Which Camera?


Roland Christen
 

I've been looking long and hard at full frame mono CMOS cameras as a next purchase for our AP observatory. So the question is - which camera - QHY or ZWO?
Which has the better accessories such as filter wheel, off-axis guider etc...
Any and all thoughts welcome.

Rolando


-----Original Message-----
From: Dale Ghent <daleg@...>
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io
Sent: Thu, Jul 1, 2021 12:44 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-ug] Questoin for Roland: Waited too long to buy 175TCC (discontinued) for my 175EDF....is QUADTCC is as good of a solution.



> On Jul 1, 2021, at 01:54, ROBERT WYNNE <robert-wynne@...> wrote:
>
> Based on what I've read on this and other venues I remain unconvinced in CMOS chip technology's ability to capture an equal amount of photons compared to an CCD, in focus and without tilt at the pixel well level with 0 or near 0 noise in reasonable time frames. I would not underestimate my desire to obtain the largest Sony CCD available if the notion caught my interest nor a CMOS chip if the advancement in CMOS quality presents itself in the next year which could easily exceed a 67 mm circle. Thus my push.

With all due respect, but none of this makes any sense.

Current CMOS sensors have QE in the high 80's, pushing 90%, and approach 1e- read noise in typical operating modes. 5, and even 3 minute long narrowband exposures at circa f/5 are normal... no more 15-20 minute exposures that can be ruined by a passing cloud or other interference.  On top of that, you don't need to endure the comparatively glacial readout speeds that CCDs have, which eats into total integration time when you sum up the 15-20 seconds it takes to pull each frame off a CCD camera.

You sentiments would have made more sense perhaps up to 2 years ago. But the current generation of CMOS sensors, namely the IMX533 (1", color), IMX571 (APS-C color+mono), IMX455 (FF, color+mono), and IMX411 (150mp medium format, mono), have performance characteristics that make choosing them over CCD almost a no-brainer. They also have such low dark current that chilling them below -10C is very firmly in the territory of diminishing returns, making these sensors more warm-climate friendly top operate.

I will say that there seems to be a lot of sentimental or emotional attachment to CCDs; perhaps more so now that stocks of them are running on fumes. There are *plenty* of compelling reasons to adopt modern tech, however.





--
Roland Christen
Astro-Physics


Joel Short
 

Having owned both I pretty clearly lean toward ZWO for one big reason and a few minor ones, but both will serve you well I think.

The big reason:  From day one with the two QHY cameras and filter wheels I had, the drivers were buggy.  I could always get the equipment to work without too much trouble, but I was constantly wondering "will it work this time?"  And forget about updating the drivers because every time I did something had to be "worked around" in order to get it to work.  Once I had a driver that seemed to work well I just left it for a long time.  
Contrast that with my two ZWO cameras (6200MM and 2600MC), which worked perfectly from day one.  Driver installation and usage is easy and has worked flawlessly ever since, for about 16 months now.  I have updated drivers without any issues as well.

The minor considerations:  I actually found the plethora of QHY options to be a hinderance.  The ZWO system seemed a lot less complicated and straight forward, which was fine for my system.  The filter wheel has always worked well.  Tip: set the driver to only rotate one way in order to assure accurate filter position.  I haven't experienced this but some have said that when trying to rotate the wheel either direction the filters weren't placed exactly in the same position.  The OAG uses a wide M68 connection thread which is nice.  ZWO also just announced a new OAG with a 12mm x 12mm prism (larger than most 8mm prisms) so it can take advantage of larger guide cameras.  I will likely upgrade to this new OAG myself so the guide camera (ZWO ASI174-mini) can cover more territory.  ZWO also announced recently that they are opening a servicing center somewhere in Indiana.  The ZWO cameras have a USB hub for peripherals.  I run the filter wheel and guide camera directly through the ASI6200MM without issue.  

As for QHY having better build quality, that may have been true in the past but I haven't seen any differences myself with the cameras I have owned.  Both seem to have pretty much equal build quality IMHO.  Some of the early ZWO cameras used a tablet desiccant system which seemed to be pretty weak, but they have done away with that now.  

While you can tell I definitely lean toward ZWO, that is not to say that QHY doesn't make good equipment.  I do think that both work well and that the differences are relatively minor.  In my system ZWO just seemed to work better.  
joel


Marcelo Figueroa
 

Since both use the same sensors, the differences are minor.
 
The more or less generalized opinion is that although the QHY hardware is a little better, its drivers are not the best (just take a look at the CN forums). On the other hand, ZWO has a very good hardware and also very good drivers.
 
For me the differences are very minor and I would go for the one that is available sooner.
 
Keep in mind that the new Sony sensors are a bit temperamental and the flats, especially on Ha and Sii, look really weird. But the calibration works perfectly.
 


Kenneth Tan
 

I have quite a few zwos . The 6200  is great . I would not get the 2400. The 2600 are ok.
Zwo Filter wheel design acceptable and convenient if you intend to use their system with the asi air pro. But not what i would say the best. A little rough around the edges in implementation. 
OAG best to avoid the zwo

Kenneth


On Fri, 2 Jul 2021 at 04:09, Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
I've been looking long and hard at full frame mono CMOS cameras as a next purchase for our AP observatory. So the question is - which camera - QHY or ZWO?
Which has the better accessories such as filter wheel, off-axis guider etc...
Any and all thoughts welcome.

Rolando


-----Original Message-----
From: Dale Ghent <daleg@...>
To: main@ap-ug.groups.io
Sent: Thu, Jul 1, 2021 12:44 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-ug] Questoin for Roland: Waited too long to buy 175TCC (discontinued) for my 175EDF....is QUADTCC is as good of a solution.



> On Jul 1, 2021, at 01:54, ROBERT WYNNE <robert-wynne@...> wrote:
>
> Based on what I've read on this and other venues I remain unconvinced in CMOS chip technology's ability to capture an equal amount of photons compared to an CCD, in focus and without tilt at the pixel well level with 0 or near 0 noise in reasonable time frames. I would not underestimate my desire to obtain the largest Sony CCD available if the notion caught my interest nor a CMOS chip if the advancement in CMOS quality presents itself in the next year which could easily exceed a 67 mm circle. Thus my push.

With all due respect, but none of this makes any sense.

Current CMOS sensors have QE in the high 80's, pushing 90%, and approach 1e- read noise in typical operating modes. 5, and even 3 minute long narrowband exposures at circa f/5 are normal... no more 15-20 minute exposures that can be ruined by a passing cloud or other interference.  On top of that, you don't need to endure the comparatively glacial readout speeds that CCDs have, which eats into total integration time when you sum up the 15-20 seconds it takes to pull each frame off a CCD camera.

You sentiments would have made more sense perhaps up to 2 years ago. But the current generation of CMOS sensors, namely the IMX533 (1", color), IMX571 (APS-C color+mono), IMX455 (FF, color+mono), and IMX411 (150mp medium format, mono), have performance characteristics that make choosing them over CCD almost a no-brainer. They also have such low dark current that chilling them below -10C is very firmly in the territory of diminishing returns, making these sensors more warm-climate friendly top operate.

I will say that there seems to be a lot of sentimental or emotional attachment to CCDs; perhaps more so now that stocks of them are running on fumes. There are *plenty* of compelling reasons to adopt modern tech, however.






--
Roland Christen
Astro-Physics


Luca Marinelli
 

I image with both ZWO and QHY cameras, as well as system accessories (filter wheels, OAG). As others have said they are more similar than different but here are my impressions:

Equipment I have owned or currently own: ASI1600MM Pro, ASI183MM Pro, ASI6200MM Pro, ASI294MM Pro, QHY 294M, QHY 268M, ZWO EFW2 and EFW3 filter wheels, ZWO OAG (old and new), QHY CFW3 medium ultraslim filter wheel, QHY OAG-M. (I have also used a FLI ML16200 with CFW2-7 filter wheel and Optec Sagitta OAG, for comparison to premium level products).

People often say that QHY cameras are built better. My experience is that the build is fairly comparable, neither is an FLI camera. I have never had hardware failures with any of my ZWO cameras. I image in the Northeastern US and have not had issues with frost or dew on the sensor. My new QHY268M does not connect reliably to the filter wheel with the direct cable connection and I will have to send it in when I switch imaging system on the pier later in the Summer. The good news is that I will only have to ship the camera to California and not to China, provided it can be fixed there. As Joel said, ZWO is rumored to be opening a service center in the USA as well.

I purchased the QHY268M instead of the ASI2600MM Pro for two main reasons: sensor tilt and read-out modes. I did not have space for a tilt adjustment unit in my imaging train and the common lore is that QHY sensors are more likely to be square to the optical axis. I don't really know the statistics of how many units are shipped with tilted sensors by the two manufacturers but my N=1 experience was that the ZWO ASI6200MM Pro required a tilt adjustment unit on the FSQ106 to get good stars throughout the field of view (it should be said that my scope had to be sent in for collimation so I can't with 100% certainty assign the blame to the ZWO camera until the scope comes back and I see if it still needs the tilt adjustment or if it was a way to tune out some of the effects of optics misalignment over the large field of view). The QHY268M is on a 10in f4 newtonian telescope and the sensor gives perfect stars all the way to the edge of the field of view, without a tilt adjustment unit.

For the new SONY APS-C and full frame sensors, QHY offers several readout modes. The standard high-gain mode with very low-noise is common to both the ZWO and QHY cameras. This is the primary imaging mode for deep-space targets. The QHY camera also offers extended full-well modes that can be interesting for broadband imaging. The idea is to have higher read noise but also much deeper full well capacity so fewer deeper subs (a la CCD imaging) can be acquired, with comparable dynamic range to the low-noise readout mode. Given the large file size, this was appealing and I was curious to try it out. In practice, I never did for a simple reason: I can change gain dynamically in the imaging software but I cannot change readout mode outside of the QHY driver. I almost always image multiple targets in one night and pretty much never only broadband. I need the high-gain readout mode for narrowband imaging and in practice i find myself choosing two different gain setpoints for RGB subs and narrowband subs (higher full well or lower read noise), which can be controlled on a per filter basis from inside the imaging software.

The cooler appears to be slightly better on the ZWO camera. The QHY with the APS-C sensor maxes out at about 32-33C below ambient, while the ZWO with the full frame sensor is able to reach 35-36C below ambient. That difference allows me to have only two sets of dark libraries for the ZWO camera (-20C for Winter and -10C for Summer), while the QHY camera needs three sets of dark libraries (-20C for Winter, -10C Spring and Fall, -3C hot Summer nights). I haven't processed any of the -3C data yet but if thermal noise is not an issue, I may just eliminate the -10C set point. Dark noise in these cameras is so low that constant sensor temperature for proper calibration is more important than deep cooling.

Drivers on the ZWO camera are completely transparent and straightforward. No special tricks are necessary for a successful installation. QHY is a different story. I disagree with Dale that driver robustness with QHY cameras is a thing of the past. The QHY294M and 268M after more than six months after introduction are still running on beta drivers. The installation procedure is not well documented and sensitive to the local environment. I was not able to get the QHY268M to connect successfully to my desktop computer, I gave up and brought into the observatory where it connected to the imaging computer after a few tries of installing, uninstalling drivers, cleaning registries, and other incantations. As I mentioned above, the direct 4-pin connection between my QHY camera and the QHY filter wheel doesn't work, so I have resorted to using the USB connection on the filter wheel. The USB driver for the filter wheel several years post-introduction is still buggy and requires a precise set of steps to ensure correct operation of the filter wheel or the imaging software will give up and halt the sequence (the filter wheel doesn't respond, it's not the imaging software fault). I really with QHY did a complete overhaul of their software, test it broadly, and publish reliable installation notes. This to me is one of the biggest drawbacks of the QHY camera. 

For the QHY600, which I do not own, I agree with Dale that the most appealing option is the Photographic version with the short backfocus option. This is the same front mount used on the QHY 268M and it offers a rock solid connection to the filter wheel with no opportunity to introduce tilt in the optical train. I never rotate the camera independently from the filter wheel, to minimize need to reshoot flat frames, so the bolted connection is welcome to me. The short backfocus is also more versatile and allows the unit to be used with camera lenses, for example.

The old ZWO OAG was very flimsy and not really comparable to the QHY. The new one is much more substantial. Neither the QHY nor the ZWO OAGs are comparable to the Optec Sagitta in smoothness, quality of manufacturing and materials, are size of the prism. However, they also consume much less optical length and are significantly less expensive. The QHY OAG has M54 opening while the ZWO OAG has bigger clear aperture (M68). The newly announced ZWO OAG will also be available with a bigger prism, which is a welcome change. Overall, both OAGs do what they are supposed to.

Best,

Luca


steven ho
 

Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger.
 
The QHY600PH (Photographic Version) retails for $4599 industry grade sensor (Grade-K).
https://www.sony-semicon.co.jp/products/common/pdf/IMX455ALK-K_AQK-K_Flyer.pdf
 
The QHY600L (Lite Version)  retails for $3980 and contains a consumer grade sensor (Grade-C).
Quote from (below) - https://astrograph.net/epages/www_astrograph_net.sf/en_GB/?ObjectPath=/Shops/www_astrograph_net/Products/AGQHY600M
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Image Sensor SONY Full Frame BSI CMOS Sensor IMX455ALK-K (Industry Grade) This sensor is available in both -C (consumer grade) and -K (industry grade). General speaking the -K version has longer lifetime than the -C version. Currently ,both the monochrome QHY600 Photographic version and monochrome QHY600 Professional version use the -K version of the sensor.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
 
Quote from (below) - https://www.baader-planetarium.com/en/blog/why-is-the-qhy600-cmos-camera-more-expensive-than-models-from-other-manufacturers/
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Another important difference between "consumer" and "industry" sensors is the so-called "package" - the housing in which the sensor is embedded. In the case of consumer sensors, this package is often made of plastic, while in the case of industrial sensors ceramic is often used as the base material, which is much more temperature stable and guarantees a high degree of flatness of the sensor array with deep cooling.
 
The Sony IMX 455 "industry grade" sensor is part of a so-called LGA package. LGA stands for "Land Grid Array" and the base material must be materials that minimize thermo-mechanical stresses as much as possible. This enables a wide temperature working range and the sensor can be used even under extreme environmental conditions.
 
The industry grade sensor is designed for longer life under normal use and can therefore withstand repeated cooling/heating cycles with less thermal stress, resulting in a longer life for a cooled camera. AND industrial sensors have a significantly lower number of pixel defects.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I went with the QYH600M-PH version.

Steve


Christopher Erickson
 

My experience with QHY and ZWO might not be directly relevant to Roland's question, since my priority is occultations.

I have two QHY-174M-GPS cams that I use for occultations and they have been VERY effective in that application with SharpCap Pro. I don't think there is a better occultation solution out there at any price. The built-in GPS modules make occultation captures precise and painless. No more analog video streams and all of the problems and quirks that go along with them. I sure hope that QHY never abandons occultationists! ZWO, and everyone else, has nothing comparable.

Tolga from Tolga Astro helped me to learn that there is a hidden button on the QHY filter wheels that switches the control from the USB interface to the cam interface and back. Only one control method is active at a time. THAT explains why I was never able to control my filter wheel directly from my QHY-174M-GPS cams. And the QHY filter wheel is effectively too thin. Most filters are too high and will not load and clear the filter housing. I forget which filters I had to invest in to get the filter wheel working but Tolga knows all about the QHY cams, filter wheels and filters and can help you out. Tolga is a really nice guy and very knowledgeable. He would probably help you out, even if you were not his customer. However that would be tacky to do to him. If you want his help, I would encourage becoming his customer first. Even if you buy something besides a QHY or ZWO camera or accessory.

I have found that drivers and utilities for both ZWO and QHY leave a lot to be desired. Cruising the QHY website and looking for correct drivers and tools can be an adventure in itself, depending on the cam model. Once you get the right drivers installed, QHY and ZWO cams seem to work well and are stable.

Firmware updates on the QHY-174M-GPS is NOT for the faint-hearted and unless you are REALLY good with electronics and microcontrollers, I would leave it to someone like Tolga to help you out. It requires opening up the cam and using a special programming module connected to an internal connector.

I would say the mechanical build quality and mechanical design of my QHY and ZWO cams are both better than my SBIG STF-8300M. The round cam bodies are much more compatible with my Hyperstar adapters on my occultation SCT's too. My STF-8300M is infamous for getting damaged via its power connection and power issues. I have not had any power problems with my QHY and ZWO cams. One note, the QHY174M-GPS MIGHT work okay with just being powered over the USB3 connector, but in my experience, the cooler MUST have clean 12VDC power to work properly and I think the same goes for the GPS module. It will sort of work w/o 12VDC but not reliably. My suggestion is to ALWAYS have 12VDC securely connected to a QHY174M-GPS cam.

"My advice is always free and worth every penny!"

-Christopher Erickson
Observatory Engineer
Summit Kinetics
Waikoloa, Hawaii


On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 1:43 AM Luca Marinelli <photo@...> wrote:
I image with both ZWO and QHY cameras, as well as system accessories (filter wheels, OAG). As others have said they are more similar than different but here are my impressions:

Equipment I have owned or currently own: ASI1600MM Pro, ASI183MM Pro, ASI6200MM Pro, ASI294MM Pro, QHY 294M, QHY 268M, ZWO EFW2 and EFW3 filter wheels, ZWO OAG (old and new), QHY CFW3 medium ultraslim filter wheel, QHY OAG-M. (I have also used a FLI ML16200 with CFW2-7 filter wheel and Optec Sagitta OAG, for comparison to premium level products).

People often say that QHY cameras are built better. My experience is that the build is fairly comparable, neither is an FLI camera. I have never had hardware failures with any of my ZWO cameras. I image in the Northeastern US and have not had issues with frost or dew on the sensor. My new QHY268M does not connect reliably to the filter wheel with the direct cable connection and I will have to send it in when I switch imaging system on the pier later in the Summer. The good news is that I will only have to ship the camera to California and not to China, provided it can be fixed there. As Joel said, ZWO is rumored to be opening a service center in the USA as well.

I purchased the QHY268M instead of the ASI2600MM Pro for two main reasons: sensor tilt and read-out modes. I did not have space for a tilt adjustment unit in my imaging train and the common lore is that QHY sensors are more likely to be square to the optical axis. I don't really know the statistics of how many units are shipped with tilted sensors by the two manufacturers but my N=1 experience was that the ZWO ASI6200MM Pro required a tilt adjustment unit on the FSQ106 to get good stars throughout the field of view (it should be said that my scope had to be sent in for collimation so I can't with 100% certainty assign the blame to the ZWO camera until the scope comes back and I see if it still needs the tilt adjustment or if it was a way to tune out some of the effects of optics misalignment over the large field of view). The QHY268M is on a 10in f4 newtonian telescope and the sensor gives perfect stars all the way to the edge of the field of view, without a tilt adjustment unit.

For the new SONY APS-C and full frame sensors, QHY offers several readout modes. The standard high-gain mode with very low-noise is common to both the ZWO and QHY cameras. This is the primary imaging mode for deep-space targets. The QHY camera also offers extended full-well modes that can be interesting for broadband imaging. The idea is to have higher read noise but also much deeper full well capacity so fewer deeper subs (a la CCD imaging) can be acquired, with comparable dynamic range to the low-noise readout mode. Given the large file size, this was appealing and I was curious to try it out. In practice, I never did for a simple reason: I can change gain dynamically in the imaging software but I cannot change readout mode outside of the QHY driver. I almost always image multiple targets in one night and pretty much never only broadband. I need the high-gain readout mode for narrowband imaging and in practice i find myself choosing two different gain setpoints for RGB subs and narrowband subs (higher full well or lower read noise), which can be controlled on a per filter basis from inside the imaging software.

The cooler appears to be slightly better on the ZWO camera. The QHY with the APS-C sensor maxes out at about 32-33C below ambient, while the ZWO with the full frame sensor is able to reach 35-36C below ambient. That difference allows me to have only two sets of dark libraries for the ZWO camera (-20C for Winter and -10C for Summer), while the QHY camera needs three sets of dark libraries (-20C for Winter, -10C Spring and Fall, -3C hot Summer nights). I haven't processed any of the -3C data yet but if thermal noise is not an issue, I may just eliminate the -10C set point. Dark noise in these cameras is so low that constant sensor temperature for proper calibration is more important than deep cooling.

Drivers on the ZWO camera are completely transparent and straightforward. No special tricks are necessary for a successful installation. QHY is a different story. I disagree with Dale that driver robustness with QHY cameras is a thing of the past. The QHY294M and 268M after more than six months after introduction are still running on beta drivers. The installation procedure is not well documented and sensitive to the local environment. I was not able to get the QHY268M to connect successfully to my desktop computer, I gave up and brought into the observatory where it connected to the imaging computer after a few tries of installing, uninstalling drivers, cleaning registries, and other incantations. As I mentioned above, the direct 4-pin connection between my QHY camera and the QHY filter wheel doesn't work, so I have resorted to using the USB connection on the filter wheel. The USB driver for the filter wheel several years post-introduction is still buggy and requires a precise set of steps to ensure correct operation of the filter wheel or the imaging software will give up and halt the sequence (the filter wheel doesn't respond, it's not the imaging software fault). I really with QHY did a complete overhaul of their software, test it broadly, and publish reliable installation notes. This to me is one of the biggest drawbacks of the QHY camera. 

For the QHY600, which I do not own, I agree with Dale that the most appealing option is the Photographic version with the short backfocus option. This is the same front mount used on the QHY 268M and it offers a rock solid connection to the filter wheel with no opportunity to introduce tilt in the optical train. I never rotate the camera independently from the filter wheel, to minimize need to reshoot flat frames, so the bolted connection is welcome to me. The short backfocus is also more versatile and allows the unit to be used with camera lenses, for example.

The old ZWO OAG was very flimsy and not really comparable to the QHY. The new one is much more substantial. Neither the QHY nor the ZWO OAGs are comparable to the Optec Sagitta in smoothness, quality of manufacturing and materials, are size of the prism. However, they also consume much less optical length and are significantly less expensive. The QHY OAG has M54 opening while the ZWO OAG has bigger clear aperture (M68). The newly announced ZWO OAG will also be available with a bigger prism, which is a welcome change. Overall, both OAGs do what they are supposed to.

Best,

Luca


M Hambrick
 

I believe there was a previous post that stated that QHY cameras are made in China. Where are the ZWO cameras made ?

Mike


Bill Long
 

China.


From: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> on behalf of M Hambrick <mhambrick563@...>
Sent: Friday, July 2, 2021 6:20 AM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Which Camera?
 
I believe there was a previous post that stated that QHY cameras are made in China. Where are the ZWO cameras made ?

Mike


Keith Olsen
 
Edited

I can't comment on the QHY or ZWO cameras but I have owned a number of ATIK cameras and they are quality. ATIK offers the Apx60 which is a full frame cmos camera and uses the Sony IMX 455 sensor.


deonb
 

I had a QHY600M-Pro Lite last year and returned it for a ZWO ASI6200MM.

I love the idea of the QHY600 and the quality was amazing, but the software on the QHY600 was just too finicky for me. The camera is very sensitive to startup order between power to the camera, the USB plug on the camera, and the device that it's plugged into. I could never just "reboot/power cycle" my entire observatory remotely - each time I did that, I had to go back out, unplug the QHY600 then plug everything back in in a specific order (which I forget now what that order was). Made sure I had the latest Firmware & Drivers loaded, tried multiple PC's, cables etc. - always had this problem. This was in December of last year.

I switched to the ASI6200 and it immediately just "worked" and it connects every time.

Such a pity - all my connectivity into and around my observatory is fiber, so would have loved a fiber camera, but I just couldn't deal with the finickiness of the QHY camera/driver.


Benoit Schillings
 

I do have a ZWO 6200, a beautiful camera with extremely clean data
straight out of the camera.

I had one failure where the camera just stopped connecting/working,
but ZWO repaired and sent back without problems. Not totally clear
what the issue was.

-- benoit

On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 7:57 AM deonb <deonb@outlook.com> wrote:

I had a QHY600M-Pro Lite last year and returned it for a ZWO ASI6200MM.

I love the idea of the QHY600 and the quality was amazing, but the software on the QHY600 was just too finicky for me. The camera is very sensitive to startup order between power to the camera, the USB plug on the camera, and the device that it's plugged into. I could never just "reboot/power cycle" my entire observatory remotely - each time I did that, I had to go back out, unplug the QHY600 then plug everything back in in a specific order (which I forget now what that order was). Made sure I had the latest Firmware & Drivers loaded, tried multiple PC's, cables etc. - always had this problem. This was in December of last year.

I switched to the ASI6200 and it immediately just "worked" and it connects every time.

Such a pity - all my connectivity into and around my observatory is fiber, so would have loved a fiber camera, but I just couldn't deal with the finickiness of the QHY camera/driver.


Andrea Lucchetti
 

I have a Moravian C3 61000 (IMX455) on order.
they are more pricey than the chinese, but I know very well Moravian and I know what I can expect (I own a 16803 G4).
I bought the external filter wheel version, 50x50mm so I can leverage my astrodon set.
Their website is also full of good info on the IMX sensors so it is worth a visit.
my biggest concern is related to the image file size and number of raw files to integrate
Andrea

Il giorno ven 2 lug 2021 alle ore 17:21 Benoit Schillings <benoit.schillings@...> ha scritto:
I do have a ZWO 6200, a beautiful camera with extremely clean data
straight out of the camera.

I had one failure where the camera just stopped connecting/working,
but ZWO repaired and sent back without problems. Not totally clear
what the issue was.

-- benoit


On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 7:57 AM deonb <deonb@...> wrote:
>
> I had a QHY600M-Pro Lite last year and returned it for a ZWO ASI6200MM.
>
> I love the idea of the QHY600 and the quality was amazing, but the software on the QHY600 was just too finicky for me. The camera is very sensitive to startup order between power to the camera, the USB plug on the camera, and the device that it's plugged into. I could never just "reboot/power cycle" my entire observatory remotely - each time I did that, I had to go back out, unplug the QHY600 then plug everything back in in a specific order (which I forget now what that order was). Made sure I had the latest Firmware & Drivers loaded, tried multiple PC's, cables etc. - always had this problem. This was in December of last year.
>
> I switched to the ASI6200 and it immediately just "worked" and it connects every time.
>
> Such a pity - all my connectivity into and around my observatory is fiber, so would have loved a fiber camera, but I just couldn't deal with the finickiness of the QHY camera/driver.
>






dvjbaja
 

You will not go wrong with either brand.  Maybe give the edge to ZWO as there appear to be more users.   The big difference with ZWO seems to be the anodized red housing. 

Be prepared for some very large image files either way you go. 




 

>>>Be prepared for some very large image files either way you go. 

a single debayered ZWO 6200MC sub is about 750mb for me. yikes

On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 9:44 AM dvjbaja <jpgleasonid@...> wrote:
You will not go wrong with either brand.  Maybe give the edge to ZWO as there appear to be more users.   The big difference with ZWO seems to be the anodized red housing. 

Be prepared for some very large image files either way you go. 





--
Brian 



Brian Valente


Jan Soldan
 

Luca,
just one note about direct 4-pin connector between QHY's camera and  their CFW. You are saying it does not work. It works well on my site. Do you know there is a small switch on CFW, where user can select either USB and/or 4-pin cable ?
I think, if pushed communication is redirected to that 4pin cable, in not, then USB cable is used.
Regards,
Jan


Greg McCall
 

Re "too finicky", I have the same issue.
I use a QHY600M-PH.
I basically can't just plug all the gear in and power it up as invariably, the camera can't be seen by the imaging software.
My solution which works most of the time is to connect everything up (all normal imaging setup) but leave the power cable out of the back of the camera.
Then plug the power in and connect. It still, on the odd occasion, not be visible in my imaging software (ie. still doesn't work) so out with the power plug on the back, wait a few seconds and plug back in.

Imaging software used is SGPro (tried both the stable 32bit and that latest 64bit beta)
Power cabling uses thick short cables (via Mach2) and powerpole connectors connected to a large, fully charged LiFePO4 battery
USB uses short quality cables with a quality powered hub on the OTA (currently Gearmo)

Re drivers, I notice QHY have recently changed their driver site. If using Windows, I suggest using the all-in-one driver package.
https://www.qhyccd.com/download/
I also suspect QHY seem to have a different interpretation of Beta than I do. 
They seem to leave the Beta label on the latest drivers (indefinitely) and I notice the Beta and stable drivers (2021 version) are the same


Peter Nagy
 

Then plug the power in and connect. It still, on the odd occasion, not be visible in my imaging software (ie. still doesn't work) so out with the power plug on the back, wait a few seconds and plug back in.
I seem to get almost the exact same thing. Once my QHY600M camera is powered and connected, it seems to stay connected for the duration until I personally disconnect the camera. It can be a little annoying but as long as it stays connected, it has not yet bothered me.

I sincerely hope Atik Ap60 camera (as well as other vendors) will be much more consistent and reliable than ZWO or QHY cameras. I also hope more manufacturers build astro cameras based on Sony IMX-455 sensor. It seems that Sony IMX-455 CMOS sensor is truly a game changer from then on. It's very clean and has no amp glows.

Peter


Luca Marinelli
 

On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 03:00 PM, Jan Soldan wrote:
Luca,
just one note about direct 4-pin connector between QHY's camera and  their CFW. You are saying it does not work. It works well on my site. Do you know there is a small switch on CFW, where user can select either USB and/or 4-pin cable ?
I think, if pushed communication is redirected to that 4pin cable, in not, then USB cable is used.
Regards,
Jan
Hi Jan,

Thank you for the suggestion. I am aware of the button on the filter wheel to switch between USB and 4-pin connector operation and unfortunately that's not the problem. The connection with the 4-pin cable between the camera and the filter wheel is just unreliable. sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. it's a bad contact probably due to a faulty connector on the camera. I am sure it will be taken care of, I am just not thrilled with having to send the camera in for service.

--Luca


Jan Soldan
 

Hi Luca,
now I understand. There may be some bad contact or maybe your cable is just broken, of course, although I did not receive such a faulty CFW for repair yet. I do service of QHYCCD cameras, etc. for whole Europe, i.e EU countries only. In your case, contact Michael Barber at qhyusa@...   (805)308-6976
Take Care,
Jan