While I understand and appreciate your point of view, I think the poster has mentioned he wants to stay color.
I think color cameras have come a long way. I won't argue that monochrome cant capture more and create a better image, but the hassel of filter Wheels and the costs of the wheel and the filters, combined with the even bigger learning curve of post processing is just sucking the joy of the hobby (for me).
To each their own, the beautiful thing about this hobby is there is no (single or best) way of doing things.
My opinion is just my opinion. But I'd say keep your 585 and let's the field of view dictate if/when you need to upgrade.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Thanks a lot for the discussion, folks.
I always get a lot of extra information when people start debating, which is really interesting.
Now a few precisions.
Yes, mono is off the table for now.
I know you can get better results and quality, but I don't want to move too fast, and I don't feel that I'm ready for that yet.
I still have so many things to improve with an OSC setup. I want to feel perfectly comfortable with it before moving to a different (more "advanced") setup so I don't miss anything important in my learning process.
What I will do in the near future is experiment with separate OIII/Ha and OIII/SII filters so I can separate the channels and work on them independently with less hassle than narrowband with a mono camera.
This will be a first step moving maybe one day towards a mono setup.
About the FOV, as I said, I don’t really see a problem with the 585.
For small galaxies or planetary nebulae, there’s no issue. The 2600 would just give me more stars here.
It could be nice on some targets, like M42.
But for very big ones, like let’s say M31 or the Veil, this is not going to make a difference. For those requiring wide fields, I use the HyperStar.
Now, this is because I don’t do mosaics yet.
This is also something I’ll need to do and learn in the future.
The 2600 could make sense at that point since it would require fewer panels.
But for now, with the HyperStar available, I don’t feel I need that extra FOV.
Budget-wise, I can afford the 2600 today, that's not an issue. But I don’t want to throw money on hardware I don’t feel I absolutely need (weird, I know).
I’m 90% sure I’ll get a 2600 or similar at one point, just not today based on the comments.
My original question was all about quality. Letting the FOV question aside, assuming you shoot the same target with the same settings for the same amount of time and that you crop the image from the 2600 so it has the same FOV as the 585, are you going to notice a big difference? Is it going to be noticeably less noisy?
Again, based on the replies, I'm sure you can notice a difference, just not a significant one.
As a beginner in this hobby, I tend to shoot short sessions on multiple objects to get a feel for each one rather than multiple long sessions on only one.
With the short time on target, I cannot get good quality, but it's so fascinating to see different objects and try them.
This is obviously going to change as I learn and spend more time in this hobby.
I'll make additional purchases then, as my needs evolve, whenever I feel I'm getting limited by the hardware.
At this point, I know that the limiting factor in getting good images is my skills, not the hardware.
So, I'd rather keep the 585 and try to improve before adding new stuff. This way, I can focus on what I need to do to improve.
Thank you so much for all your replies!
Clear skies!
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Again, a very reasoned response.
My only comment would be that I disagree that mono is more difficult. I actually view it as simpler since all the channels are there at your disposal, pure and unmixed at full resolution. Calibrating is trivial and gradient removal can be done on a channel by channel basis. No bayer drizzling to get the resolution back. If I want nice rgb stars with nice color. I can take very short handful of rgb images to retain start color and use those just for stars. Ha, Oiii, Sii channels are just there at full resolution if I choose without having to extract and extrapolate. Combining channels is the easy part.
With Nina or Asiair, it’s trivial to set up a sequence however you like it.
i agree osc has come a long way and can produce great images. But i stand by my opinion that i would wait on the 2600 until I’m ready for mono to get the full potential out of it
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Rick Krejci:
Again, a very reasoned response.
My only comment would be that I disagree that mono is more difficult. I actually view it as simpler since all the channels are there at your disposal, pure and unmixed at full resolution. Calibrating is trivial and gradient removal can be done on a channel by channel basis. No bayer drizzling to get the resolution back. If I want nice rgb stars with nice color. I can take very short handful of rgb images to retain start color and use those just for stars. Ha, Oiii, Sii channels are just there at full resolution if I choose without having to extract and extrapolate. Combining channels is the easy part.
With Nina or Asiair, it’s trivial to set up a sequence however you like it.
i agree osc has come a long way and can produce great images. But i stand by my opinion that i would wait on the 2600 until I’m ready for mono to get the full potential out of it Or get a mono 585. The QHY miniCAM8 is a fantastic way to get into mono without the high cost of entry. It's a complete cooled system with an integrated filter wheel fully stocked with L,R,G.B, Ha. Sii, Oiii filters. At $800 it's an amazing value making mono possible for a lot of people who could never consider it before because of cost.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Tony Gondola:
Or get a mono 585. The QHY miniCAM8 is a fantastic way to get into mono without the high cost of entry. It's a complete cooled system with an integrated filter wheel fully stocked with L,R,G.B, Ha. Sii, Oiii filters. At $800 it's an amazing value making mono possible for a lot of people who could never consider it before because of cost. Agree with you 100%. Like I said, I'm considering getting one of those for smaller targets especially with galaxy season coming up. The 2600's wide field is mostly a waste for many of them, and the smaller pixels could yield more slightly more detail with good seeing and put more pixels on the target.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I have both the 585MC Pro and the 2600MC Pro. The 2600 definitely has better dynamic range, and even at high gain, I think it produces better results. The main drawback to the 585 is that HCG mode doesn't kick in until a gain of 252, way too high. At that point you only have a well of around 3K. The ASI2600MC Pro produces better results at 200 gain in my opinion, and definitely at 100 gain.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Dan Kohn:
I have both the 585MC Pro and the 2600MC Pro. The 2600 definitely has better dynamic range, and even at high gain, I think it produces better results. The main drawback to the 585 is that HCG mode doesn't kick in until a gain of 252, way too high. At that point you only have a well of around 3K. The ASI2600MC Pro produces better results at 200 gain in my opinion, and definitely at 100 gain. I think the real sweet spot of this sensor for deep sky work is 50. That kicks the full well up to over 20K and works well with a long enough sub exposure length, around 260 sec. A gain of 0 might even be better, the read noise goes up but subs can be dropped to somewhere around 230 sec and you'll get a full well of 40K. That said, I have gotten good results at a gain of 255 with very few stars clipped with short subs. That brings in a way of shooting with short subs that's a bit different than the traditional. The 585 has a lot of versatility depending on the subject as you can do Lunar/ Planetary/solar and deep sky which is pretty amazing. Overall, I think there is too much concern about well depth and read noise. Our noise reduction tools are at a level that you could only dream of 10 years ago and it makes a difference on how you think about these things IMO.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Tony Gondola:
Dan Kohn:
I have both the 585MC Pro and the 2600MC Pro. The 2600 definitely has better dynamic range, and even at high gain, I think it produces better results. The main drawback to the 585 is that HCG mode doesn't kick in until a gain of 252, way too high. At that point you only have a well of around 3K. The ASI2600MC Pro produces better results at 200 gain in my opinion, and definitely at 100 gain.
I think the real sweet spot of this sensor for deep sky work is 50. That kicks the full well up to over 20K and works well with a long enough sub exposure length, around 260 sec. A gain of 0 might even be better, the read noise goes up but subs can be dropped to somewhere around 230 sec and you'll get a full well of 40K. That said, I have gotten good results at a gain of 255 with very few stars clipped with short subs. That brings in a way of shooting with short subs that's a bit different than the traditional. The 585 has a lot of versatility depending on the subject as you can do Lunar/ Planetary/solar and deep sky which is pretty amazing.
Overall, I think there is too much concern about well depth and read noise. Our noise reduction tools are at a level that you could only dream of 10 years ago and it makes a difference on how you think about these things IMO. Cuiv the lazy geek also recommended 50 gain for this sensor, will give it a try. Also, I posted a feature request on the ZWO forum asking to reduce the 585 HCG threshold to 100 gain. Would love it for others to 'upvote' this request: https://bbs.zwoastro.com/d/21685-feature-request-585mc-pro-lower-hcg-to-100 |
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Dan Kohn:
Tony Gondola:
Dan Kohn:
I have both the 585MC Pro and the 2600MC Pro. The 2600 definitely has better dynamic range, and even at high gain, I think it produces better results. The main drawback to the 585 is that HCG mode doesn't kick in until a gain of 252, way too high. At that point you only have a well of around 3K. The ASI2600MC Pro produces better results at 200 gain in my opinion, and definitely at 100 gain.
I think the real sweet spot of this sensor for deep sky work is 50. That kicks the full well up to over 20K and works well with a long enough sub exposure length, around 260 sec. A gain of 0 might even be better, the read noise goes up but subs can be dropped to somewhere around 230 sec and you'll get a full well of 40K. That said, I have gotten good results at a gain of 255 with very few stars clipped with short subs. That brings in a way of shooting with short subs that's a bit different than the traditional. The 585 has a lot of versatility depending on the subject as you can do Lunar/ Planetary/solar and deep sky which is pretty amazing.
Overall, I think there is too much concern about well depth and read noise. Our noise reduction tools are at a level that you could only dream of 10 years ago and it makes a difference on how you think about these things IMO.
Cuiv the lazy geek also recommended 50 gain for this sensor, will give it a try. Also, I posted a feature request on the ZWO forum asking to reduce the 585 HCG threshold to 100 gain. Would love it for others to 'upvote' this request: https://bbs.zwoastro.com/d/21685-feature-request-585mc-pro-lower-hcg-to-100 Done...
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Also upvoted, but given the popularity I don't have much expectations.
Thank you everyone for this nice topic. I'm currently at the same point in the hobby. Some really good pro's and cons in the discussion.
I'm not really looking for the wider FoV, just better (read) noise than the 585, but to be honest, it's not that much of an issue and after stacking the dynamic range is also there. Going to a 533 chip will give me more sensitivity, better dynamic range and a square FoV which is handy as I'm rotating quite a lot and it's a bit of a pain (adds another 3-5 minutes to the setup before I start shooting) but I feel the investment is too large for the added benefit.
I also feel aside from the 533 and 2600 there is not much choice, which is a bummer. I don't feel like getting an even older chip with amp glow like a 294. And the 2600 is also already 3 years old.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
One advantage of the 585 over the 533 is it's sensitivity in NIR compared to the 533. I am using an Antlia Quad-band, which allows this band through, and this is one of the reasons I decided to try the 585. Haven't had a chance yet to test extensively though.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I've been experimenting a bit with an IR pass filter in combination with the 585 ad the results have been encouraging so far.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I tried IR Pass too on M81/2 but visually to me it feels like on the right (IR Cut) there is more fine detail. It's only a single sub compared, but I didn't take more than 5 subs as I was afraid I'd lose precious shooting time.  And on M81 IR Pass, Moon & Skyglow and IR Cut. I felt the last one still had the most detail. Maybe on the IR Pass I should lower the exposure time as it seems very much overexposed and maybe I lose detail because of that. Each image is 5 frames of 300s stacked.  |
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I have both the ASI585MC Pro and the ASI2600MC Pro. Both are great cameras. The 2600 has more features and options. I think that there are few that got the 2600 and regret it.
The 2600 now comes in a couple of versions. I got the original one, but they have some guiding and WiFi versions. I already have guiding and WiFi covered with different gear, so no reason to change.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Dan Kearl:
Dan Kearl:
Rick Krejci:
If you are slightly under sampled with the 2600 and want to shoot small targets that easily fit on the 585 chip, then I’d contend that the 585 could produce better image even if you want to print. More pixels on target, so more pixels to print and potentially more detail on the target.
Of you’re well sampled with the 2600, then you just have to crop the 2600 a lot
I’m considering getting a minicam8 585 mono camera to complement my 2600 since I image at 1000mm f4. On good seeing nights, it could better resolve the small targets. For average seeing, the 2600 could do slightly better with better well depth and dynamic range.
I have wasted a lot of money in this hobby trying to "save" money.
I am attempting to save the 0P money.
I just... like... what?
The OP already has a 585. The 2600 would be costing him money. We are saying that he won't get an increase in QUALITY, only an increase in SIZE. If the OP is happy with the size, as he stated, then from his point of view upgrading to the 2600 is not a good value yet.
If you took a crop of 3800x2100 of any 2600 MC pro image and compared it to a similar one of the 585mc pro, assuming both the data and the processing is well done, then the majority of people looking at it would not be able to tell the difference between them.
Ok, you win.
There is no point in buying any camera over $500.
Most people in this hobby especially those who win awards here are wasting money. That's an over the top statement. Any upgrades should be well thought out and fit not only the budget but the goal, bang for the buck as they say.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Tony Gondola:
That's an over the top statement. Any upgrades should be well thought out and fit not only the budget but the goal, bang for the buck as they say. I think the over the top statements are from people who are claiming that a $500 camera is the same quality as a $1500 camera which seems to be the prevailing view on this thread. That is essentially saying that a Nikon Point and shoot $300 camera is the same quality as the $5000 Z9 camera because most people looking at images on the Web could not tell the difference. If the OP is happy with his camera, Fine. I just gave my opinion which you all can take with a grain of salt.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
For me what is most interesting is that there are some people who claim that the difference in quality of images would be comparable. Of course the 2600 has much better stats (lower read noise, higher ADC, better FW, Dynamic range), but the real question is: how much do they matter when you stack 4 hours of data or more? If you don't need the FoV, how big is the difference?
Before reading this topic I thought the 2600 would be an obvious winner, but after reading the discussion I'm not so sure anymore. To me this is very interesting.
If I were to make a mosaic with the 585 (which needs 3 images to get the same FoV), would anyone be able to notice the difference if the sky conditions were exactly the same (or keep things simpler, crop the 2600 image to the exact 585 FoV)?
I'd also very much like to see actual images showcasing the difference, but it seems that most people just take producer specs for granted and settle for a Sharpcap graph. I've yet failed to see a decent comparison.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
For me what is most interesting is that there are some people who claim that the difference in quality of images would be comparable. Of course the 2600 has much better stats (lower read noise, higher ADC, better FW, Dynamic range), but the real question is: how much do they matter when you stack 4 hours of data or more? If you don't need the FoV, how big is the difference?
Before reading this topic I thought the 2600 would be an obvious winner, but after reading the discussion I'm not so sure anymore. To me this is very interesting.
If I were to make a mosaic with the 585 (which needs 3 images to get the same FoV), would anyone be able to notice the difference if the sky conditions were exactly the same (or keep things simpler, crop the 2600 image to the exact 585 FoV)?
I'd also very much like to see actual images showcasing the difference, but it seems that most people just take producer specs for granted and settle for a Sharpcap graph. I've yet failed to see a decent comparison. Keep in mind that any such comparison would have to be done in a way is fair and really would address base quality differences. We know the 2600 has a lot more pixels so putting up a full frame image with the stars like dust isn't the way to do it. The area from the 2600 would have to be a 3840x2160 crop. That really would be the only fair way to make any kind of a "quality" comparison.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Tony Gondola:
Keep in mind that any such comparison would have to be done in a way is fair and really would address base quality differences. We know the 2600 has a lot more pixels so putting up a full frame image with the stars like dust isn't the way to do it. The area from the 2600 would have to be a 3840x2160 crop. That really would be the only fair way to make any kind of a "quality" comparison. The fact that you can crop a 2600 to same size and have a comparable image is all you need to know. Try cropping the 585 to any smaller size and see what happens... A 100% jpeg from the 585 is only about 3 mp. The may not matter to you but it does matter.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Yes I see your point Dan about the cropping, but take for example M33, there is nothing outside the galaxy that is interesting. So you can say: yes but with the 2600 you can crop, but it's not a selling point as you are imaging and cropping away empty space.
If you want bigger objects to fit then yes. Making mosaics takes a lot more time and processing, but if the object fits very nicely with the 585 and you are not interested in the area around it I don't see the added value of cropping.
For me the question is: if I image the same object with both sensors and I crop the 2600 to exactly the FoV of the 585: will I see a difference in image quality? I think this is more closely related to the topic. If you want a bigger FoV of course you will get the 2600.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
