I am looking to get a DayStar Solar Scout 60mm DS, and am trying to decide on which camera to get. I have been thinking the ASI2600MM, since it will nicely fill the frame. But you mentioned in the video you wouldn't recommend? Would you m8nd elaborating? Any other recommendations? Thanks!!
The frame rate on the 2600 is just too slow and it uses a rolling shutter. You would be better off using an ASI174MM (not the Mini) and doing a mosaic if you need full disc. Also, having at least 40-50fps is ideal since you are trying to catch moments of good seeing more commonly known as lucky imaging. I already explain in the video why rolling shutter is not advisable for doing high speed solar capture.
@WoodlandHillsCameraTelescopes Thank you for the reply! I am really new to all this, and it's pretty complicated! In poking around on Cloudy Nights, I think I have determined that to have critical sampling with 656nm on a F15.5 scope (930FL, 60mm aperture), I need 3.7um pixels. I really would like to be able to get full disc, and it seems that achieving full disc and critical sampling is a tall order. It seems that I can get that with the ASI533MM. However, it also has rolling shutter and only 20FPS at full resolution. What are your thoughts on this camera? Would I be better off finding something with poorer sampling and different shutter and higher frame rate? Thank you so much!
For a 73 mm f/6 refractor with Daystar Quark Chromosphere with an effective focal length from the Daystar 4.3X Barlow of 1,840 mm, which camera would be best for solar imaging? Would it be the ZWO ASI174MM or the ZWO ASI432MM with 9-micron pixels for better dynamic range?
@@WoodlandHillsCameraTelescopes My telescope's aperture is 73 mm, but I am using a Daystar Chromosphere eyepiece with 4.3X Barlow which gives an effective focal length of 1,840 mm. According to Astronomy Tools CCD compatibility calculator, this will place the ASI432 with 9-micron pixels further into the acceptable green zone. So why do you say the smaller pixels of the ASI174 are a better match for my system?
@@malanstecker The math that I'm using is Pixel size x 5 (seeing) / focal ratio gives you the idea size for your barlow to give the best image based upon seeing. I'm not arguing about the arc seconds per pixel which is whatever the value is. I'm basing it off the formular i mentioned. So the math is 5.86 x 5 = 29.3 / 6 = 4.88 that tells me the ideal magnification size i want to be at. With a 4.3x you are closer to that number, if I did the math with 9um i would get 7.5x which cant be achieved since the barlow/teleconverter cannot be changed. This is based on seeing not focal length. If you are trying to match pixel scale for arc seconds per pixel and your seeing doesn't allow for smaller pixels, then yes. Larger would be better for that. Since we are doing lucky imaging, we can afford to wait or get lucky with the atmosphere being steady to allow for a solid frame that has the detail (that is not blurred by atmosphere), smaller pixels are more ideal. With solar, we have a lot of signal, so the premise of large pixels to get more signal becomes less significant.
at 10:07, you show a ASI585MM camera photo. There isn't a MM version. This should be ASI585MC. Was this photoshopped??? Is there actually a ASI585MM in the works? I don't think Sony has a IMX585 mono sensor yet. Sony did recently release a IMX678 mono version and I would love to see a ASI678MM camera.
Great content! Framing the new camera releases and sensors within a larger context is tremendously helpful.
It was a pleasure to listen and watch. Thank you! ZWO cares! I use QHY though 😂
Answers all the questions - good presentation!
I am looking to get a DayStar Solar Scout 60mm DS, and am trying to decide on which camera to get. I have been thinking the ASI2600MM, since it will nicely fill the frame. But you mentioned in the video you wouldn't recommend? Would you m8nd elaborating? Any other recommendations? Thanks!!
The frame rate on the 2600 is just too slow and it uses a rolling shutter. You would be better off using an ASI174MM (not the Mini) and doing a mosaic if you need full disc. Also, having at least 40-50fps is ideal since you are trying to catch moments of good seeing more commonly known as lucky imaging. I already explain in the video why rolling shutter is not advisable for doing high speed solar capture.
@WoodlandHillsCameraTelescopes Thank you for the reply! I am really new to all this, and it's pretty complicated! In poking around on Cloudy Nights, I think I have determined that to have critical sampling with 656nm on a F15.5 scope (930FL, 60mm aperture), I need 3.7um pixels. I really would like to be able to get full disc, and it seems that achieving full disc and critical sampling is a tall order. It seems that I can get that with the ASI533MM. However, it also has rolling shutter and only 20FPS at full resolution.
What are your thoughts on this camera? Would I be better off finding something with poorer sampling and different shutter and higher frame rate?
Thank you so much!
Have they fixed the vibrating fan issue on their cameras? Are we done with their denials regarding the thermal paste sensor bleed?
For a 73 mm f/6 refractor with Daystar Quark Chromosphere with an effective focal length from the Daystar 4.3X Barlow of 1,840 mm, which camera would be best for solar imaging? Would it be the ZWO ASI174MM or the ZWO ASI432MM with 9-micron pixels for better dynamic range?
If you have 73mm, you would be better with the ASI174MM - Keep in mind that newton rings will also be your biggest enemy so a tilter will be needed.
@@WoodlandHillsCameraTelescopes My telescope's aperture is 73 mm, but I am using a Daystar Chromosphere eyepiece with 4.3X Barlow which gives an effective focal length of 1,840 mm. According to Astronomy Tools CCD compatibility calculator, this will place the ASI432 with 9-micron pixels further into the acceptable green zone. So why do you say the smaller pixels of the ASI174 are a better match for my system?
@@malanstecker The math that I'm using is Pixel size x 5 (seeing) / focal ratio gives you the idea size for your barlow to give the best image based upon seeing. I'm not arguing about the arc seconds per pixel which is whatever the value is. I'm basing it off the formular i mentioned. So the math is 5.86 x 5 = 29.3 / 6 = 4.88 that tells me the ideal magnification size i want to be at. With a 4.3x you are closer to that number, if I did the math with 9um i would get 7.5x which cant be achieved since the barlow/teleconverter cannot be changed. This is based on seeing not focal length. If you are trying to match pixel scale for arc seconds per pixel and your seeing doesn't allow for smaller pixels, then yes. Larger would be better for that. Since we are doing lucky imaging, we can afford to wait or get lucky with the atmosphere being steady to allow for a solid frame that has the detail (that is not blurred by atmosphere), smaller pixels are more ideal. With solar, we have a lot of signal, so the premise of large pixels to get more signal becomes less significant.
at 10:07, you show a ASI585MM camera photo. There isn't a MM version. This should be ASI585MC. Was this photoshopped??? Is there actually a ASI585MM in the works? I don't think Sony has a IMX585 mono sensor yet. Sony did recently release a IMX678 mono version and I would love to see a ASI678MM camera.
yes you are correct, there was no images for the camera to had, but it didnt notice the MM on the end. My bad!
I have been using Astro tools to match up camera to scope.
Pity you didn't tell anything about the 585MC, you mentioned it but not in detail as the rest
Maybe next time a Video with Daystar
Not a billionaire sorry 😢