Back to forums

ASI224MC vs ASI662MC

ZWO ASI224MC ZWO ASI662MC Equipment Planetary Camera Buying Advice
11 replies•799 views
Should I get the ASI662MC or the ASI224MC?
Multiple choice poll 31 votes
71% (22 votes)
29% (9 votes)
You must be logged in to vote in this poll.
Ben Helm avatar
Ben Helm avatar
I have done some DSO but I want to try some planetary, but I'm using an old DSLR with a slow frame rate. I want to get a dedicated astro cam, and was originally thinking about getting the ASI224MC until someone told me to get the ASI662MC instead. I work at my university's observatory with a 12 foot (3657.6mm) focal length refractor. The 662 has a lower frame rate, higher QE, higher resolution, higher full well, and smaller pixel sizes compared to the 224. My question is: is the 662 worth the extra $90 or are the differences too minor to notice?
Well Written Engaging
Tommy Blomqvist avatar
Tommy Blomqvist avatar
I've tried 224 connected to my ASIAIR on my 150pds (150/750) and think it's a good planetary camera that works well.
But looking at the specs I think the 662 should be even better…
Ben Helm avatar
Ben Helm avatar
Tommy Blomqvist:
I've tried 224 connected to my ASIAIR on my 150pds (150/750) and think it's a good planetary camera that works well.
But looking at the specs I think the 662 should be even better...

I decided to go with the 662 after talking to a few people. I'm excited to try it out!
Well Written
R. Estuardo Ordonez avatar
R. Estuardo Ordonez avatar
12 foot refractor? Could you send me a picture of the scope?, Refractor? Did I get this right?  are you the luckiest guy ever or something? or it is a reflector, a Schmidt Cassegrain? like this https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/reviews/telescopes/meade-lx600-acf-12-inch-schmidt-cassegrain/

Something is not matching for me.
kuechlew avatar
kuechlew avatar
To me it all comes down to the question whether you can make use of the smaller pixels with your long focal lengths. Typical oversampling formulae don't seem to fit to the lucking imaging approach. It would be very helpful if one of the more experienced planetary photographers here at astrobin would step in and explain how to determine minimum useful pixel size. The capability to bin to 5.8 vs 7.5 micrometer pixels may be relevant.

10% better QE is certainly helpful but results in about 4.9% better SNR if I got the math right which is most likely not worth that much. The difference between the 662 and 224 gets a bit larger in the IR region which is sometimes preferred for planetary imaging, so you may get closer to 10% better SNR. Still not that much in my humble opinion.

More pixels of the 662 are irrelevant since you use only part of the real estate anyway for planetary imaging.

I would assume that full well capacity is irrelevant too since you're shooting at very short exposure times, so it's unlikely you ever fill your full well.

50% higher fps of the 224 seems relevant to me, given that it allows you for the same total integration time to select among more frames for the best ones in your lucky imaging approach.

To make a long story short if you can really get the higher resolution of the smaller pixels at the very challenging image scale, the 662 will be worth it, otherwise not.

Clear skies
Wolfgang
Helpful Insightful Respectful Engaging
andrea tasselli avatar
andrea tasselli avatar
12 foot refractor? Could you send me a picture of the scope?, Refractor? Did I get this right?  are you the luckiest guy ever or something? or it is a reflector, a Schmidt Cassegrain? like this https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/reviews/telescopes/meade-lx600-acf-12-inch-schmidt-cassegrain/

Something is not matching for me.

Very old refractors are very long refractors, f/20 or thereabout.
Ben Helm avatar
Ben Helm avatar
12 foot refractor? Could you send me a picture of the scope?, Refractor? Did I get this right?  are you the luckiest guy ever or something? or it is a reflector, a Schmidt Cassegrain? like this https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/reviews/telescopes/meade-lx600-acf-12-inch-schmidt-cassegrain/

Something is not matching for me.

Yes it’s a 12 foot focal length refractor from the late 1800s. I work at an observatory for the University of Texas
Overroad avatar
Overroad avatar
Been there and viewed Saturn thru the scope. Absolutely beautiful to behold. This was many many years ago.
David
Oscar avatar
Oscar avatar
@Ben Helm What do you do at the observatory and what is your salary? I'm interested.
Overroad avatar
Overroad avatar
I think you might have the wrong person. I lived in Austin and visited the scope with my kids in tow. They used to have nights open to the public. This was many years ago BTW.
David
Tareq Abdulla avatar
Tareq Abdulla avatar
An old topic, i already had 385MC which is called the big brother of 224MC and i loved it a lot, but i bought 662MC as an upgrade or as an addition, because i also have 290MM so i wanted a color camera with pixel size of 2.9um, and from specs i felt like 662MC was the answer, there was 462MC as the answer but ZWO discontinued it which means there is a newer upgrade which is 662MC.