0.00
#...
·
 |
|---|
| I’ve been doing astrophotography for about the past 3 years or so. Using an ASI071MC Pro, and a Celestron C11 Edge HD. I’ve got numerous images posted under my name on this site. I’m wondering if I would see a significant difference in image quality if I go to a ASI 2600 or something like that. Color. I’m sold on ZWO stuff since I use ASIAIR and EAF. I feel like processing is at least half of the process to achieve a decent image. I’m far from an expert and do this as a hobby from my Houston area back yard. |
1.20
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
I`ve had the QHY 168C for a while now and i was thinking about upgrading to the 2600 but for one thing i can`t afford it. I`ve not seen many images i`d consider to be head and shoulders above my camera. I know the noise profile is better but thats nothing that can`t be replicated with darks..... I`m sure others will disagree but thats my 2 cents worth.... |
1.20
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
I had the 071 for many years and now have the 2600MC since two years. I used both Cameras 1.5years in parallel. While the 071 is a very decent camera, the 2600MC is a lot more sensitive even with smaller Pixels. Not only the QE is higher, the read noise is with 1,5e much lower. This cannot be compensated with darks. The only drawbacks are the price and bigger file sizes. If you can afford ( you can also look for a used unit), I would definitely opt for the 2600MC Hope it helps! BR, Stephan |
|
0.00
#...
·
|
|---|
| Stephen, thanks very much for your input. I appreciate it. Can read noise be cancelled by noiseXterminator or is it something else? I love that program. And also Russell other programs BlurX and StarX. |
|
1.20
#...
·
|
|---|
|
Hi Terry, Not sure if read noise can be battled with noise reducing software effectively. NoiseX is a fine piece of Software, but to under stand noise better I recommend this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RH93UvP358 A bit technical, but you can re watch and pause as necessary. There it is well explained that read noise affects the min exposure time by square. Read noise 071: 2,6 Read noise 2600 1,6 The formula for the minimum exposure time is: (readnoise^2 x 10) / (Background Electrons/Pixel/second) Here you can see that the Read Noise has a huge influence. The Calculator for the last value can be found here: http://tools.sharpcap.co.uk Happy playing and comparing  Stephan |
0.00
#...
·
|
|---|
| The asi 2600 mc pro is a very good astronomy camera. I have good imaging also without dark frames. |
|
0.00
#...
·
|
|---|
|
Stephan, thanks for the info. I already started watching the video you linked and hope to get a better understanding of read noise. What you are indicating is that the 071 has almost twice the read noise of the 2600. I’m hoping the video will let me know the significance of that. Will I see it in my resolution, etc? Marco, thank you for you input. Appreciated! |
|
1.20
#...
·
|
|---|
|
The advantage of lower read noise is that you need less exposure time and also you get away with shorter exposure subs. Best regards, Stephan |
|
0.00
#...
·
|
|---|
| Stephan, that makes sense to me. Thanks very much for your help with this. |
1.91
#...
·
|
|---|
Just a couple of things to take into account if you are using the C11. With the 071, you are already pushing the resolution to the limit with 0.35'' per pixel. With the ZWO 2600 you are pushing it further down to 0.28'' (the benchmark is usually between 1'' to 2'' unless your skies are perfectly stable, I tend to think it is not the case in Houston). A good match for such a long focal length telescope would be a camera with a big sensor size , say higher than 6 microns' unless you are using the hyperstar. If that is the case, no problem.  |
|
0.00
#...
·
|
|---|
| Guy, thank you very much for this analysis. I’ve looked at this before and without going back to see results, I started out about 3 years ago with an ES127 ED Triplet carbon fiber and the 071. I don’t remember if the 071 is more within the specs on this or not. I also use the same 071 with my WO Z73, so it’s used on 3 different scopes. If I’m looking at this correctly, the 2600 will give slightly better resolution but I always wonder if it is significant enough for me to spend another $1800. Will I see it in my images or not? I just looked up the price of the 2600 and it appears it has come down from about $2300 to $1800. Interesting and tempting. As I mentioned, it seems to me that careful processing with Pix and all of the blurx, noisex and starx along with Adobe Lite Room stuff cures a lot of ills. Thanks again for doing this for me. Do you think it would make a noticeable difference? |
2.94
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
I am happy that i am not into that ZWO/QHY hype, because i am an open sources person. Saying that i already have two IMX571 sensors, one is color and one is a mono, the mono itself is about $1600 maximum [i got it less but with little VAT or duty it reached almost $1600], and in fact i might buy more two and never look back, you don't need to buy only ZWO or QHY even if you have that compatible devices like ASIAir, either you have to pay the price to keep synced or just get over it and live openly resources, good that i don't have ASIAir yet and i am not against ZWO or QHY, i have their cameras too, but i am not forced to use them only, my color IMX571 is almost $1200. |
|
1.91
#...
·
|
|---|
Terry Tollefsbol: ***Hello again Terry. Precisely, what I meant is that you will not benefit from that extra resolution, because you are already below the resolution limit or FWHM (arcsecs) you can possibly get at 2800 FL and seeing conditions. The light is spreading across more pixels which means you will need more capture time but not better resolution with the 2600 compared to the 071. The field of view is almost identical with both cameras, so you are pretty much on the same spot there too. That said, the 2600 does provide 16 bits (as opposed to 14bits) and slightly better full well capacity which pretty much increases the dynamic range and will outperform the 071 . The 2600 will also reduce noise and QE quite significantly. Does that mean you should spend that extra money? That is a subjective issue and a tough one. Only you can provide the definitive answer, sorry  You will get marginal gains but it comes at a significant cost. If your budget allows it, go for it, otherwise, I would be cautious about it.
|
|
1.20
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Guillermo, I have a different view point on sampling. I am imaging with 2500mm focal length with 6my pixels (approx 0,5" / Pixel) and with 500 with 3,75my pixels. (approx 2" / Pixel). My seeing seldom is better that 2". However, the resolution on the final image in incomparable. the long FL wins by far. Especially since with oversampling you can use Deconvolution Techniques which will not work well on under sampled images. Unfortunately I don't have the same image captures with these different setups. But check these https://www.astrobin.com/full/u5r930/0/ https://www.astrobin.com/b45ryh/B/ https://www.astrobin.com/1cixzw/B/ All taken at approx 0.5"/ Pixel. and look on Astrobin for images taken with a 2"/ pixel sampling. There is a considerable difference in resolution. Best regards, Stephan |
|
0.00
#...
·
|
|---|
| Guy and Stephan, thanks again for your perspectives. Much appreciated. Stephan, I’ll check your images. |
|
0.00
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
| Stephan, I checked out your images and they are excellent. You’re shooting with really nice (expensive) equipment. $8300 for the Taka and $3000 for the 2400, not including all the other stuff. When I was a drag racer about 25 years ago, there was a saying “speed costs money, how fast do you want to go”. I think this also applies to astrophotography. |
|
0.00
#...
·
|
|---|
| Regarding my comment about speed and money, I’m thinking I’m going as fast as I can afford to go as it is now. I have what I think are acceptable images and I’m well aware that they can be MUCH better but I’ve already got about $20k invested so for the image quality differences, I’ll probably, for now, sit tight. Again, I’m VERY grateful for both of your inputs. If you get a chance and feel like it, you can check my images under my name. |
|
1.20
#...
·
|
|---|
|
Hi Terry, that is only partially true. I do like gear, but was using lower end equipment or home made scopes for decades. Finally I can afford some higher class gear. And even that is mostly second hand. But with a Redcat, Skywatcher mount and 071MC you can do great things as well. https://www.astrobin.com/cxgk5a/ https://www.astrobin.com/cxgk5a/ Key ist that you learn how to get the most out of your equipment and also get a lot of practice in post processing. Best regards, Stephan |
|
0.00
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
| Stephan, I agree 100%. In 1983 I built a 6” reflector from plans and a mirror from Edmond Scientific. Obviously visual only. During the beginning of COVID, I decided to look into buying some decent equipment and initially, I wanted visual only. I spent about $2K on eyepieces and they remain in the original boxes they came in because I discovered electronic imaging and ASIAIR. I’m VERY much in agreement that post processing is very significant, and I’m a firm believer in PIX, although even after probably 2 years of using it, I only scratch the surface of it’s capabilities. I’ve got a workflow that suits me and produces decent images. |
|
1.51
#...
·
|
|---|
| I have both. If I had it to do over, I would not have purchased the 2600. The 2600 is an amazing camera, as the technical superior attributes have correctly already been pointed out above. However, visually, after the edit, I would argue that the differences can barely be seen, if at all. The 071 is also an amazing camera and I personally have grown to appreciate it. If one was in the market for their initial investment for an astro sensor of this size, I would certainly advise them to get the 2600. Since you already have this coverage, my personal thoughts are, having both, is to wait until the next significant leap in innovation. |
6.05
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
I like this thread... I have both cameras and a C11 EdgeHD. I would continue using the 071mcPro because of the larger pixels. Save for a 2600mmPro instead. Binning will be your friend at the FL's the C11 w and wo a reducer. This is the path I have chosen with the Rig I use... Good Luck and CS Tim Ray |
|
0.00
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Churmey, I’ve pretty much come to the conclusion that you are mentioning. Thanks very much for you comment. Tim, thanks for your comment. If I could visually see a big difference in the quality of my post processed images, I’d probably go for the 2600 although not the mm version. I don’t have the patience to do subs with more than one filter although I certainly recognize the significant difference in images done with one shot color and the mm version. Thanks for your input |
