11.99
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Yes, I watched John's presentation as soon as it was released. Very informative. What I am thinking is that if I bin an IMX461 chip 2x2, the read noise goes up by 2x, which will be still much lower than the read noise of 16803. So I should gain some speed for low-background imaging, such as narrow-band imaging. The 9um pixel of 16803 is 0.53 arcsec under CDK20, and our best seeing is 0.8 arcsec (maybe once or twice per year). So a 2x2 binned IMX461 is indeed more ideal than 16803. Unfortunately CDK20 only has an image circle of 52mm, perfect for IMX461, but not for IMX411. Otherwise we will seriously thinking about the 411 option from Moravian. The prices of Moravian is magic. I don't know what they did to offer such a price. In case you haven't noticed, their price for 461 this week is 10% lower than last week. Next week I am hiking up to our site to install our own 4G network, so we won't need to rely on the network service provided by the observatories. Hopefully this will improve the download speed. I do worry about it. Even in the 2x2 binning mode, there are lots of pixels from IMX461. And its lower read noise will definitely lead shorter and therefore more subs. We will see what happens after our camera arrives. Cheers, Wei-Hao |
8.40
#...
·
|
|---|
|
I agree the price of the 411 and 461 Moravian are offering is great. Its a bit surprising given the IMX455 version is a lot more expensive than the QHY600. If the chip prices have recently dropped, then maybe QHY and other will drop the price too. Besides the pixel size, I suspect these new cameras will do a better job, the QE is higher the download speeds are too. The charge they can hold per square micron is phenomenal. The QHY for example, in 2CMS mode hold some 84K electrons, that's about 6000 per sq. micron. For the 16803 that's about 1/5 that value. I did write a little review for those unfamiliar with the QHY600, might not be very useful for yourself but I'll post it here: https://astrogeartoday.com/the-ultimate-deep-sky-camera-the-qhy600m-reviewed/ Cs Rouz |
22.76
#...
·
|
|---|
Hi @John Hayes, Thanks for that Jacque. I might use that feature on my refractor, which will run Voyager. However, my 20" runs with SGP+SkyGuard to take advantage of astigmatic autofocusing with the ONAG system, which isn't possible with Voyager. It would be great if Leo would add SKG support to Voyager but he has stated flat out that he won't do it. MaximDL has a primitive way to do cropped-frame imaging but the 90's called and they want MDL back so I'm not going there. I'm sure that there are other ways to do this, but as far as I know, none support SkyGuard. SGP works quite well but it would be a BIG improvement if they would add cropped-frame imaging. (ARE YOU GUYS LISTENING???) John |
|
11.99
#...
·
|
|---|
Rouz Astro: Hi Rouz, May I ask why the VC200 reducer didn't work? Which VC200 one did you tried? The native VC200 one or the new HD one? |
|
8.40
#...
·
|
|---|
Wei-Hao Wang:Rouz Astro: *The corners of the APS-C looked bad, I didn't spend much time trying to fiddle with the spacing. It was a while ago, I'm not sure which model it was and I didn't keep it. I really doubt that reducer would manage to reduce large fields, the TAK one might have more luck. Are you using an OAG or ONAG or is it unguided? I still think the PW reducer would be your best bet regardless, if that's the path you are looking at. |
|
8.40
#...
·
|
|---|
| @John Hayes, I'm using NINA and it does allow subsampling. I suppose the ONAG software should work with NINA. It may be worth looking into, I'm finding it very capable, especially the advanced sequencer. CS Rouz |
|
11.99
#...
·
|
|---|
Rouz Astro: I use an OAG. After these conversations with you, I don't think I am going to try a reducer, at least not in the near future. Here I am just trying to understand the situation more, for future reference. When you tried the Vixen reducer, did you follow Vixen's recommendation for the spacing between the reducer and sensor? |
|
8.40
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
I don't remember much as it was a while back, I do remember I didn't have a set spacing and found some posts about 65mm or so. I'm not sure, but I abandoned that path without trying much. As you are aware, the OAG will not fit after the reducer as there is no space. In this configuration (original post here), I finally worked out a solution to place the OAG before the reducer. Before I tried this, I did speak to PW and they advised against it saying the stars won't be useable to guide with, others said the guide camera will not pick up stars. I can confirm the there are plenty of stars and well shaped and guiding is working flawlessly. The CDK20 may behave differently as it does have smaller image circle. The prism is very far out to be out of the reducers input light cone. Everything is pretty much at its limits with this layout. |
3.05
#...
·
|
|---|
John Hayes:Hi @John Hayes, Sorry, didnt know Voyager had a limitation there… Such a shame, Voyager is a great tool, I love it, but its a pity that development requests like these are left behind. All it will mean is lost market share. With the speed things are moving, software must constantly develop to keep up, otherwise it will be left it the dust. |
|
8.40
#...
·
|
|---|
| @Wei-Hao Wang I see the new CDK20s have those 4x small side fans is that correct? I'm considering add those to my CDK14 and seeing what difference that makes. |
|
11.99
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Rouz Astro: We leave the fans on all night during observations. It should help the primary mirror to cool down faster, but honestly we haven't tested to see what would happen without the fans. So I can't say for sure. |
|
8.40
#...
·
|
|---|
Wei-Hao Wang:Rouz Astro: *Yes, I leave the fans on as well. I think it does ore good than harm. Thanks, |
