Autoguider decision

ASI's Range of Specialised CMOS camera's

Moderator: Sam

Post Reply
Captaindan
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 5:21 am

Autoguider decision

Post by Captaindan » Wed Dec 27, 2017 6:32 am

Looking at various zwo cameras for autoguider and maybe imaging.

To autoguide 152mm F8 - 1200mm. Could use 65mm by 400mm guide scope I have.

So choices;
120mm , cheap on sale $200; maybe not so sensitive enough or wide enough?
290mm mini, $300, 2.0, effectively guides scope only which is primary mission?
290mm regular size, $400, 3.0, more sensitive but?
178mm, $400 same as 290 price, but wider View and good camera too.
178mc, $360 (less than mm), bit less sensitive, but ONC.

So what is best solution? Favouring 178mm, but no on sale $50 off yet.
178mm and 290mm same price, which is best and why?
290mm mini ok for guider at 2.0, but not so much as camera
Would 178mc be too much less sensitive or pixel spread Bayer Matrix not as narrow for tight guiding as 'mm?

Could go to other brand, but two seems rugged and well respected.

Am I missing any other better model zwo?

Comments welcome.
290mini and asi2600

rockstarbill
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2016 6:49 pm

Re: Autoguider decision

Post by rockstarbill » Thu Dec 28, 2017 1:14 am

Captaindan wrote:Looking at various zwo cameras for autoguider and maybe imaging.

To autoguide 152mm F8 - 1200mm. Could use 65mm by 400mm guide scope I have.

So choices;
120mm , cheap on sale $200; maybe not so sensitive enough or wide enough?
290mm mini, $300, 2.0, effectively guides scope only which is primary mission?
290mm regular size, $400, 3.0, more sensitive but?
178mm, $400 same as 290 price, but wider View and good camera too.
178mc, $360 (less than mm), bit less sensitive, but ONC.

So what is best solution? Favouring 178mm, but no on sale $50 off yet.
178mm and 290mm same price, which is best and why?
290mm mini ok for guider at 2.0, but not so much as camera
Would 178mc be too much less sensitive or pixel spread Bayer Matrix not as narrow for tight guiding as 'mm?

Could go to other brand, but two seems rugged and well respected.

Am I missing any other better model zwo?

Comments welcome.
Guidescope? ASI290 Mini

https://astronomy-imaging-camera.com/pr ... mini-mono/

But I would question why you would not use an OAG at that focal length and go with the 174mini?

User avatar
Sam
Posts: 2799
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 2:51 am

Re: Autoguider decision

Post by Sam » Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:11 am

we recommend ASI290MM mini too
you can also consider ASI120MM-S for the price
ZWO Founder
Location:lon=120.6 lat=31.3
SuZhou China

Captaindan
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 5:21 am

Re: Autoguider decision

Post by Captaindan » Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:33 pm

rockstarbill wrote:
Captaindan wrote:Looking at various zwo cameras for autoguider and maybe imaging.

To autoguide 152mm F8 - 1200mm. Could use 65mm by 400mm guide scope I have.

So choices;
120mm , cheap on sale $200; maybe not so sensitive enough or wide enough?
290mm mini, $300, 2.0, effectively guides scope only which is primary mission?
290mm regular size, $400, 3.0, more sensitive but?
178mm, $400 same as 290 price, but wider View and good camera too.
178mc, $360 (less than mm), bit less sensitive, but ONC.

So what is best solution? Favouring 178mm, but no on sale $50 off yet.
178mm and 290mm same price, which is best and why?
290mm mini ok for guider at 2.0, but not so much as camera
Would 178mc be too much less sensitive or pixel spread Bayer Matrix not as narrow for tight guiding as 'mm?

Could go to other brand, but two seems rugged and well respected.

Am I missing any other better model zwo?

Comments welcome.
Guidescope? ASI290 Mini

https://astronomy-imaging-camera.com/pr ... mini-mono/

But I would question why you would not use an OAG at that focal length and go with the 174mini?
Yes at this focal length we are crossing into the realm of the OAG (which i may go to in future especially when I finish the F12 at 1750mm) and the 174mm would have a wider field to find a best guiding star. But the mini 174mm is $200 more than the mini 290mm which is $299 and appears to be a better $ value, has small pixels for tracking and would retain good value on upgrading. For pure guiding a usb 2.0 will work, this is probably the one to choose. A little tighter and more sensitive than the 120mm.

I though about the 178mm as a dual purpose. Sometimes tracking. Sometimes imaging camera, kind of a baby 1600, but why get a baby when you can get a full grown erotic woman (1600).
290mini and asi2600

Captaindan
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 5:21 am

Re: Autoguider decision

Post by Captaindan » Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:43 pm

Sam wrote:we recommend ASI290MM mini too
you can also consider ASI120MM-S for the price
Yes leaning that way. The 120mm s would probably work especially on sale $199, but I'm thinking the 290mm is tighter guider (smaller pixels), a little wider view and more sensitive -maybe?

So if you put the mini 290mm on sale like the others at minus $50 you would solve my decision Delima.
290mini and asi2600

Captaindan
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 5:21 am

Re: Autoguider decision

Post by Captaindan » Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:10 pm

Captaindan wrote:
Sam wrote:we recommend ASI290MM mini too
you can also consider ASI120MM-S for the price
Yes leaning that way. The 120mm s would probably work especially on sale $199, but I'm thinking the 290mm is tighter guider (smaller pixels), a little wider view and more sensitive -maybe?

So if you put the mini 290mm on sale like the others at minus $50 you would solve my decision Delima.
Ordered asi290 mini via CCTS
290mini and asi2600

Post Reply