0.00
#... |
|---|
| I am about to buy my first mono cooled camera so as I have 2 scopes: celestron 8 edge hd w/reducer and a wo z73, I have narrowed my choices to either the zwo asi183mm pro or the asi1600mm pro. Which would be a better fit for both scopes. I tried looking at ccd suitability and it sorta confused me. I am looking to image obviously larger dso's and also smaller ones as well as glaxies. I have a asi290mm for planetary imaging but cant decide between these two for the dso's. What would you recommend? |
0.00
#... |
|---|
|
Hi Richard I'm not 'seasoned' ... maybe 'soused' .... but .... I'd suggest you take a look at this website: http://astronomy.tools/calculators/field_of_view/ Click on the 'Imaging' tab. Then you can enter any scope/camera combination you like. (If the particular scope/camera isn't there, then you can enter a 'Custom' one.) Pick a well known object and try various combinations. Field of view is important. But pay particular attention to your imaging resolution (at the bottom). Make sure that your mount will be capable of imaging at the resolution you get. A C8 Edge has a very long focal length and will be difficult to image with (if you're just starting out, that is). The C8 with a ZWO ASI will give you an imaging resoltion of 0.39" pp - this is a tall ask for even a high-end mount. The ASI 183 is even worse (0.24" )! I don't know which mount you are using, but, for example, I wouldn't be all that confident about imaging on my EQ6 at much less that 1.5" (and 2" might be better). Even on my Mesu 200 mount, I wouldn't want to image at much below 0.75". I wouldn't buy any piece of astro equipment now without considering imaging resolution. I know the CMOS cameras are very poular these days, but I wouldn't exclude the older CCDs - especially the KAF8300 chip cameras (5.4 micron pixels). You might even be able to pick one up in the used market. Good luck. Steve |
11.07
#... |
|---|
|
Solid advice from Steve. Here are a few guidelines I’d add. Consider image scale as Steve mentioned and try to hit about one third of your average seeing. So if your average seeing is 2 arc seconds an image scale of .65 arc is probably the lowest you want to go. Then look at the field of view on the Astronomy tools site and see how some of your favorite objects fit (or don’t) on various chips with the right image scale. You may find that you really need two cameras in the long run. BTW, the Astronomy Tools site will also be able it calculate the image scales for you. |
|
0.00
#... |
|---|
| thank you steve, ill check out that site tonight while im at work. much appreciated. |
|
0.00
#... |
|---|
| Thank you Kevin, sounds like a good idea too. much appreciated |
0.00
#... |
|---|
| The 183 tends to be a bit more finicky to process, due to its strong amp glow. It calibrates right out, but it means that you probably can't just "good enough" your darks library, you'll need to maintain at least a processed master dark for each combination of exposure, gain, and sensor temperature. I really love mine. |
|
0.00
#... |
|---|
| thanks fewayne, i have been reading so much on everything that i believe that the 183mm might be a good choice as i do like sharp image. I do tend to keep all my darks, flats and bias frames so i can use them in the future so i dont think that will be a factor for me. |
