2.71
#...
·
 |
|---|
|
Hi, I have been using ZWO ASI 1600MM-Pro for more than 4 years now. Since my sky got limited due to high-rise buildings and poor weather I am not able to finish LRGB imaging for given targets by doing multiple nights imaging as my setup on the terrace is not fixed. I want to get OSC camera for planetary as well as EAA such that I can use it's color data for better output with existing L channel or Ha-OIII combination done using 1600MM-Pro. Suggest which will be better match camera for above requirement. 1] I was checking ZWO ASI 662MC with good specs but many people say to get ZWO ASI 585MC 2] Can I go with ZWO ASI 533MC (non-cooled version) will it work for Planets as well using ROI ? how is ZWO 533MC non-cooled perform for EAA compared to cooled version 533MC-Pro ? Here many people posted images captured using cooled camera 533MC-Pro but mentioned Imaging equipment as non-cooled camera 533-MC which is kind of wrong info, I checked upon messaging them on their images and they said they used cooled version of 533MC. Thanks |
2.11
#...
·
|
|---|
| I would go with the 585. That sensor is a beast. |
7.56
#...
·
|
|---|
V.M Legary: 1] Same technology 4x as many pixels. You'll still have to use ROI for planets anyway. I have the former as I couldn't convince myself that the latter was any better. 2] Larger pixels, very nice sensor if cost isn't the issue I'd go for it. |
3.87
#...
·
|
|---|
|
The 662 is only 1920x1080, ie very small. The 585 is the 4k version of that at about 8mp pixels. The 533 is the better DSO camera. The biggest thing here besides cost is aspect ratio. The 662 and 585 are very wide using a 16:9 aspect ratio. The 533 has similar pixels but is much closer to what you are used to with the 1600 (4:3 aspect ratio) with a 1:1 square aspect ratio. If money was not an object (or pixel scale) I would likely spring for a cooled 533. But the 585 offers a lot of capability at a fantastic price. |
|
6.89
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
All uncooled cameras work great for EAA, because it is targeting less faint detail and has much higher tolerance for noise than deep sky astrophotography. Since faint detail tends to be at the edges, you don't really need a big sensor here, you will be looking mostly at the bright cores of DSOs. 585 would probably be the best, but 533 would come very close. For planetary, I would go for the 662. The 585 has the same pixels but larger FOV which is mostly wasted in planetary. Unless of course your telescope can fill in that field. Now, you want to paint a deep sky field that has been captured with the 1600MM, it will take you so long you might as well use your filters. Unless you go for the 533 which is still a bit small but much closer (the graph says Pro but it doesn't matter for FOV). I put a 600m focal length to produce this graph btw.  I don't think there is a camera that can cover all three of your requirements. But if you limit your requirements to EAA and Planetary, I would get either the 662 or the 585 (depending on your scope). Cheers, Dimitris |
1.20
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
I have the 585 and the 533 (cooled). The 585 was my first dedicated astro camera and I love it. While I use the 533 now for deep sky, you can get passable results with the 585: |
