[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [APML] OT? "newer" CCD cameras
Howdy Frank,
Let me add to Alan and Fred's thoughts. I'd say they're pretty much right
on track. I had a Meade DSI for about 12 days (from the second batch
released) and took it back to my good dealer friend.
The DSI is as far as I could possibly determine totally proprietary for
Meade's Autostar systems. The imager outputs only three controlling wires,
which to me indicated it required some sort of switching electronics at both
ends in the DSI and Autostar compatible scope.
I don't remember that much, except both my dealer and I "at the time"
agreed it wouldn't work fully with a LX200 Classic either. I thought it was
pretty much junk (well, unless you have an Autostar scope maybe). The large
few pixels wouldn't stand up to processing very well either.
My first night out I got a single VERY poor galaxy image and both of the
two "full resolution" pics you can pull right off the following page exactly
the same as they came out of the camera, if I remember correctly:
www.deepskyphotos.com/DSI.html
I've temporarily misplaced the galaxy image but believe me it was very
poor quality. I hung out on yahoo's DSI group for the time I had the camera
and nobody was producing anything of much quality. I really don't think
their newer "higher pixel count and sensitivity" camera would fare much
better, and further think it too is totally proprietary Autostar based in
order to function well in all design respects.
You could wait awhile and see what results pop-up, then decide if you want
the thing. The best you have going for you is your ST-4 to guide the thing
too.
You may want to have a look at whatever "SAC Imaging" is producing right
now, though I've never personally seen anything too great resulting, but
those results were from their earlier 640 x 480 cameras.
Remember you need to match pixel size to your shooting focal length for
best results. Some of SAC's pixel sizes don't seem to make sense to me, as
I couldn't figure any good focal length to match them to for optimum
sensitivity. I don't have their URL handy but a Google search for "SAC
Imaging" should turn them up.
But again, I wouldn't buy, until I see what their cameras produce in
actual results. It's been awhile since I had a look at what they're up too.
And I know they evolve seemingly very quickly.
In my opinion Meade is / was stupid in making the DSI proprietary as it
would've made a good little autoguider and they could have swiped and
cornered the entire autoguider market with it. Its "driver" software is
based on Microsoft's "dot Net" technology so they may be able to easily
deploy alternative drivers automatically over any Internet connection in the
future, or at least I figure.
Best,
Jim Vineyard
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Schwartz" <fschwartz@rcn.com>
To: "Discussion of Film Astrophotography" <astro-photo@seds.org>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 8:56 AM
Subject: Re: [APML] OT? "newer" CCD cameras
> Thank you Fred and Alan. That is exactly the kind of feedback I was
> looking
> for.
> Although my evenings rarely go above 80 in the summer, I have made enough
> mistakes in my days to know not to cut corners on stuff like this. *cough*
> 201xt *cough*. :-)
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "fl.lusen" <fl.lusen@verizon.net>
> To: "Discussion of Film Astrophotography" <astro-photo@seds.org>
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 11:45 AM
> Subject: RE: [APML] OT? "newer" CCD cameras
>
>
> > Frank,
> >
> > As Alan said, they are not cooled. On of the astrophotographers in our
> > group (Texas Astronomical Society) has a DSI and gave a presentation on
> > it
> > earlier this year. It is great for solar system objects and bright DSO.
> > His concern was also the cooling, especially in the summer and in our
> > Texas
> > 105º days. At night, that can transmit to temperatures in the low 90's.
> >
> > Fred
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > I'm certain there are much better ways to do this, so please spare the
> > "this
> > $5,000 ST-999 camera is much better" lecture. The only reason I am even
> > asking about this is because it is actually within my budget. If it's
> > crap,
> > I won't bother, but if it is decent, or if there are similar priced but
> > better offerings, I'm open to suggestion. I've been wanting to try CCD
> > but
> > I just couldn't justify the cost at >$1k prices.
> >
> > thanks,
> > Frank
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Astro-Photo mailing list
> > Astro-Photo@seds.org
> > http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo
> _______________________________________________
> Astro-Photo mailing list
> Astro-Photo@seds.org
> http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo
>
_______________________________________________
Astro-Photo mailing list
Astro-Photo@seds.org
http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo