Good information. This seems to be the monochrome version CMOS chip from Sony that you can find on Fuji XT3 and XT4, among others, for a few years. Technically, you could do more than 3 fps, it’s a matter of buffer and storage speed. But that would increase the price significantly. Oh, and when comparing QE percentages, don’t say there’s 31% difference between a 91% QE and a 60% QE, that’s 31 points difference.
the 2600mc is already available. The mm we are hoping within the next 2-3 weeks. We will make an announcement on our social media channels once it's available. Be sure to follow us if you aren't alreadyy
thanks for the update, but it's a little disingenuous to say that it has a QE of 91%. That's like saying that "people are 7ft tall" because you saw some guy at a basketball game.
th-cam.com/video/7OiEMphnYm0/w-d-xo.html is that really true ? of course if we capture full resolution, the 2600 will be much slower, but at equivalent resolution (eg ROI 640x480) they may perform about the same ? In planetary imaging, unless imaging the moon.. we are always cropping like crazy and using ROI, so it's more a question of data bandwidth of those camera... which I think is not so different ?
You can lower your resolution and your bit depth which can squeeze out some more frames per second but with the low price point of planetary cameras like the 120, you might as well go with something that's dedicated for planetary.
@@OPTTelescopes yep sure. My point was just that this camera could probably be useful also for planetary images, but of course that shouldn’t be the main usage considering the high price point in comparison of a 290mm at $300 that would perform as good for planetary. Still.. it’s good to know that a camera could be used in different scenario
cool stuff, but yall killing me out here not rotating the 'framing' on orion in stellarium the proper way while showing the preview... brain hurts looking at it framed that way...
would be good for a full review on the frame rate for the asi2600mm, the documents shows about 13fps at 1920x1080 and 19fps for 1280x720 which is a suitable res for planets,but these are at maximum bitrate,droping the bitrate will increase fps aswell as binning .. i woudn't pick either for planetary imaging but i have no doubts that the 2600mm could do better then 3 fps on a detailed moon shot. will be intresting to see a shoot out aswell with the 90 qe vs 60qe for some of these dim planets, saturn,uranus ectt, the higher qe alone is worth the upgrade aswell as the sensor size, it's pretty hard to correct full frame, especially for fast scopes and any full frame cooled astro camera is over $6 k aud , it's a nice middle gound especially if you already had the asi1600 for some time and i won't say suffer but ''worked around'' it's flaws , ie micro lensing,the horshead is an avoid at all cost with it..lol., and dew problems can be a pain with the 1600.
Hey Mack, Awesome video. Have you guys already done a video of the ASI 294 vs the ASI 2600? From quantum efficiency and well depth perspective... the 294 and 2600 compete a little closer to one another than 1600 does? Curious to hear your thoughts. Thanks Mack! --DJ
Don't worry, the 1600 is still an AMAZING camera and will take you far. You made a good choice. We would recommend going with bigger filters (36mm) incase you decide to upgrade in the future to a bigger sensor like the 2600, you can still use your same filter wheel and filters.
You should have waited until you had one. Just reading out specs is not very useful. We need comparison images of the same target with same subs etc. Although you mentioned needing filters, you did not say what size. I’m guessing 36mm to avoid vignette game but you should know and tell us. The over/under sampling thing is always exaggerated and fairly irrelevant and does anyone actually bin anymore? This is the first video I’ve watched from your channel and I hope others will be better and more useful.
Wow! You guys never did a review like this on the MC 2600 pro..... In fact, nobody did. I pulled the trigger on a 2k camera with poor to no reviews and based on specs only. My take, it didn't disappoint. Good thing I dont ride the fad wave.
I would love to see an actual comparisons between similar shots of each camera instead of just math. I suspect the human eye would not be able to tell them apart resulting in less sales of the 2600.
you're thinking about area of the pixel, 1x1 pixel is 3.76 um hieght x 3.76 width, we simply measure the outside diamentions , put 2 pixel together, 2 hieght and 2 width you have 4 pixels as one, this is 2x2 bining, it will be 7.52um hieght x 7.52um width, you also only lose 50% resolution in 2x2 bining because it's only taking away one pixel horizontally and pairing it together and 1 pixel verticaly and pairing it together , the light captured will be 4x more per "super pixel" in theory.
Just wondering if I can still get by with my 1.25" filters. Seems like I would need at least 31mm to go with this sensor over the 1600 which can take the smaller size.
So with the 2600 sensor, we highly recommend a 36mm or bigger filter to not have to vignette in your image. You MIGHT be able to try something smaller but just know you will have dark edges. Getting bigger filters though isn't a bad idea for it future proofs yourself for bigger sensors you might have in the future.
Thank you so much. That means a lot. Learning the specs and how they can help you we feel is important information to know. Unfortunately learning technical specs can be tough for people to understand, so we do our best to simplify it so that everyone can pick it up. :)
1. The bigger sensor needs bigger filter diameter (at least 36mm) in order to avoid vignetting. So change from 1600 to 2600 will makes some extra cost (new filter set, and filter wheels) 2. At 5:36 is there any sense to put side by side an absolute and relative QE% graph? 3. For planetary you can use cropping and the frame rate will be in a healthy range.
1. You are very much correct. Thank you for that information. 36mm filters or bigger is highly recommended. 2. Its useful information people will hopefully want to see. It's also the only graphs that ZWO has provided. 3. You can use a smaller resolution on the sensor for more frames per second and squeeze out a few more FPS and you can drop your bit depth down as well, That being said, with the price point of some of the other ZWO cameras like the 120, its much better just to get yourself a planetary camera. Thank you for your insight
Keep in mind that talking about "more resolution" is a false statement, as image sampling is pretty much the same (3.76 vs 3.8 pixel size): what you really get with 2600 is a wider field of view, due to sensor size. Apart from this, people could also think that using a 1600 sensor will lead them to lose 31% of the incoming light, but in real world usage in the field, the 2600 efficiency is only marginally better: the comparison shown in the video is misleading (relative % vs absolute). Last but not least, people should also consider that the ASI 1600 sensor can be calibrated pretty well, and the 2600 sensor still needs dark frames as well. Just food for thought ;)
I think I will stick with 294mm for now. It has 4.63 microns pixel size ( I use it in 2 * 2 binning ), so 9.2 vs 7.x microns, 90% vs 91% qe, 13 stops vs 13.5 stops dynamic range, 14 bit vs 16 bit, similar noise levels, fps is lot higher 16.3 vs 3.51... 16 bit is slightly better. But, I think I am good
Stellar video Mack!! Super interesting and wonderful presentation. Keep these coming
Thank you so much Helena! Means a lot coming from a superstar like yourself.
BOT
Great job on all of the sound design. Liked all of the subtile details to make this video pop. Lots of work went into this.
Thank you so much that really means a lot!
I upgraded, kept the 1600 and love both.
Another great video by OPT!
Thank you very much Stacey!!! You Rock!
Good information. This seems to be the monochrome version CMOS chip from Sony that you can find on Fuji XT3 and XT4, among others, for a few years. Technically, you could do more than 3 fps, it’s a matter of buffer and storage speed. But that would increase the price significantly. Oh, and when comparing QE percentages, don’t say there’s 31% difference between a 91% QE and a 60% QE, that’s 31 points difference.
Exactly my sentiments
Great video, I learned a lot.
I don't believe you Chuck! 😂
Coming from you, that really means a lot!
I'm using a 533MC-Pro and love it, but really want to try a monochrome camera.... Plus the FOV is much smaller on the 533... Thanks
Super informative, thank you!
Thank you very much, glad it helped
Hello good afternoon, if I have a newton 250Quattro F4 that zwo filter wheel size I would recommend for the 2600mm?
So informative!
Also, any update on when the 2600MM or MC will be available ? :) Thanks
the 2600mc is already available. The mm we are hoping within the next 2-3 weeks. We will make an announcement on our social media channels once it's available. Be sure to follow us if you aren't alreadyy
I heard a few folks saying the 2600 has to be cleaned as there is a oil coating on the sensor. Any word on this
We have not heard anything on the topic
Does the 1600 still have issues? or have they been resolved with the sensor? Thanks.
do not buy the 1600mm buy the QHY 294m pro . The 1600 sensor has microlensing issues on bright stars and halos around bright stars.
@@ACEOFSPACE2000 Thanks Mack!!
thanks for the update, but it's a little disingenuous to say that it has a QE of 91%. That's like saying that "people are 7ft tall" because you saw some guy at a basketball game.
th-cam.com/video/7OiEMphnYm0/w-d-xo.html is that really true ? of course if we capture full resolution, the 2600 will be much slower, but at equivalent resolution (eg ROI 640x480) they may perform about the same ? In planetary imaging, unless imaging the moon.. we are always cropping like crazy and using ROI, so it's more a question of data bandwidth of those camera... which I think is not so different ?
You can lower your resolution and your bit depth which can squeeze out some more frames per second but with the low price point of planetary cameras like the 120, you might as well go with something that's dedicated for planetary.
@@OPTTelescopes yep sure. My point was just that this camera could probably be useful also for planetary images, but of course that shouldn’t be the main usage considering the high price point in comparison of a 290mm at $300 that would perform as good for planetary. Still.. it’s good to know that a camera could be used in different scenario
Damn that's impressive! Would love to purchase one after I win the lottery
May the odds be ever in your favor.
One of the best presentations on what makes these specs worthwhile that I've seen!
Thank you so much! im so glad it helped!
At the end of the day you can't tell if a deep sky image was taken by a 1600 or a 2600.
well....for video stacking, one can still ROI the 2600 and then FPS go up significantly
So 1600 actually has higher QE around 656nm where H-alpha filters work?
cool stuff, but yall killing me out here not rotating the 'framing' on orion in stellarium the proper way while showing the preview... brain hurts looking at it framed that way...
This was quick, concise, well explained to even the non experts. Well done
Wow that looks awesome!!!
Thank you so much Amy! That means a lot!
In terms of quantum efficiency. The charts tell a different story than the numbers you mention. A little bit confusing
would be good for a full review on the frame rate for the asi2600mm, the documents shows about 13fps at 1920x1080 and 19fps for 1280x720 which is a suitable res for planets,but these are at maximum bitrate,droping the bitrate will increase fps aswell as binning .. i woudn't pick either for planetary imaging but i have no doubts that the 2600mm could do better then 3 fps on a detailed moon shot. will be intresting to see a shoot out aswell with the 90 qe vs 60qe for some of these dim planets, saturn,uranus ectt, the higher qe alone is worth the upgrade aswell as the sensor size, it's pretty hard to correct full frame, especially for fast scopes and any full frame cooled astro camera is over $6 k aud , it's a nice middle gound especially if you already had the asi1600 for some time and i won't say suffer but ''worked around'' it's flaws , ie micro lensing,the horshead is an avoid at all cost with it..lol., and dew problems can be a pain with the 1600.
Time to upload a new video 294mm pro vs 2600mm pro? 📷
Nice camera and love the decorated room :-)
Thanks! adding a bit of flare really adds to the room :)
Such good info. OPT is the best
Thank you so much!
Excellent video, thanks
Hey Mack, Awesome video. Have you guys already done a video of the ASI 294 vs the ASI 2600? From quantum efficiency and well depth perspective... the 294 and 2600 compete a little closer to one another than 1600 does? Curious to hear your thoughts. Thanks Mack! --DJ
My same question. Has this comparison been done? I am currently debating both.
Nooooooooooo, I just bought a 1600MM Pro. 😭😭😭
Great choose,1600mm or mc , is great camera, this new camera will have issues, because it is now camera.
Don't worry, the 1600 is still an AMAZING camera and will take you far. You made a good choice. We would recommend going with bigger filters (36mm) incase you decide to upgrade in the future to a bigger sensor like the 2600, you can still use your same filter wheel and filters.
@@OPTTelescopes that’s partly why I went with the 36mm filters too. I didn’t want to have to pay again in a few years. :) Good advice though.
You should have waited until you had one. Just reading out specs is not very useful. We need comparison images of the same target with same subs etc. Although you mentioned needing filters, you did not say what size. I’m guessing 36mm to avoid vignette game but you should know and tell us. The over/under sampling thing is always exaggerated and fairly irrelevant and does anyone actually bin anymore? This is the first video I’ve watched from your channel and I hope others will be better and more useful.
At 4:55 they mention that a full well will spill into neighboring pixels. This is not true for CMOS but is for CCD (and both the 1600/2600 are CMOS)
Excellent video Mack! Really looking forward to the next one!
Thank you so much! Just trying to help the community
Bought my asi2600mm through OPT a month back, still on back order though. The Asi2600mc i have now, hope to compare soon.
Wow! You guys never did a review like this on the MC 2600 pro..... In fact, nobody did. I pulled the trigger on a 2k camera with poor to no reviews and based on specs only. My take, it didn't disappoint. Good thing I dont ride the fad wave.
Definitely worth upgrading Mack! Good presentation!
We would agree!
What a great comparison Mack. Loved it.
Thank you so much!
I would love to see an actual comparisons between similar shots of each camera instead of just math. I suspect the human eye would not be able to tell them apart resulting in less sales of the 2600.
Excellent review, Matt. Very helpful. TY.
Great job on this one Mack! All the info I was looking for, presented simply and clearly.
Great video OPT!!
Thank you so much! So glad you enjoyed it
:( no one talks about planetary >:(
unattractive yet extremely clear and informative :)
Would a 2x2 bin make it a 15.04 um size pixel? Seems 2x1 bin would be a 7.52 um . I must be missing something
you're thinking about area of the pixel, 1x1 pixel is 3.76 um hieght x 3.76 width, we simply measure the outside diamentions , put 2 pixel together, 2 hieght and 2 width you have 4 pixels as one, this is 2x2 bining, it will be 7.52um hieght x 7.52um width, you also only lose 50% resolution in 2x2 bining because it's only taking away one pixel horizontally and pairing it together and 1 pixel verticaly and pairing it together , the light captured will be 4x more per "super pixel" in theory.
Great presentation; really helpful.
Just wondering if I can still get by with my 1.25" filters. Seems like I would need at least 31mm to go with this sensor over the 1600 which can take the smaller size.
So with the 2600 sensor, we highly recommend a 36mm or bigger filter to not have to vignette in your image. You MIGHT be able to try something smaller but just know you will have dark edges. Getting bigger filters though isn't a bad idea for it future proofs yourself for bigger sensors you might have in the future.
Any word on the filter size needed with the 2600? Will the 1.25 inch filter be good enough?
Unfortunately, it's not recommended. You can use them but you will have a good amount of vignetting. We would recommend 36mm filters or higher.
Really great explanation on how every spec affects performance, thank you!
Great information 👍🏼 Have a 1600 for years with great results and just received my order for the 2600 this week 😊 So ready for clear skies!
The 1600 is still an amazing camera and will take anyone far. But the 2600 is a pretty big upgrade in our opinion.
You guys are the best!
Excellent video - good information and explanations of some basic CMOS definitions!
Thank you so much. That means a lot. Learning the specs and how they can help you we feel is important information to know. Unfortunately learning technical specs can be tough for people to understand, so we do our best to simplify it so that everyone can pick it up. :)
Very nice video!!
1. The bigger sensor needs bigger filter diameter (at least 36mm) in order to avoid vignetting. So change from 1600 to 2600 will makes some extra cost (new filter set, and filter wheels)
2. At 5:36 is there any sense to put side by side an absolute and relative QE% graph?
3. For planetary you can use cropping and the frame rate will be in a healthy range.
1. You are very much correct. Thank you for that information. 36mm filters or bigger is highly recommended.
2. Its useful information people will hopefully want to see. It's also the only graphs that ZWO has provided.
3. You can use a smaller resolution on the sensor for more frames per second and squeeze out a few more FPS and you can drop your bit depth down as well, That being said, with the price point of some of the other ZWO cameras like the 120, its much better just to get yourself a planetary camera.
Thank you for your insight
Keep in mind that talking about "more resolution" is a false statement, as image sampling is pretty much the same (3.76 vs 3.8 pixel size): what you really get with 2600 is a wider field of view, due to sensor size. Apart from this, people could also think that using a 1600 sensor will lead them to lose 31% of the incoming light, but in real world usage in the field, the 2600 efficiency is only marginally better: the comparison shown in the video is misleading (relative % vs absolute). Last but not least, people should also consider that the ASI 1600 sensor can be calibrated pretty well, and the 2600 sensor still needs dark frames as well. Just food for thought ;)
I sooo don’t regret snagging one of these bad boys on the last day of preorder!
Such an amazing camera
Damnit! now I want one
Why have 1.... when you can have.... 1 million.....
Really cool video
Thank you very much!
I had to put this comment using my computer because when I destroyed that like button, I broke my phone.
To bad you never mentioned that the asi 1600 sensor is not AR coated and causes halos around bright stars and microlensing artifacts on bright stars.
I think I will stick with 294mm for now. It has 4.63 microns pixel size ( I use it in 2 * 2 binning ), so 9.2 vs 7.x microns, 90% vs 91% qe, 13 stops vs 13.5 stops dynamic range, 14 bit vs 16 bit, similar noise levels, fps is lot higher 16.3 vs 3.51...
16 bit is slightly better. But, I think I am good
The 294 is an amazing camera that will take you far! That's a good camera to stick with.