Looks like the new ASI585MC Air which is available on pre order will have a 36mm image circle requirement because the guiding chip is placed longitudinally.
The imaging chip is tiny and needs only a 1.25" filter but this configuration means moving to a 2" imaging train. I don't think I am doing that…
Do you think it is worth upgrading to this camera if you have a 1.25" imaging train?
|
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.
If you're already setup with 1.25" filters wheel and a full compliment of filters then I would say no. If not, then it's worth considering as long as you want to give up the flexibility of discreet components. You can gain a lot of simplicity with an AIR camera but you also have a single point of failure and you're locked into the ZWO ecosystem.. If the camera goes down, you are out of business and you are dependent on WiFi which IMO isn't as robust as hard wired connections.
|
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 can only say that I have a 2600duo and I love the way it guides.
|
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 am already locked in to the ZWO ecosystem. Building a new rig for StarFront Observatories and Altair Duo filters which are 1.25" are cheaper than 2" Askar D1/D2. Also the UV/IR cut and the IR pass and the filter wheel will be cheaper in 1.25". And now I see they have added a UV/IR cut window which defeats the purpose of going for the IMX 585 based cameras. A 533MC + ASIAir Mini combo is just $50 more. And wont need a CAA and have a ASI120MM based spare guide setup. Only problem is pixel scale will be 2.31arcsec/pixel instead of 1.78arcsec/pixel so will be losing 30% resolution with my Askar SQA70. Here is to hoping for a IMX 383 based camera soon... https://www.sony-semicon.com/files/62/pdf/p-13_IMX383-AAQK_Flyer.pdf |
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.
AstroÅmazer:
IMX 585 Who has added a uv/ir cut window?
|
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.
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.
That link doesn't work but I looked at the listing on HighPoint and it says nothing about the 585mc-air having a uv/cut window which wouldn't make sense anyway on a camera that is sensitive beyond 1000nm.
|
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.
Couple comments
1. I read that the asi585mc air changed the glass and now includes an IR/Cut filter on the camera. I cant validate this, but it seemed reasonable.
2. I know for a fact that the camera is an m48 connection, they include a m42 to m48 step up, but looking at that guide sensor in the images, I question if you can actually guide if you are using an m42 connection
3. For the life of me, I cannt understand why the guide senor is next to the main camera sensor instead of above or below it.
I am really tempted with this, mostly for convenience and space. If I could use this on a Rokinon 135, I would have a 3 lb complete system, which seems super travel friendly.
But its still 1000 dollars,
|
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.
That would seem to be very counter productive to do that on a cooled astronomy camera. I can see where it would be a feature for the kind of setup you're talking about but it would be a non-starter for a lot of imagers. I agree on the placement of the guide sensor but I don't know what the boards the sensors ride on look like. It might very well have been a layout issue.
|
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 would seem to be very counter productive to do that on a cooled astronomy camera. I can see where it would be a feature for the kind of setup you're talking about but it would be a non-starter for a lot of imagers. I agree on the placement of the guide sensor but I don't know what the boards the sensors ride on look like. It might very well have been a layout issue. The asi2600mc has the IR/Cut window glass, and that camera is 3x the price of the 585. I owned a standalone 585 for a long time, the (extra IR sensitivity) is super over blown as far as being a benefit in my opinion. I got to the point I was always putting an l2 ir cut in front of the 585 anyway, (or something stronger if I was doing nebula), so I dont see it being counter productive, but thats just my opinion. I have to put an ir/cut on my asi533 to make it usable at all, so I would have preferred that ship it with the glass already
|
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.
Clayton Ostler:
Tony Gondola:
That would seem to be very counter productive to do that on a cooled astronomy camera. I can see where it would be a feature for the kind of setup you're talking about but it would be a non-starter for a lot of imagers. I agree on the placement of the guide sensor but I don't know what the boards the sensors ride on look like. It might very well have been a layout issue.
The asi2600mc has the IR/Cut window glass, and that camera is 3x the price of the 585. I owned a standalone 585 for a long time, the (extra IR sensitivity) is super over blown as far as being a benefit in my opinion. I got to the point I was always putting an l2 ir cut in front of the 585 anyway, (or something stronger if I was doing nebula), so I dont see it being counter productive, but thats just my opinion.
I have to put an ir/cut on my asi533 to make it usable at all, so I would have preferred that ship it with the glass already I think it depends on what you're doing. If you use reflecting optics which won't loose sharpness at longer wavelengths you would be throwing a lot of energy away by cutting off everything beyond 700nm.  It can be very useful to work in or include wavelengths outside of the usual uv/ir cut range. By making the camera window a uv/ir you are eliminating the option.
|
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:
Clayton Ostler:
Tony Gondola:
That would seem to be very counter productive to do that on a cooled astronomy camera. I can see where it would be a feature for the kind of setup you're talking about but it would be a non-starter for a lot of imagers. I agree on the placement of the guide sensor but I don't know what the boards the sensors ride on look like. It might very well have been a layout issue.
The asi2600mc has the IR/Cut window glass, and that camera is 3x the price of the 585. I owned a standalone 585 for a long time, the (extra IR sensitivity) is super over blown as far as being a benefit in my opinion. I got to the point I was always putting an l2 ir cut in front of the 585 anyway, (or something stronger if I was doing nebula), so I dont see it being counter productive, but thats just my opinion.
I have to put an ir/cut on my asi533 to make it usable at all, so I would have preferred that ship it with the glass already
I think it depends on what you're doing. If you use reflecting optics which won't loose sharpness at longer wavelengths you would be throwing a lot of energy away by cutting off everything beyond 700nm.
It can be very useful to work in or include wavelengths outside of the usual uv/ir cut range. By making the camera window a uv/ir you are eliminating the option. Exactly! I use a Astronomik ProPlanet 742 with my Askar SQA70 for luminance data. I should be given the choice to use a UV/IR cut for RGB stars and an IR pass for Luminance on the nebulosity.
|
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 link doesn't work but I looked at the listing on HighPoint and it says nothing about the 585mc-air having a uv/cut window which wouldn't make sense anyway on a camera that is sensitive beyond 1000nm. Here is the image:  |
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.
Not arguing with the transmission graphs.
I am speaking to real work experience. (Only with refractors)
Without the ir/cut I had terrible pink/purple or green image casting and ridiculous halos ,with a fair amount of star bloat.
With the ir/cut it was a super easy to use camera.
That's my real life experience, I totally get what the graph says. That's the whole reason I bought it in the first place.
I may end up buying this anyway, regardless. So I'll report if new version has ir window or not.
|
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.
Clayton Ostler:
Not arguing with the transmission graphs.
I am speaking to real work experience. (Only with refractors)
Without the ir/cut I had terrible pink/purple or green image casting and ridiculous halos ,with a fair amount of star bloat.
With the ir/cut it was a super easy to use camera.
That's my real life experience, I totally get what the graph says. That's the whole reason I bought it in the first place.
I may end up buying this anyway, regardless. So I'll report if new version has ir window or not. My point is not that you don't need a UV/IR cut filter. For my stars, I definitely do. But on days of bad seeing, I prefer to use an IR pass filter to gather Luminance data from which I remove the stars. Anyway, I am going with the ASI533MC instead since do not want to spend on 2" filters/wheel.
|
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.
Clayton Ostler:
Not arguing with the transmission graphs.
I am speaking to real work experience. (Only with refractors)
Without the ir/cut I had terrible pink/purple or green image casting and ridiculous halos ,with a fair amount of star bloat.
With the ir/cut it was a super easy to use camera.
That's my real life experience, I totally get what the graph says. That's the whole reason I bought it in the first place.
I may end up buying this anyway, regardless. So I'll report if new version has ir window or not. I think with most if not all refractors, that will be the case. This is mostly an advantage to all reflecting optics although, even there I think you would want the option.
|
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:
Clayton Ostler:
Not arguing with the transmission graphs.
I am speaking to real work experience. (Only with refractors)
Without the ir/cut I had terrible pink/purple or green image casting and ridiculous halos ,with a fair amount of star bloat.
With the ir/cut it was a super easy to use camera.
That's my real life experience, I totally get what the graph says. That's the whole reason I bought it in the first place.
I may end up buying this anyway, regardless. So I'll report if new version has ir window or not.
I think with most if not all refractors, that will be the case. This is mostly an advantage to all reflecting optics although, even there I think you would want the option. I'm not nearly smart enough, patient enough or gentle enough to use a reflector. Even when physics proves it can out perform my refractors.
|
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.
Clayton Ostler:
Tony Gondola:
Clayton Ostler:
Not arguing with the transmission graphs.
I am speaking to real work experience. (Only with refractors)
Without the ir/cut I had terrible pink/purple or green image casting and ridiculous halos ,with a fair amount of star bloat.
With the ir/cut it was a super easy to use camera.
That's my real life experience, I totally get what the graph says. That's the whole reason I bought it in the first place.
I may end up buying this anyway, regardless. So I'll report if new version has ir window or not.
I think with most if not all refractors, that will be the case. This is mostly an advantage to all reflecting optics although, even there I think you would want the option.
I'm not nearly smart enough, patient enough or gentle enough to use a reflector. Even when physics proves it can out perform my refractors. Well I went for $$$ to make up for my lack of smarts and got a SQA70... Not as bad aberrations compared to a normal mass produced Refractor, but still cannot use the stars. Some star bloating with the ProPlanet 742 and the ASI585MC Pro. But with the gulf stream right over the east coast, it helps with the bad seeing.
|
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.
Clayton Ostler:
Tony Gondola:
Clayton Ostler:
Not arguing with the transmission graphs.
I am speaking to real work experience. (Only with refractors)
Without the ir/cut I had terrible pink/purple or green image casting and ridiculous halos ,with a fair amount of star bloat.
With the ir/cut it was a super easy to use camera.
That's my real life experience, I totally get what the graph says. That's the whole reason I bought it in the first place.
I may end up buying this anyway, regardless. So I'll report if new version has ir window or not.
I think with most if not all refractors, that will be the case. This is mostly an advantage to all reflecting optics although, even there I think you would want the option.
I'm not nearly smart enough, patient enough or gentle enough to use a reflector. Even when physics proves it can out perform my refractors. The dark side is always waiting....
|
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.
