QHY8 Cooled CCD Camera

This is for all you serious DSO imagers......

Question: Does this particular camera the QHY8, look too good to be true?

modernastronomy.com/camerasCooled.html

In some reviews I checked out, it seemed to compare favourably with similar cameras at about 3 to 4 times the cost.

Seems OK. The QE is average.

The only concerns I would have are the shape of the chip (rectangular), the lack of any data on the cooling efficiency of the imager and the apparent lack of software (other than "plug-ins").

I'd be a bit wary of powering the imager from a battery - it might take a lot of amps. If you're also powering a mount and a dew heater from the same battery, you may run out pretty quick. If I was buying this, I'd opt for the power supply - an extra 30 sterling.

For the price, I'd definately do a comparison with other imagers.

FWIW

Dave

Steve, If The Q8 is anything like it's baby brother the Q-Guider, it will be the bees knees. I've read lots of great things about this on the CCD-Labs yahoo group. (basically CCD labs repackage the QHY8 as the Q453). You should join it and read all about it. I also read that they have a new range of cameras coming out in the new year. Some have been announced on the list.

See here for more info, different name same camera.

www.ccd-labs.com/Qseries/q453.htm

Dave Mc: Why would a rectangular chip worry you?

Dave Mc: Why would a rectangular chip worry you?

I always had to convert images in MaximDL - it seems to bring them in as square images - I then had to manipulate them with a script to get them back to the correct shape (and do a CMY convert too...). It was just an extra processing step that bugged me.

I would also have thought a square chip is always better iluminated in an imaging train than a rectangular chip. With a rectangular chip, surely you would either lose some valuable silicon real estate (if portions of the chip were not exposed) or you lose some photons (that don't even hit the chip).

Of course, that mightn't be a big deal - it would just make me personally think twice with a chip as big as the one in the imager described. Smaller rectangular chips, fair enough.

I think you mena square pixels Dave Mc rather than a square chip??

I think you mena square pixels Dave Mc rather than a square chip??

Michael,

I am 100% certain this is it ... we all want square pixels. My ST-2000XM, for example, has 7.4 micron square pixels. Starlight Xpress has at least one model with non-square pixels.