ASI1600 or ASI183? Short focal length

GregGurdak
30 Apr, 2018 18:13
I am just about to getting Mono camera … at the beginning wanna buy ASI1600 but since I shoot with short focal length telescopes (" TV 101"540mm with reducer 430mm and "WO star71"360 mm ) my second thought is maybe better match will be ASI 183 ( pixel size 2.4mn) Considering sampling, seeing etc.. what do you think guys?
Edited 30 Apr, 2018 19:31
Starminer68
30 Apr, 2018 18:39
I would recommend test few options (different cameras and scopes) on imaging toolbox: test.blackwaterskies.co.uk/p/imagingtoolbox.html
For example, with TV 101 and ASI 1600 ypu will have 1.79” per pixel and with ASI 183 -1.15”. I think that with very short focal lenght ASI 183 makes more sense smile
gnomus
30 Apr, 2018 20:58
The Astronomy Tools website is also pretty handy for playing around with different combinations of gear - https://astronomy.tools/calculators/field_of_view/

My own view, for what it’s worth, is that if your going to go widefield, then the larger the chip the better.  I use an 8300 with my Star 71 and am reasonably happy with that combo.  Imaging at 1.15” (or less according to that Astronomy tools website) might prove a bit demanding.
GregGurdak
01 May, 2018 13:25
Thanks guys I think I will end up with ASI 1600 because of field of view advantage…
Undersampling results in square stars but these can be taken care of in processing. Often this can be used to great advantage like Steve said, also shorter exposure time…. to this day I was shooting with DSLR and One shot CCD … but the place I live is screaming for narrow band images smile (red zone)
Edited 01 May, 2018 13:39
Starminer68
01 May, 2018 16:05
Absolutely agreed, ASI 1600 is a wonderful camera, I enjoy it a lot smile Clear skies!
Gaslight
01 May, 2018 17:27
why not both  smile
DavidT
02 May, 2018 05:59
I just went through the same debate with myself. Went with the 1600.
GregGurdak
02 May, 2018 23:05
Hey George, I mean which one should I buy first  smile
Gaslight
03 May, 2018 02:50
Both are amazing cameras.  I am still getting used to my 1600MC-Cool Pro.  I should have bought the 1600MM and filters first (since I live in a 6-7 zone), but I will eventually.  I just got the 183MC uncooled today (for future projects) and also considering the 290MM uncooled as well for galaxies.  I am not ready for a bigger telescope yet, but these cameras will give me many options to image (while I learn and gain experience on myequipment).  What I find useful, is the astronomy.tools FOV image calculator (as mentioned above).  Hope this helps.
Epox
04 May, 2018 00:26
I think your choice for the ASI1600MM is wise smile More FOV is usually better. Yet, if you want to see with your eyes before you buy, I suggest to go to the website DSO-Browser. There you can choose any deep-sky object, put the chip size, your focal length and you will see how the object will look in an example picture.
jlangston_astro
04 May, 2018 09:39
I have a 183mm with a WO z73mm.  With a reducer x0.8 it frames most things and perfect sampling.  When i used a 3.8um camera i much prefer the 183 image.  A huge plus was imaging big bright galaxies and being able to crop and zoom in and still have great resolution…  I think if i wanted wider i would just do a camera lens with the 183.  Plus it's a fair bit cheaper.
Edited 04 May, 2018 13:43
glend
07 May, 2018 03:12
If you read through Jon Rista's 183 test thread on the Cloudy Nights forum it examines the pros and cons of the 183 and compares it with the 1600. To quote Jon, "the 183 is not a 1600 killer", its small pixels have less well depth than the 1600.  As an all-rounder, the 1600 is hard to beat.
jlangston_astro
07 May, 2018 22:17
Yes very tue…. But sorry for a short focal length scope the 183 is a far better match for pixel scale.  That was my point…as I actually image with one on a 430mm fl.  It just produces very hi res images the larger pixel cameras cant match and at 1"/pixel…
 
Register or login to create to post a reply.