Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2016 3:21:11 GMT
Any one know of a small 1/2" ccd camera that work well? I have a couple of 1/3" (Ln300, and SCB2000), but I would love to have a 1/2" color ccd with a small camera...like near LN300 size. I am not springing for a $1500 (US) camera so Mallincam is out
|
|
|
Post by johnno on Mar 2, 2016 13:02:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Man on Mar 2, 2016 13:40:43 GMT
Thanks John, yep, I'll jump in here Ward, among my collection of Video Astronomy cameras I have the Samsung SCC-A2333, also known as the SCB-4000. It is the same size as your SCB-2000 but has the 1/2" Ex-View sensor. It is more expensive than the SCB-2000 (I paid $480 Aussie Dollars for mine) but I think the price has dropped over the last couple of years. It's problem is that it is limited to 10 seconds max integration, but it is an Ex-view sensor which means it is super-duper sensitive anyway, plus the new 'SharpCap' free software program gets around the problem of short integrations now by live stacking. Because the SCB-4000 is a security camera it will need to be modified for Astronomy work by removing the IR filter (I made a video of how to do it), and you will need to get a nosepiece. Here's some results from mine. All single frame screen grabs: stargazerslounge.com/gallery/album/2765-video-astronomy-with-samsung-scc-a2333/and here it is Live on Video: As for other 1/2" sensor cameras there's also the Mintron 1/2" colour camera (look familiar? but at 1/3rd the price) which IS made for Video astronomy: www.modernastronomy.com/shop/cameras/astro-video/mintron-astro-video/mintron-62v6hp-ex-colour-camera-kit/and 365Astronomy sell it in the smaller case: www.365astronomy.com/Mintron-72S85HP-EX-Colour-Astro-Video-Camera-Kit.htmlI checked all my old sources and most of the 1/2" Ex-view cameras by other manufacturers are now unavailable (Orion, Brightstar Mammut, etc). But I think Atik still have one but at a slightly higher price.
|
|
|
Post by Rick in NWArk on Mar 2, 2016 14:22:40 GMT
Are you looking for analog cameras only, Ward? Or are you also considering digital cameras?
|
|
|
Post by davy on Mar 2, 2016 17:47:08 GMT
Ah correct thread.. Watec 902h..1/2" mono sensor ,ultra sensitive analogue camera :-)
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Man on Mar 3, 2016 4:08:43 GMT
Ah correct thread.. Watec 902h..1/2" mono sensor ,ultra sensitive analogue camera :-) LOL!!! Yep, now you have the right thread Ward wants colour
|
|
|
Post by davy on Mar 3, 2016 6:58:08 GMT
Zwo camera range is quite extensive now as well
|
|
|
Post by Rick in NWArk on Mar 3, 2016 15:39:27 GMT
That's where I was going with my question, Davy
|
|
|
Post by davy on Mar 3, 2016 18:35:54 GMT
Sorry mate,,lol..some nice ones on the higher price range..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2016 3:46:45 GMT
Thanks for the responses. I am looking for a replacement for a mono Mintron knockoff branded Matrix that I have. It is 1/2" but a little noisy with many hot pixels. I am hoping to upgrade in the process by adding color. I may just buy a Watec mono camera until an scb4000 comes by cheap. The Watec 525ex2 and the 902h are both suitable and compact. The 902 is more sensitive but I hear that on high agc you exceed the s/n ratio and it gets noisy. I am leaning to the 525 right now. I want 1/2 for widefield work. A focal reducer on my 1/3 cameras requires more focus in than my scope (f4.6) has.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Man on Mar 4, 2016 11:56:32 GMT
Ward, if you aren't in much of a hurry, this year we should be seeing a lot more cameras come onto the market as Video Astronomy is now going more mainstream. Astronomy companies are now starting to make cameras for us. Myself, and others I speak with, are expecting some interesting offerings this year, and competition will keep prices down.
Keep an eye on what happens in the 1/2" CMOS range.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2016 12:47:16 GMT
Can modern cmos match ccd for deep sky stuff? So far all of the cameras out there are slightly modified security cameras...seeing true dedicated video astronomy cameras at reasonable prices (less than $500) would be nice.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Man on Mar 4, 2016 12:58:34 GMT
Yes Ward, the new breed of cameras being made for Video Astronomy are CMOS, because CCD is being phased out. Traditionally, CMOS was noisier than CCD and got hotter quicker. But the new range of CMOS sensors match CCD specs, and in download speed exceed CCD.
You will see that the new family of cameras coming out will be CMOS. Some already use CMOS instead of CCD. Some brands that have already brought out their new range of cameras suitable for Video Astronomy in CMOS are ZWO and QHY.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2016 14:29:59 GMT
I have looked at the ZWO cameras...many are priced well. In forums I see people saying they are "planetary" cameras. Which ones work for deep sky? All or only the best ones? Their web site isn't very informative unfortunately. Despite the fact that I am a network administrator my computer at home doesn't do USB 3, but I will soon have to address that.
|
|
|
Post by Rick in NWArk on Mar 4, 2016 17:47:57 GMT
Good question, Ward. I'm with you - I wish that they would make some changes to their website to differentiate their cameras better - especially for newer video astronomers.
In my opinion, ZWO's focus has really been on imaging. I think that's why most of their products have very small pixels, even if they have large chips. I think they are DSO capable, especially with the aid of stacking versus a pure live view of single exposures.
Analog cameras for DSOs often have larger pixels that can capture more light - making them more sensitive. Those cameras don't necessarily need stacking to be effective.
|
|
|
Post by howie1 on Mar 4, 2016 20:36:21 GMT
There's quite a few folk (I'm one) doing EAA with the ASI224 though. I prefer using DSLR's for EAA. But the ASI224 is also a keeper. Don Lulejian (regular broadcaster on the old NSN) got me hooked with his ASI224 broadcasts. Not Sammy-cheap prices, but the uncooled 224 are quite reasonable. It is so sensitive with such large dynamic range that you can easily use it with lots of very short exposures. So you can get away with uncooled. Here's a good link below. Heaps of photos in the thread. You'll see the guy uses 5 sec exposures on an AltAz mount. Pretty good for that! Don Lulejian tends to up the exp time to 30 secs and use 5 stacked. In the thread theres a bit of a debate which is best - shorter or longer. I heard Don say in one of his broadcasts he thinks the 224 might be better than the US$1000 Infinity, but harder to use cos you need 3 bits of software to run it. But thats changed with the release of SharpCap 2.7 which does de-rotational stacking and has a good color adj histo. I just downloaded that release but unfortunately, as usual ... bad weather here since I downloaded it!. I will post up results when clear skies finally happen here. Just remember when you read the thread that you dont wait the full 200 secs (say) to see the image ... you see an image within 5 secs, then it just get better and better as time progresses. He just decided to (in the end) stop it at 40 x 5s stack. www.cloudynights.com/topic/508613-new-camera-%E2%80%93-eaa-with-zwo-asi224-with-nexstar-8se/and here's Don's screen grabs from his broadcasts ... www.flickr.com/photos/23705399@N04/sets/72157656927157919cheers. Howie ps Have used (and have really have missed the opportunity to sell now) ... Mallincam VSS+, Micro EX (prob will keep as its a great B&W finder!), DSc (ahem ... let me hold my tongue on that one), two Canons (one modded), Nikon (unmodded) and even a modded webcam!
|
|
|
Post by Rick in NWArk on Mar 6, 2016 15:17:26 GMT
Isn't the 224 a 1/3"? I'm love Don's pics... Thinking this could hav real possibilities for me.
|
|
|
Post by Rick in NWArk on Mar 6, 2016 15:18:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by davy on Mar 6, 2016 15:51:20 GMT
touptek,,,mallincam?
|
|
|
Post by howie1 on Mar 7, 2016 0:31:19 GMT
Isn't the 224 a 1/3"? I'm love Don's pics... Thinking this could hav real possibilities for me. Oops you r right Rick ... its a 1/3" not 1/2".
|
|