@tech@zwo#47391 Hi! Just to tell you that I clearly and completely subscribe Banjo request.
QE along the spectrum is one of the aspects we take into consideration when choosing a camera, and in this respect the 290 is completely different from the 462. Methane-band or IR >1000nm imaging are paradigms of such situation. I have both 290MM and 462MC, so this statement reflects real data.
Sometimes one has to compromise, and thus, in my scope dedicated to both lunar and planetary imaging, I have a 183MMPro, because large fov, high pixel density, and cooling (since methane-band filters often require long integrations), have priority.
For H-alpha full disk imaging, to skip more expensive cameras, I chose the 178MM due to its "enough" fov with a focus reducer and high pixel density to match my Daystar spatial resolution.
So..., I have various ASI cameras that were chosen for specific and different contexts. They are all distinct, they are all excellent, and some of them have issues similar to that Banjo mentioned. Specifically:
The latter exhibits different flat-field behaviour along the spectrum, namely in the IR, which is perfectly normal but requires careful flat correction.
The two former cameras, one color the other monochrome, exhibit patent 2x2pixel patterns when images have to be heavily sharpened (e.g. moon, sun, planets).
This pattern can be eliminated with home-made "low tech" processing approaches that provide sub-optimum camera performance. It works, I and other have been doing that.
What Banjo asked for is a way that observers that know which camera is the best for them, are allowed to get the best of their best hardware. It is also a way for all users profit from a turn-key solution that immediately allows them to reveal the excellent hardware they have.
I understand ASI priorities, so far they have been providing great products and results. But sometimes an automatic solution for optimization can became a natural priority, only noticed a posteriori...
Thanks and keep producing great solutions