# 09 May, 2019 19:27
I live near a big city and I don't want light pollution anymore. I'm searching a mono cooled camera but there are so many…
My budget is about 1100€ (I have to buy the filter wheel and OIII + Ha filters).
I think the QHY163M is a very good camera but is there a difference between the ASI 1600MM Pro (a little bit more expensive) ?
Is there an other camera in the same category ?
# 09 May, 2019 19:46
I have had the ASI1600MM-Cool for a couple years, and I love it! I think it's closest competitor in terms of sensor size, etc. are the KAF-8300 CCD cameras, but you would have to buy those used to get to the same price point. I went with ZWO over the QHY because of the 2-port USB hub built in to the camera body which is helpful for cable management, but otherwise I think they are very similar. So if you have a better price on the QHY, I'd say go for it.
You can look at my astrobin profile for some example photos. There is also a wealth of knowledge on the Cloudy Nights forum about this sensor. It's only big drawback is microlensing when shooting bright stars. If you google it, you can see examples, and determine for yourself if it is a dealbreaker.
# 09 May, 2019 21:06
Nico CarverThanks for the answer. Yes I saw this and it bothers me a little bit… Do you know a solution to cancel this effect or a similar camera without this ?
# 09 May, 2019 21:25
There is no great solution. I minimize the effect a bit with Photoshop as a last step, and in most cases that works well enough for me.
The KAF-8300 CCD chip in many cameras (Atik, SBIG, QSI, etc.) is also 4/3", similar resolution, similar QE curve, higher read noise, but doesn't have the microlensing problem (at least not as bad). The only issue with it is they typically go for 2 to 3x more (new) for older tech.
ASI183MM Pro is another cooled mono camera at about the same price point. It is only a 1" sensor and also has smaller pixels (2.4 micron). It doesn't appeal to me as much because of the smaller FOV, but I know quite a few people use it. It also doesn't seem to have the microlensing issue. Depending on your imaging goals it may be a good option.
# 09 May, 2019 22:05
Nico CarverOk, I think I will choose the qhy163m. It needs more reflection…Max GilletThere is no great solution. I minimize the effect a bit with Photoshop as a last step, and in most cases that works well enough for me.
|You have no new notifications.|