ASIs). The only way you can use it profitably on a f/5 newton is to pair it with a good coma corrector (more money), TSGPU or the SkyWatcher equivalent are a good choice and would cover up to APS-C size, should you need one larger sensor in the future.

Should you follow this advice you'd end up with an image scale of around 1"/px and a field of view of 1.1 dgrees x 0.75 degrees, which would allow covering most of the DSOs out there and do pretty well on galaxies and smaller stuff. Also, you'd need to buy a 2" filter holder if not immediately then in the future, as you'd need at least an IR/UV cut filter (2" size) and maybe a LP filter down the line, if not dual or triple band narrowband filters if you'd feel the need depending on you light pollution situation.

*** Thank you! I have a mpcc mark III coma corrector that works quite well actually with my dslr (apsc). I'm using too a uhc-s which incorporates an uv/ir filter so maybe I'm covering that need to? Thanks again for your answer. ***

Andy Wray

Jun 10, 2022

I have the Skywatcher 200PDS with the Skywatcher Coma Corrector which is pretty much your setup. I started with an APSC mirrorless camera and was looking for something with the same field of view, so ended up with the ASI1600MM Pro (an older model). My personal thoughts are:

* Most importantly, work out what field of view you need based on what you want to image. As others have said before, you can use stellarium to input various sensor sizes and then get stellarium to see what various targets look like based on the sensor size.

* Get a pixel size that matches the seeing conditions (in my case it is 0.865 arc secs per pixel as I have average seeing).

* Decide if you want to try out narrowband imaging. I did want to, so went with a mono camera and filter wheel. N.B. I'm not 100% convinced that OSC cameras mean you actually save time on capturing images.

Helpful Insightful Respectful

andrea tasselli

Frequent contributor

Jun 10, 2022

Andy Wray:
* Decide if you want to try out narrowband imaging. I did want to, so went with a mono camera and filter wheel. N.B. I'm not 100% convinced that OSC cameras mean you actually save time on capturing images.

I would rephrase it as: "not sure an OSC camera produces the same resullts of a monochrome camera with LRGB filters in the same amount of time". The jury is out on this one though...

In a straight RGB filters against an OSC then the OSC is clearly faster and easier to manage. Not to mention much less expensive.

David Moore

Jun 10, 2022

I have a Skywatcher 200PDS, an AZ EQ6 and a ZWO ASI 2600MC and a 2600MM. I like the light weight of the 2600MC and the 2 USB ports. I also like that it is an APS-C format. I have had problems of grease on the optical window but ZWO tell me they have fixed that. I have a number of images here if you want to look and more recent ones are better due to better processing and maybe a a few other factors. I am very happy with the images produced.

David Moore

juankarenf

Topic starter

Jun 10, 2022

David Moore:
I have a Skywatcher 200PDS, an AZ EQ6 and a ZWO ASI 2600MC and a 2600MM. I like the light weight of the 2600MC and the 2 USB ports. I also like that it is an APS-C format. I have had problems of grease on the optical window but ZWO tell me they have fixed that. I have a number of images here if you want to look and more recent ones are better due to better processing and maybe a a few other factors. I am very happy with the images produced.

David Moore

*** OMG they're incredible. Thanks for your answer. I had already seen ypur profile, looking for someone with my scope and the 2600mc. I'm almost decided to give the imx 571 a try, but I doubt among asi or qhy. Thanks again for sharing and your time👏🏻***