|
Say you live in a place with exceptional seeing and find yourself under sampling when using the 2600mm with all the telescopes you own. Would you consider selling the camera and buying instead a 294mm pro to use in bin1 mode?
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
andrea tasselli:
Get a bigger scope.
Not planning on getting 2000+ mm focal length with a decent f ratio and end up having to buy a new mount. It’s outside the budget and my area of interest. I’m happy with the 250-1800 focal range that I have currently, just want to optimise
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Marc Monarcha:
Not planning on getting 2000+ mm focal length with a decent f ratio and end up having to buy a new mount. It’s outside the budget and my area of interest. I’m happy with the 250-1800 focal range that I have currently, just want to optimise
So you have access to a sky with seeing better than 1.2" on average?
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
andrea tasselli:
Marc Monarcha:
Not planning on getting 2000+ mm focal length with a decent f ratio and end up having to buy a new mount. It’s outside the budget and my area of interest. I’m happy with the 250-1800 focal range that I have currently, just want to optimise
So you have access to a sky with seeing better than 1.2" on average?
Yes. It’s in Ehden, Lebanon. I go even higher up in the mountains usually so even better than what you see on websites for seeing conditions. Quite lucky
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
|
Any image you are willing to share?
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
andrea tasselli:
Any image you are willing to share?
The images I have so far are all posted here
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
|
Your images look very nice. Why would you want a lower pixel inferior camera that needs a lot of calibration frames is a mystery to me, sampling or not.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Marc Monarcha:
The images I have so far are all posted here
All I can see from your gallery are taken with a 250mm refractor or I am missing something?
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Dan Kearl:
Your images look very nice. Why would you want a lower pixel inferior camera that needs a lot of calibration frames is a mystery to me, sampling or not.
Thanks! I’m interested in more detail out of the images. Sacrificing FOV is no issue for me. Nor is the addition of calibration frames. The question I guess now is whether the increment in sharpness (or whatever the technical word for it) I get from the smaller pixels is worth the sacrifice in dynamic range. I would also be able to crop more with a 294mm pro sensor, which means getting closer to smaller galaxies or nebulae for example.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
andrea tasselli:
Marc Monarcha:
The images I have so far are all posted here
All I can see from your gallery are taken with a 250mm refractor or I am missing something?
I have yet to use my quattro 200p or vixen vc200l
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Marc Monarcha:
Dan Kearl:
Your images look very nice. Why would you want a lower pixel inferior camera that needs a lot of calibration frames is a mystery to me, sampling or not.
Thanks! I’m interested in more detail out of the images. Sacrificing FOV is no issue for me. Nor is the addition of calibration frames. The question I guess now is whether the increment in sharpness (or whatever the technical word for it) I get from the smaller pixels is worth the sacrifice in dynamic range. I would also be able to crop more with a 294mm pro sensor, which means getting closer to smaller galaxies or nebulae for example.
Maybe I know nothing but you cannot crop a 24mp image more than a 52mp image.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Dan Kearl:
Your images look very nice. Why would you want a lower pixel inferior camera that needs a lot of calibration frames is a mystery to me, sampling or not.
I’d also have spare money to get a planetary camera with what’s left of the sale
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Marc Monarcha:
Dan Kearl:
Your images look very nice. Why would you want a lower pixel inferior camera that needs a lot of calibration frames is a mystery to me, sampling or not.
I’d also have spare money to get a planetary camera with what’s left of the sale
So you are buying used cameras after you sell yours because a 294mm is $1299 and a 2600mm is $1799 and there is no way you are getting more than 75% selling your 2600.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Dan Kearl:
Marc Monarcha:
Dan Kearl:
Your images look very nice. Why would you want a lower pixel inferior camera that needs a lot of calibration frames is a mystery to me, sampling or not.
Thanks! I’m interested in more detail out of the images. Sacrificing FOV is no issue for me. Nor is the addition of calibration frames. The question I guess now is whether the increment in sharpness (or whatever the technical word for it) I get from the smaller pixels is worth the sacrifice in dynamic range. I would also be able to crop more with a 294mm pro sensor, which means getting closer to smaller galaxies or nebulae for example.
Maybe I know nothing but you cannot crop a 24mp image more than a 52mp image.
Cropping depends more on your pixel density here. Besides, the 294mm pro also has more mp when in bin1 mode
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Dan Kearl:
Marc Monarcha:
Dan Kearl:
Your images look very nice. Why would you want a lower pixel inferior camera that needs a lot of calibration frames is a mystery to me, sampling or not.
I’d also have spare money to get a planetary camera with what’s left of the sale
So you are buying used cameras after you sell yours because a 294mm is $1299 and a 2600mm is $1799 and there is no way you are getting more than 75% selling your 2600.
Most likely. Also, where are you getting those prices from? I thought the 2600mm pro was sold for 1999$ on the zwo website
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Marc Monarcha:
Cropping depends more on your pixel density here. Besides, the 294mm pro also has more mp when in bin1 mode
For whatever reasons you may want to crop an image pixel counts has nothing to do with it, only how much of the FOV you are willing to sacrifice.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
andrea tasselli:
Marc Monarcha:
Cropping depends more on your pixel density here. Besides, the 294mm pro also has more mp when in bin1 mode
For whatever reasons you may want to crop an image pixel counts has nothing to do with it, only how much of the FOV you are willing to sacrifice.
I disagree with the first part of your statement. You can crop more on a 60mp full frame than you can on a 20mp full frame, and that’s simply because of “image pixel count”. Between the 2600 and 294, given the sensor sizes AND the pixel size, you can crop more on the 294 bin1. So for the same fov from either of those two cameras (all else like telescope being equal), you can sacrifice more on the 294. And that has to do with the combination of sensor and pixel size, and the ratio of those two.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Marc Monarcha:
I disagree with the first part of your statement. You can crop more on a 60mp full frame than you can on a 20mp full frame, and that’s simply because of “image pixel count”. Between the 2600 and 294, given the sensor sizes AND the pixel size, you can crop more on the 294 bin1. So for the same fov from either of those two cameras (all else like telescope being equal), you can sacrifice more on the 294. And that has to do with the combination of sensor and pixel size, and the ratio of those two.
I'll have to disagree, as you should compare apples with apples so the same FOV. In the specific of a 2500 vs 294bin1 you already cropping your FOV (with the same FL). If the former was brought to cover the same FOV as the latter the difference is that one 2600 pixel covers 1.6 pixel of the 294 in bin1 mode, so you loose this much in granularity but this is essentially irrelevant (few arcseconds to fraction of arcseconds).
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
andrea tasselli:
Marc Monarcha:
I disagree with the first part of your statement. You can crop more on a 60mp full frame than you can on a 20mp full frame, and that’s simply because of “image pixel count”. Between the 2600 and 294, given the sensor sizes AND the pixel size, you can crop more on the 294 bin1. So for the same fov from either of those two cameras (all else like telescope being equal), you can sacrifice more on the 294. And that has to do with the combination of sensor and pixel size, and the ratio of those two.
I'll have to disagree, as you should compare apples with apples so the same FOV. In the specific of a 2500 vs 294bin1 you already cropping your FOV (with the same FL). If the former was brought to cover the same FOV as the latter the difference is that one 2600 pixel covers 1.6 pixel of the 294 in bin1 mode, so you loose this much in granularity but this is essentially irrelevant (few arcseconds to fraction of arcseconds).
I actually am comparing apples with apples and saying that for the same achievable FOV, you get more resolution out of the 294 bin1. So to go back to the initial topic, I can achieve higher resolution from a 294 bin1. Nothing new there…I was looking to see if someone had any input on dynamic range, maybe full well depth and if it’s reason for concern. Maybe also something else that I should consider, aside from FOV and having to take calibration frames
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
|
Why are you even bothering to ask on here, as you have already made you mind up to do this as you are arguing with anyone that tells you it’s not a good idea, so that is a sure sign you have already decided….🤷🏼♂️
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
AstroShed:
Why are you even bothering to ask on here, as you have already made you mind up to do this as you are arguing with anyone that tells you it’s not a good idea, so that is a sure sign you have already decided….🤷🏼♂️
I haven’t made up my mind yet…just weighing the pros and cons, maybe looking for something I’m missing as I said! Also, no one said it was a bad idea😂 someone was wondering why I’d do it. They, just like me, seemed open to learn, right or wrong
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
|
If you think is worth the effort, then by all means go for it. Me, I wouldn't be doing it. And I have the camera in question.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
I don't think its a bad idea, shoot what to want to shoot.
if money matters, you are unrealistic about what a used camera is worth.
You won't sell the 2600 for enough to cover the cost of a new 294 if that matters.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Marc Monarcha:
AstroShed:
Why are you even bothering to ask on here, as you have already made you mind up to do this as you are arguing with anyone that tells you it’s not a good idea, so that is a sure sign you have already decided….🤷🏼♂️
I haven’t made up my mind yet…just weighing the pros and cons, maybe looking for something I’m missing as I said! Also, no one said it was a bad idea😂 someone was wondering why I’d do it. They, just like me, seemed open to learn, right or wrong
Well the poll you started gives you your answer, look at those percentages….🤷🏼♂️ I rest my case…
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
1.51
7.56
4.67
1.81
