12.64
#... |
|---|
| The ASI294MM Pro is now available which appears to be an upgrade to the excellent ASI1600MM Pro. This group would be a great place to display your images and discuss techniques using this camera. |
|
12.64
#...
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Hoping we can have some discussion with this new camera as folks gain experience with it. The binning has now been unlocked so basically two options: Unlocked Bin1: 12bit ADC, 2.3um pixel size, 47 megapixels, 8288*5644 resolution, 14k full well capacity. Bin2 (The default mode): 14bit ADC, 4.6um pixel size, 11.7 megapixels, 4144*2822 resolution, 66k full well capacity. Bin 2 works very well on a C11" EdgeHD. |
|
12.64
#... |
|---|
| Here is a comparison of bin 1 and bin 2 from a single 300s frame on M76 : ZWO ASI294MM Binning | Flickr |
0.00
#... |
|---|
Bruce Donzanti: @Bruce Donzanti I did not know about the unlocked mode. I had installed the new driver prior to imaging. I had noticed that I had a strange histogram and real slow downloads and couldn't figure out what was wrong. Man was I surprised when I went to transfer my images from my PrimaLuce Eagle to a USB drive. The complete imaging run was 22 Gig. When I started looking at the files, much to my surprise the individual subs were 92Meg. Naturally I had to shoot all new calibration files. Even after some minor cropping I was still as left with a resolution of 7456 X 5372. 1st Unlocked Image This is probably good for planetary, but for deep sky I will be using bin 2x2. CS/Bob |
|
12.64
#... |
|---|
|
Hi Bob Glad my post here helped. ZWO did a poor job letting people know about this. Agree- I tried 1x1 but that scale on my C11" EdgeHD does not work. I only use bin 2 for DSOs with this scope. I think you will enjoy the camera. It has its quirks like all cameras but it produces some nice images. Bruce |
1.20
#... |
|---|
|
I am hovering over buying an ASI294MM Pro or saving a bit longer for the ASI2600MM. The only reason for me to consider the 2600 is that I keep hearing about processing issues with the 294. I have also heard these are non-issues when you properly process them in PixInsight. What are your experiences? Thank you for your thoughts! |
|
12.64
#... |
|---|
|
Hi Philip Since I had started this topic, I have switched to the ASI2600MM. The reason for this is the larger sensor size which I wanted. The ASI294MM is an excellent camera. I never had any processing issues with it or the 2600 using PixInsights or Astro Pixel Processor. The amp glow with the 294 is a non-issue - very easy to remove with good darks. The reported funny looking OIII filter flats with the 294 (which I also got) is also not an issue if you have good flats and dark flats. Both of these problems have been over-blown in my opinion. So, I think it is more of a choice of sensor size and cost. I used both cameras on a C11" EdgeHD and an 80mm Apo triplet with very good results. I hope this helps with your decision but overall you can't go wrong with either one. Bruce |
|
1.20
#... |
|---|
|
Hi Bruce Thank you for those thoughts! They do calm my concerns on the 294 processing. I was wondering if you find the processing materially easier with the 2600? I have heard some folks only need flats to achieve good results as noise levels are so low. Is that your experience? - Phil |
|
12.64
#...
·
1
like
|
|---|
| Not really. I always use dark flats as a habit now as they only take a few seconds to make. I do think the 2600 is a tad less noisy. However, I have even used the ASI533 with no flats or dark flats with great results under certain conditions. All of these newer CMOS cameras have very low read noise and depending on your skies and the object you are capturing, you can sometimes get away with flats only. If you are still worried about the issues some have claimed with the 294 then just go with the 2600 if you can afford it your setup can handle the APS-C sensor with no vignetting. If either cost or vignetting is a concern, you can get the 294 and rest assured you will get great images even if you need to make dark flats- which is not a big deal. |
0.00
#... |
|---|
|
Hey guys, glad to see this discussion regarding the 294mm pro. I have imaged my first set with this camera and made a simple mistake when shooting the lights. After that I used a fits header editor to modify the files and have something to work with... long story short I decided to just chalk it up to a first night of narrowband and plan for the next night out. I did get my image of the Pelican nebula but it's blue-grey and the amp glow is there. I used APT to shoot everything. I also used the CCD flats aid in APT to determine the exposure for each of the 3 filters. I was set to 20,000 ADU which might have been too low. I've read that folks are using 32,000. My flats have a mottled appearance and I've seen that reported by others also. I used to shoot asp-c mirrorless but just never got to a point I was happy with it. Had my finger ready to click on a 2600mc pro then decided to go mono instead with the 294. I have managed to remove the amp glow that's no problem. It's the flats that concern me and I want to have a handle on it before my next night out which I am hoping will be this Sat. Oh and choosing -15C that first night worked out ok. It ran about 73% power or so. The next night shooting calibration frames on the patio it was running about 93%. It's warming up here and I think I better stick with something more like -5C if I can get there without killing the camera. Dan |
1.20
#... |
|---|
|
I've moved from the ASI294MC Pro to the ASI294MM Pro. My backgrounds with the MC were always a mess and very hard to process, but with the MM and L,R,G filters my backgrounds are much better and easily cleaned up with AutomaticBackgroundExtraction. When taking my flats I've been going for 20,000 ADU but will now try using 32,000 and see what happens. I have a set of narrowband filters coming today and will see how it goes, but so far I've gotten some nice results using L,R,G,B on nebulas - Elephant Trunk Nebula Filamentary Nebula Monty |
