Ranking Astro Camera Specs

Join me as I rank all the specs typically listed for dedicated astrophotography cameras like those sold by ZWO, QHY, Altair, etc. on a standard tier list. #nebulaphotos #fiveminutefriday
=============================
Supporting this channel:
=============================
◦ I'm on Patreon: / nebulaphotos
◦ One-time donations: paypal.me/nebu...
◦ Shopping for astrophotography gear, you can use my affiliate links:
High Point Scientific: tinyurl.com/hi...
OPT: bit.ly/31XDk9d
Agena Astro: tinyurl.com/ag...
Amazon: amzn.to/31rYb56
Modification service at Astrogear.net: www.astrogear....
◦ You can use my referral code when buying subscriptions to Astrobin:
New accounts- www.astrobin.com/accounts/register/?r=NEBULAPHOTOS
Existing accounts- Use Promo Code: NEBULAPHOTOS
=============================
Social:
=============================
Twitter: @nebulaphotos
Instagram: @nebulaphotosdotcom
Astrobin: www.astrobin.c...
=============================
Affiliate programs disclosure:
=============================
I am a member of the High Point Scientific, Astrobin, OPT, AgenaAstro, eBay, and Amazon affiliate programs. Product links in my video descriptions are typically affiliate links, which means, at no extra cost to you, I will make a commission if you click them and purchase something. I also have working relationships with the following companies/brands to receive products to test: High Point Scientific, QHYCCD, Venus Optics, Astrogear.net, Night Sky Camera, Hunt's Photo & Video. I do not review products for money and any brand deals will be fully disclosed. If you have any questions about any of this, please get in touch.

[@lusiaa_]

Flipping this tier graph almost gives you a tier graph for planetary cameras, just a funny observation from my side

[@alexberry3597]

bro you are right

[@tachyon3.14]

Week 19 of appreciating Five Minute Fridays

[@ryannack4010]

I personally can't wait until you go in depth on the pixel size vs. focal length, etc. video. That'll be sweet!

[@woody5109]

This guy has the best Chanel by far. I’ve been imagining for less then a year and everything I’ve learnt is from his man. Thank you so much 🙏

[@jeffslade1892]

Good simple summary and well thought out. Thank you. You mentioned MFT and CMOS. MFT uses a 4/3 sensor and that describes the sensor size, MFT is a lens fitting. MFT photographic cameras currently use a LMOS sensor (deigned by Panasonic, built by Sony). This is not the same as a CMOS. It is 'Live' rather than 'Complimentary' i.e. it is biassed and can sweep stray electrons off the sensor, less noise. From working as a radiometrologist, a smaller sensor will produce less electronic noise than a larger one, as well as less heat, plus they are easier to keep cool. Noise, or rather signal to noise ratio. If we display the full sensor output on a multi-channel analyser we see noise on the left and signal emerging on the right. There is generally a dip between the two where the discriminator should be set to maximise signal. Unfortunately the noise gate in most cameras' gain and ADC sections is set too aggressively and deletes signal and we are given no real means of adjusting the discriminator in a camera. We can adjust the NR but this is after the discriminator has done its job of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The NR in camera systems is often a comparator between adjacent pixels to remove speckling, in astrophotography it will happily remove faint stars. We can use liquid nitrogen or a Peltier pump to reduce noise but then we need to move the discriminator down. If the discriminator is fixed, we are stuffed. If we want a fast photon response from a sensor we use a small one i.e. small photosites (pixels). If we want more sensitivity for small signals we use a large one i.e. larger photosites (pixels). There are pros and cons between pixel count and sensor area. For the 4/3 sensor (MFT) optimum is probably 18Mp, 20Mp is probably pushing the boat out too far making the pixels too small, 16Mp is probably better than 20Mp and gives a 3.74µ pixel similar to some 36x24mm sensors. What works for landscape and portrait photography doesn't always sit will with nighttime and astrophotography. A larger sensor area can see more of the sky? Yeah, sure. We put a shorter focal length on the smaller sensor area, it is 'crop factor'. The image circle diameter defines FoV. A lot of the earlier eyepiece astro cameras were modified webcams with tiny sensors.

[@OlliesSpace]

Well explained video Nico that mosaic you're working on sounds mega.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

That was an excellent video Nico! And yes! 16 bit, etc. doesn't matter except for quantization error! We could absolutely make a 16 bit camera with terrible DR! And yesssssss seeing, etc. matters for resolution choice! It's useless and actively harmful to have 0.5 arcseconds per pixel if the seeing doesn't support it - looking forward to that video!

[@DSOImager]

Great video Nico, very helpful. I agree with your rankings :) Looking forward to the image scale video.. should be interesting. Side note... 35 Panels (from 66) Wow! That's some project! 6 panels is the most I've attempted to date, lol.

[@ianmoore2332]

Great video as always Nico - so helpful and informative, many thanks. Any plans to do a short on pro / con of Siril vs Sequator vs DSS etc.... or a "practical guide to meridian flipping" with SGP ? Your mosaic was sensational - you must have permanently clear skies ! perhaps a short on how you cope with real-life weather messing up imaging would be brilliant too ....

[@NebulaPhotos]

Thanks for the ideas Ian! Re: meridian flipping - is there a certain problem you are having with the flip? I just turn it on and as long as plate-solving (both primary and backup) is working, I've never had an issue. Re: the mosaic. I suffered from bad weather certain months/years, but over the four years I was working on the project it evens out (great months, terrible months).

[@ianmoore2332]

@@NebulaPhotos thanks for the reply - not done flipping so far - it was simply to see if there was anything to watch out for, but sounds easy enough the way you describe. 4 years of making / breaking your systems down - amazing, but what an image in the end.......

[@talhazia1401]

Nice. Wonderful way to describe camera and sensor specs. Yes, a video on pixel size, over and under sampling would he great. Always confusing concepts.

[@barrymak421]

Super helpful! I am looking to make the jump to astro cam, and just looking at what different youtubers use. It's great to have a reference to know what specs are important because I love the minimalist side of astrophotography. Pushing my gear to its limit and seeing what I can pull out in post is the challenge that makes it fun.

[@fazergazer]

I’ve started really looking forward to your Five Minute Fridays! Great way to round out the week and get thinking about things from a new perspective!

[@lukomatico]

Great video Nico!! :-) I appreciate it would be hard to condense the nuance of some of these specs down into bite size chunks but you did a brilliant job! 👍

[@peterlaubscher3989]

Great presentation - looking forward to your overview of the image scale issue - I battle to understand the issues involved.

[@tomhoskins4913]

Good Job, As you said, I would love a deep dive into pixel size vs focal length and field. Soon please. important for camera selection.

[@davidm.9812]

Great video, I really enjoy your channel! How about a video comparing two different cameras on the same scope, imaging the same thing?

[@zgabrel]

you need to make an up to date version of this video! good info, thx!

[@andrebremer7772]

On the topic of pixel scale and that 1 arcsec "rule".... among the things I wish I had known before starting this hobby is how much we are at the mercy of seeing conditions. This really informs what kind of gear you should invest in and what pixel scale will ultimately work best for you. Given my paltry 3-4 arcsec of average seeing here, my ideal pixel scale is somewhere around 1.75 arcsec. In other words, using a camera with a 3.76um pitch on a 1000mm scope is a complete waste of money (unless I travel to a better site). On the other hand, if I had perfect seeing, I would be able to use a C14 at F11 with the same camera at 0.2 arcsec pixel scale and not even sweat it.

[@PixelSchnitzel]

I would dearly love to understand this better!

[@Neanderthal75]

Great! If you could one day get into discussion about histogram and ADU with mean/average/max- how it helps to determine the best exposure time with the best gain used at certain situations? I really don't like - for example- N.I.N.A over simplifies the histogram graph to a point, that I have to look at my sub with another .fits viewer, which gives me more information about my test shot. I feel like the histogram for astrophotography is like sonar for a submarine. Being ignored or not cared about like driving in the dark and only guessing.

[@nocturneastro2539]

I'm with you here on NINA's histogram. However, it being a free and overall fantastic software, I can't complain much. But that histogram on NINA is next to useless to me. I just go by the preview stretch and evaluate if it's got enough for the fine minute details for me.

[@maxplanck698]

Useful video!

[@arnabbiswasalsodeep]

Hmm. As an electronics engineer, hearing about CCD for the first time, it seems more analogue than digital to me which indicates there's an adc that converts the charge generated due to light into the digital value. Even without knowing n from guesses, I say that pixel density with CCD is much better but pixels individually sensitive to temperature than in cmos where all of them would be affected equally. Same with adc depth. Depth would be great for normal hdr if it's accurate. Otherwise i dont think it matters much than the standard values (whatever they may be). Sensor material or operation matters much more (like QE)

[@hotflashfoto]

It makes perfect sense.

[@GarnettLeary]

Oh yeah definitely nebula based. I put buffering way up on planets. It’s funny how different these stats lay out. Great video. Very to the point. I have to agree with your interpretation except for QE. I move that up due to using slow Maksutovs.

[@EdMatthewsPhoto]

Don't know much about astro photography, but would suggest that buffer size and burst speed go hand in hand. You need the buffer to temporarily store images from the sensor until they go to your storage, and a high burst speed would require a large buffer if you want to take a lot of frames. So if burst speed is at the bottom, it seems to me that buffer size would also belong there.

[@Spodie001]

I've never heard the phrase "tier list" before. A through E was obvious, but S?

[@NebulaPhotos]

I think it comes from Japan where S grade is above A. It started on KZbin with gaming channels before crossing over to other kinds of channels

[@redabdab]

Great video! Thanks. I get that A to F is a ranking of importance but what is “S”?

[@NebulaPhotos]

It's a tier system that got popular on KZbin based on a Japanese rating system where S is like an A+.

[@suzannebeers6238]

Great video Nico! I'm considering switching to a full frame OSC because I can't get my hands on a second Canon ESO Ra. Two questions...would you make that switch or keep looking? Do you know of any secondary markets where I could find another Ra??

[@NebulaPhotos]

Hi Suzanne, you can look on eBay/Cloudy Nights Classifieds/Astromart/B&H Used Dept. etc. but I don't see the Canon Ra coming up too much used. Full Frame OSC may be a good choice for you, depends on your imaging goals, and what telescope you plan to pair it with. Keep in mind many telescopes and telescope correctors don't full correct a full frame sensor so some people prefer the ease of using APS-C (crop) sensors so they don't have to crop. The ZWO ASI2600MC (APS-C) for instance is an excellent camera. If you haven't already, use a field of view simulator like on telescopius.com to see if you really want the full frame FOV with your telescope or if APS-C is big enough. -Nico

[@suzannebeers6238]

@@NebulaPhotos Nico - Thanks very much for your quick and thorough reply. Yes, I really do want another full-frame camera... I have a Canon EOS 60D that's APS-C and astromodified. Especially this time of the year (trying to capture all the nebulae I can when we go to dark skies. I run two set-ups - my Ra on the Askar FRA600 and my 60Da on my 8"RC. If I had another Ra to use on the 8" RC, I'd be very happy!

[@NebulaPhotos]

Got it. Check out the ASI2400MC. Similar pixel size to the Ra, but would be even cleaner with its backside illuminated sensor and set point cooling. Clear skies!

[@suzannebeers6238]

@@NebulaPhotos THANK YOU!

[@dipumoninath7]

Please make a video on diy motorized barn door tracker

[@matiasneira9084]

Hello, I'm looking for a phone to do astrophotography, which one do you recommend? I was thinking about the p50

[@dbowen1000]

Late to this thread, but as I want to print for hanging and to give; I’m interested in your experience on the impact of sensor megapixels to limit larger print quality? Does re-sampling in photoshop help?

[@miguelsobrino7815]

At least ASI2600MM ( I guess QHY268M as it's the same sensor too ) have both software and hardware binning. So you are wrong when you say it's only possible in CCD.

[@xyren062]

Hey Nico. Did you ever make that pixel size video? I'm kinda in the process of picking a ZWO camera for redcat 51 and trying to make an informed decision. Thanks!

[@NebulaPhotos]

No, I didn’t. But you might be able to guess what I’d say somewhat from this video. I think a lot of people are using it as the main way of deciding on a camera when very few people have skies that benefit from very fine pixel scales and even then with the Redcat the optics can only resolve down to about 2.2 arc seconds so there is no real benefit to choosing a camera with tiny pixels. IMO the best camera out there today is the ZWO ASI2600 MC/MM. I know have that sensor x3 I like it so much :)

[@russgenzmer8326]

What about the megapixel resolution? I see like the ASI 183 has 20 megapixel yet for $200 more you get 11.6 megapixel. What is the #1 spec to look for to get those Pillars of Creation as sharp and defined as possible?

[@NebulaPhotos]

Didn't mention it because it's covered between sensor size and pixel pitch - the MP resolution of a sensor is just a factor of how big the pixels (pixel pitch) are and the physical dimensions of the sensor (sensor size). Your question is deceptively complex because there is a huge number of factors that go into how sharp and defined small details in our astrophotos can be. Pixel pitch and focal length are one factor that determines our pixel scale, but there is also aperture of the telescope (Dawes limit), blur from astronomical seeing, blur from imprecise tracking/guiding, and the list goes on. A general rule of thumb that gets thrown around a lot is to go for a pixel scale of 1"/px. This is generally good advise if you are matching a camera to your existing telescope AND your primary goal is to get as sharp an image as possible (one that will resolve the smallest details). The reason this advise works is with most telescope (around 60mm aperture and up), aperture isn't the issue, it's other factors, so with a pixel scale 1"/px, the only limits are your ability to track/guide that well, and your skies. A rule of thumb is to sample the skies at 1/3 your average seeing. Average seeing blur of 3" is a reasonable guess for most people. Check out Cuiv and James Lamb here on youtube. They've both done videos on these more technical topics that use visuals and analogies to explain them in more depth than I can do in a comment.

[@nocturneastro2539]

Hello @Nebula Photos, I think the bit-depth does play a role in overall dynamic range. From what I understand, it allows the camera to distinguish more shades of greys?

[@NebulaPhotos]

Tangentially, but not directly. The point I was trying to make quickly is that allowable bit depth of the analog to digital converter was chosen by the chip maker knowing the maximum allowable dynamic range of the sensor given the full well capacity and the read noise which is how dynamic range is defined. The reason the ASI1600mm has a 12bit (4096 shades of grey) ADC is that there no reason for a 16bit (65k shades) ADC, as it will never produce that many shades of grey. At most it does about 11 stops. Image stacking allows us to more precisely figure out the brightness value for each pixel, so once we start stacking even if you were working with a sensor that is '12 bit' we may then needs 16 bits or even 32 bits of information to accurately represent the scene.

[@nocturneastro2539]

@@NebulaPhotos thank you for that explanation!!! Really appreciate it! And yes, I agree with you that full well capacity is more important. Great video! 🙂🙏👍

[@MagicALCN]

I don't know what to choose between the 183 and the 533. This kinda only rely on pixel size.. I'm more interested into galaxies and small nebulae.. The pixel scale seems to be better for the 183 on refractors

[@NebulaPhotos]

Even if the 183 offers better sampling (closer to 1"/px), personally I'd still go for the 533 because the lower noise, lack of amp glow, and deeper full well capacity will make for cleaner, deeper images in less time.

[@MagicALCN]

@@NebulaPhotos Thanks for the reply! Indeed the 533 as much lower noise and better full well capacity

[@merletrisch3703]

What about taking pictures of nebula with 2 different cameras

[@MatthewHolevinski]

I'm also interested in exposing compositions based on "brightness" and then stacking multiple stacks and then overlaying. Like for exposing for the brightest stars, then the next brightest, then the next, then the next and then chopping out how elements in each stack to then stack in a final stack.

[@NebulaPhotos]

I've done lots of experiments combining data from different cameras on the same nebula. Early experiments were so-so, but I persisted and got some results that I liked. I'll hopefully do a video on it someday.

[@NebulaPhotos]

@Matthew Holevinski This is something I'm also interested in. Typically, you may find the dynamic range is limited enough in a scene of nebulae that you can bring out all the different elements without HDR technique, but I want to test to see what is more effective in the same amount of total time. Hisayoshi Kato on Flickr does some extreme HDR composites that I think look really good: www.flickr.com/photos/hiroc/

[@MatthewHolevinski]

@@NebulaPhotos His Pleiades looks really nice. There is no way I could capture that without doing a huge mosaic. I've done some untracked DSLR stuff and some CDK 24" stuff. So I'm at 2 terrible opposite ends of the spectrum. Edit: Actually my favorite image of his, is his Arcturus test image. I am definitely a star guy, and not a nebula guy.

[@Mistr_A]

Cost is the main impact as well

[@outbackwack368]

Hey, what about color vs B&W? After reading some things I picked up a ZWO ASI290MM that is still brand new in the box... Thanks!

[@astrophyz]

Thatll show you a difference in how many filters you need to buy and complexity leaning in favor for color cameras and overall per color resolution and per channel noise leaning in favor for mono.

[@mrtambourineman6107]

What is the cheapest deep sky camera I can put on an svbony 80ed for deep sky objects?

[@NebulaPhotos]

Svbony is making cameras now at pretty cheap prices. Haven't had the chance to test them yet.

[@Yanthungbemo]

Software binning vs. hardware binning.. is there is any difference in results?

[@NebulaPhotos]

(generalizing a bit in this comment, fyi) For CCDs, yes, hardware binning is superior as it's like doubling or quadrupling the SNR (signal to noise ratio) which is a big deal because CCDs often have high read noise, but this really comes down to the differences in the sensor architectures and will be less and less talked about since production of CCDs is ending so hardware binning is a thing of the past.

[@oskarinikkinen102]

CMOS cameras gain a 2:1 increase in signal to noise ratio while CCDs gain a 4:1 increase when binning 2x2. There is no difference in binning while capturing or in post with CMOS cameras so unless filesize is an issue it doesn't really make sense to bin with capture software.

[@JonnyBravo0311]

Anyone have a pool going for how many "Five Minute Fridays" videos in a row will be more than 5 minutes? Does anyone remember one that was actually 5 minutes or less? I think the first one or two were... I think you might want to rename the series, Nico 😜

[@raqueltuban6858]

Hello sir just asking if asi6200mm a good camera for redcat? Thank you

[@NebulaPhotos]

It depends on what you are trying to achieve. The ASI6200MM is a full frame, small pixel. mono camera so with the Redcat you will get: -a very large field of view, so large that basically all deep sky objects will fit, but you won’t get ‘close-ups’ unless you crop. Check out telescopius or black water skies imaging toolbox to see how this looks on popular targets. You may not want such a large sensor with the Redcat -since it’s mono and full frame, you will need 2” filters and a filter wheel. Consider that with the price. Those add up quickly. -Consider the 2600mm. It’s APS-C so you can use cheaper 36mm filters and as mentioned you might not need the extra big FOV of full frame depending on what you are shooting

[@raqueltuban6858]

@@NebulaPhotos thank you sir for the information and clear skies

[@hrj8291]

What does lucky imaging for deep sky mean, and how does it work?

[@andrebremer7772]

Check out Astrobiscuit's piece on it (kzbin.info/www/bejne/aqOmqnZplL58g6c)

[@marc5279]

why am i giving it a like just when 20secs into the vid? ^^

[@alpsalish]

Is CMOS appropriately ranked? I am genuinely curious. As far as I know, it is bound to be better tech and believe it or not, cheaper to produce. Maybe it just isn't there yet, but I believe this was in a tech forecast. How long do people think CCD will will maintain an edge? I could be completely wrong here. A few caveats with regard to my comment, I had to skim the video with audio off and no cc. Just saw cmos low on the list. Curious about the trajectory of cmos.

[@NebulaPhotos]

Ah, sorry, may have been confusing without audio, and the CC will be up soon hopefully. I wasn't ranking CMOS, but rather the importance of sensor type (CMOS vs. CCD) and giving the choice between CMOS vs. CCD a low rank as both sensor technologies can work well for astrophotography.

[@alpsalish]

@@NebulaPhotos Yeah, this isn't really meant to be consumed as silent film. Ha, but I sort of got that seeing the other icons. Love your content thanks. So, do you see cmos technology overtaking ccd in this space?

[@InvadersDie]

Cooling, is this some technical camera jargon or is it literal sensor/chip heat disepation?

[@NebulaPhotos]

Literal

[@Astrofrank]

Cooling usually means active cooling with Peltier (thermoelectric) elements, often implemented as two-stage cooling. Professional observatories even use liquid nitrogen.

[@jondepinet]

image buffer is more useful for planetary imaging, it lets you get faster framerates that swamp your usb connection. its really not terribly useful

[@oskarinikkinen102]

Whether a camera is 16bit or not is not really important as a spec of its own, but the new cameras that come with 16bit ADCs are very good in all other aspects so the importance of 16bit is taken a bit out of context imo.

[@NebulaPhotos]

Exactly.

[@vzr314]

You misinterpreted meaning of ADC and confused planetary with DSO cameras in few of your aspects. There is ton of confusion about ap cameras in ap community and now I see why...

[@NebulaPhotos]

Please elaborate. I am always wanting to learn. I am not sure what you mean by confused planetary and DSO camera - I clearly stated this was just from my point of view for what I'm looking for in a DSO camera and that I am not a planetary imager.

[@stevemeier7876]

wont seem to play for me..all of Nicos other videos will play just not this one...bizzare

[@UNSCPILOT]

Try again today? Maybe it was a fluke

[@TevisC]

did i miss the video he promised? kzbin.info/www/bejne/goKmhHSbgN-koK8

[@yurym4385]

Very misleading video. Read noise is only important when there is cooling, otherwise it will be dominated by thermal noise for exposures longer than 10s. QE is very important, e.g. it is the difference between back illuminated and front illuminated sensor, can easily give you 2x of pure light performance. Colled Ccds with em can be used in photon counting mode pushing the limits (pure qe+thermal noise), but other than that(and the full-frame ccds, which are very slow), good cmos sensors should offer lower readout noise compared to ccds.

[@NebulaPhotos]

I'm talking about cooled consumer astronomy cameras, note the photo of the ZWO camera pictured. Even so, I don't agree with your statement that thermal noise dominates unless you are imaging from a very hot location. Look at a chart for a modern CMOS sensor, thermal noise was a much bigger problem with CCDs. My complaint with QE was not that it isn't important, but that often ONLY relative QE is reported by ZWO/QHY, etc. which is of no use for comparisons from camera to camera. Consumer CCDs for amateur astronomy cannot be used for photon counting; you are talking about professional products from companies like Andor that are irrelevant to this video.

[@yurym4385]

​@@NebulaPhotos C'mon! I just did a noise test of my new mirorrless camera and it is thermal noise dominated even at 10 seconds (and you can do this yourself too). If you are talking about cooling cameras, say that loud and clear (and how *deep* they should be cooled to make your statements true), otherwise it is misleading. The QE thing I just cannot understand, if you don't know something that does not mean it is not important - you can measure QE yourself if you really want it (though, on a second though that might be to complicated if you don't have a lab nearby). And cooled consumer cameras sounds like a made up thing. What cooled camera can I buy in besbuy?

[@NebulaPhotos]

This video is part of my series called 'five minute friday' so I am not going into all the processes I use in astrophotography, but thermal noise is easily corrected with a stack of 'dark frames' that are matched in exposure length and sensor temperature to the 'light frames' (the photos of the night sky). You are correct that if I take a long exposure at room temperature, dark current will dominate readout noise, but dark frames are an effective counter, while there is no effective counter against read noise other than burying it with shot noise by taking a long enough exposure. I have no way of measuring absolute QE at home. One thing I didn't mention in the video is that this was a plus for CCD is that the manufacturers typically provided absolute QE curves in the datasheets, while these are not commonly found for CMOS, and the camera makers (who are buying the sensors from Sony) often also have no way to test absolute QE. As I said I agree with you that QE is an important metric. Cooled consumer cameras are very much a thing, they are going for around the same price as DSLR and Mirrorless cameras today and are a burgeoning industry. Check out the offerings from the Chinese company ZWO for example. They are doing quite well focusing entirely on mass-produced, consumer products designed for amateur photographers. These are the kinds of cameras I am talking about here.

[@Fartmaster699]

Yo nice video!

[@TheBullshit]

Quick question here, kinda unrelated. How do combine different data sets? For example two different nights of shooting the andromeda galaxy at the same ISO, f-stop and focal lenght. Do you use every light, dark, bias, flat from both nights in DSS or do you stack them first night by night and combine after?

[@NebulaPhotos]

Quick answer: In DSS, I'd use the groups feature (tabs) at the bottom, just load each night into it's own group, and then right click on a frame with a good score and set it as the reference frame. DSS will then calibrate each night separately, but register and stack everything into one final result.

[@TheBullshit]

@@NebulaPhotos Good to know. Thanks for the answer