Very interesting video Kurt, well explained. I use a Player One Apollo-M MAX with the IMX 432 sensor, it's a nice camera.for solar. I saw someone here was asking if it was possible to use a reducer, yes this is possible, even Daystar themselves have a focal reducer specially made for the Quark. I have one and it enlarges the view significant . I believe it's a 0.33/0.5 reducer (0.5 native reducer and 0.33 with an extra attachment bus)
Hi Kurt, Very interesting video. I'm not much into solar imaging but your video makes it a bit more enticing. There is no doubt that the 174 is the clear winner in this case. However, I would bet the 178 would be a great planetary camera due to its smaller pixel size. That suggested 432 with a 9-micron pixel size is just insane! That would aid in a super wide field of view with a short focal length scope. I am currently amid an extended cloudy rain period ... the typical July wet weather pattern. Clear Skies.
Thanks Pat. Yes , the 178 would make a better planetary camera and good for the moon since I would not use the 4.2x barlow. That is one of the reasons I still have it. One of my best shots of the moon was using it. Someday I might do more planetary stuff if I get more free time - haha, but not now. Thanks for the video link on your advanced sequencer, I set it up to check for centering and it worked the other night. I still have to learn to create those templets, I see thy have built in ones, I guess you modify and save them. Cheers Kurt
Hey Kurt I have the 432 and its been very good with the Quark although I hear the Player One version is the best as it has a fan on it too. I also got good results with the 174mm too. You got some nice looking results there and good information.
Nice video and images Kurt. You should check out the ASI432MM - - your setup with 432 would improve to 0.74"/pixel. The 432's resolution on my SW72ED is 1.05"/pixel. The 432 shipped from AA with a free ZWO tilt adapter included. CS & GB!
Hello there, I wanted to share a couple of thoughts as I have both camera too and also for solar imaging (that's also how and why I found your camera). I am a bit direct in my answers but I like your channel, so don't take it the wrong way, we are in that field/hobby to progress together ! 6:08 that's not an apple to apple comparison, 2.4MP vs 6.4MP you can't compare the fps for the full sensor. At 1080p, the 178M does 120 fps and the 174M does 186 fps. So yep, the 174M is indeed much faster, but the 178M is not ridiculously slow either. Anything above 60-80 fps is already very good. I agree the reason to chose between the two cameras depend of your setup and your critical samplilng in Ha. Those cameras simply don't target the same setups. The 178M is however probably as sensitive (if not more) in terms of dynamic range and full well as with the high res of the 178M, you can easily do a bin x 2 and you ends up with 60k full well and probably around 13-14 DR (without bin, 12.7 DR). The sensor analysis tool of sharpcap is very useful in that aspect. 16:06 indeed you have newton rings and need a tilt adjuster but moreover, you are largely over exposed. A "good" histogram in solar imaging is anywhere between 75 and 85-90%; never more, including in case of solar flare where it's gonna saturate completely your signal. Example, I was at 75% histogram and look at the flare I captured, already saturated : ua-cam.com/users/shorts8Gki_Gzj71E But long story short : both cameras are good, I do think your image comparison is not fair as the images are not exposed in the same way. If you wish I can send you an image taken with a 178M and a Lunt 40 (so the tinyest scope you can find) at critical sampling and I have a much better resolution / sharpness. I see that you are using a Quark; the 178M critically sample Ha at F10; at 3.59 you mention that with the Quark you are at F31.5, so you are oversampling 3x, hence there is no way to get a sharp image. On the contrary, with the 174M, you critically sample around F22.. so you are over sampling, but only 1.5x, hence much sharper image. Having said all of that, I prefer the 174M but because of the higher fps and because they are easier to use with Quarks (and their telecentric 4.2x multiplier). A 178M is really not suitable with a quark, unless you use a 0.33x reducer after the quark. Solar imaging is however fantastic. It's incredible the dynamics we can capture realtime, it's unlike any other celestial objects, including planets, where most things are static due to long distance
Thanks for the extensive comments. Wow, your immages are fantastic - I would put you in the solar expert catagory. I agree with most of your assessment. I did not mean to imply the 178 was not a good camara (sorry if I did), in fact my best image of the moon was with it. I just wanted to do an experiment, or trial, to confirm what you pretty much stated in your second to last sentence. That is the 174 is a much better fit for a setup that uses the Quark. Cheers
Great vid comparing these 2 cameras. I got the 178 because is was much more affordable but have been wondering how much better the 174 would be now that I can upgrade. I use an Explore Scientific ar-102 with daystar quark. Thanks for the info. I think you just helped me seal this deal.
Great video - good technical knowledge presented ! I agree with the comment by @astrodysseus and his points. I would also suggest to check your quark and try different settings ( the knob move 5 position clockwise and another 5 anticlockwise 0.1A /click ) I own lunt 60 mm and quark on 102 mm and from my own experience the washed out details of the surface on your pictures are indicating your quark is off band. Regardless of seeing conditions , you should get much more definition of the chromosphere futures with your setup. Fantastic work overall. Thank you .
Very interesting video Kurt, well explained. I use a Player One Apollo-M MAX with the IMX 432 sensor, it's a nice camera.for solar.
I saw someone here was asking if it was possible to use a reducer, yes this is possible, even Daystar themselves have a focal reducer specially made for the Quark. I have one and it enlarges the view significant . I believe it's a 0.33/0.5 reducer (0.5 native reducer and 0.33 with an extra attachment bus)
Cool Siegfried, thanks for the info, I may look into that myself! Cheers Kurt
Hi Kurt,
Very interesting video. I'm not much into solar imaging but your video makes it a bit more enticing. There is no doubt that the 174 is the clear winner in this case. However, I would bet the 178 would be a great planetary camera due to its smaller pixel size. That suggested 432 with a 9-micron pixel size is just insane! That would aid in a super wide field of view with a short focal length scope.
I am currently amid an extended cloudy rain period ... the typical July wet weather pattern.
Clear Skies.
Thanks Pat. Yes , the 178 would make a better planetary camera and good for the moon since I would not use the 4.2x barlow. That is one of the reasons I still have it. One of my best shots of the moon was using it. Someday I might do more planetary stuff if I get more free time - haha, but not now.
Thanks for the video link on your advanced sequencer, I set it up to check for centering and it worked the other night. I still have to learn to create those templets, I see thy have built in ones, I guess you modify and save them. Cheers Kurt
Hey Kurt I have the 432 and its been very good with the Quark although I hear the Player One version is the best as it has a fan on it too. I also got good results with the 174mm too. You got some nice looking results there and good information.
Thanks. Also, thanks for the info about the 432 and Player One! Cheers
Nice video and images Kurt. You should check out the ASI432MM - - your setup with 432 would improve to 0.74"/pixel. The 432's resolution on my SW72ED is 1.05"/pixel. The 432 shipped from AA with a free ZWO tilt adapter included. CS & GB!
Cool, thanks for the info. Cheers Kurt
Great video! I use the ZWO462mm with my Lunt40mm and get great results with and with out a barlow.
Thanks Joel! The 462 with the Lunt40mm sounds like an awesome setup. Cheers
Nice video. Well done
Thank you very much Craig! Cheers
Hello there, I wanted to share a couple of thoughts as I have both camera too and also for solar imaging (that's also how and why I found your camera). I am a bit direct in my answers but I like your channel, so don't take it the wrong way, we are in that field/hobby to progress together !
6:08 that's not an apple to apple comparison, 2.4MP vs 6.4MP you can't compare the fps for the full sensor. At 1080p, the 178M does 120 fps and the 174M does 186 fps. So yep, the 174M is indeed much faster, but the 178M is not ridiculously slow either. Anything above 60-80 fps is already very good.
I agree the reason to chose between the two cameras depend of your setup and your critical samplilng in Ha. Those cameras simply don't target the same setups.
The 178M is however probably as sensitive (if not more) in terms of dynamic range and full well as with the high res of the 178M, you can easily do a bin x 2 and you ends up with 60k full well and probably around 13-14 DR (without bin, 12.7 DR). The sensor analysis tool of sharpcap is very useful in that aspect.
16:06 indeed you have newton rings and need a tilt adjuster but moreover, you are largely over exposed. A "good" histogram in solar imaging is anywhere between 75 and 85-90%; never more, including in case of solar flare where it's gonna saturate completely your signal. Example, I was at 75% histogram and look at the flare I captured, already saturated : ua-cam.com/users/shorts8Gki_Gzj71E
But long story short : both cameras are good, I do think your image comparison is not fair as the images are not exposed in the same way. If you wish I can send you an image taken with a 178M and a Lunt 40 (so the tinyest scope you can find) at critical sampling and I have a much better resolution / sharpness. I see that you are using a Quark; the 178M critically sample Ha at F10; at 3.59 you mention that with the Quark you are at F31.5, so you are oversampling 3x, hence there is no way to get a sharp image. On the contrary, with the 174M, you critically sample around F22.. so you are over sampling, but only 1.5x, hence much sharper image.
Having said all of that, I prefer the 174M but because of the higher fps and because they are easier to use with Quarks (and their telecentric 4.2x multiplier). A 178M is really not suitable with a quark, unless you use a 0.33x reducer after the quark.
Solar imaging is however fantastic. It's incredible the dynamics we can capture realtime, it's unlike any other celestial objects, including planets, where most things are static due to long distance
Thanks for the extensive comments. Wow, your immages are fantastic - I would put you in the solar expert catagory. I agree with most of your assessment. I did not mean to imply the 178 was not a good camara (sorry if I did), in fact my best image of the moon was with it. I just wanted to do an experiment, or trial, to confirm what you pretty much stated in your second to last sentence. That is the 174 is a much better fit for a setup that uses the Quark. Cheers
Very interesting thanks :)
Thanks Andy, Glad you enjoyed it!
Great vid comparing these 2 cameras. I got the 178 because is was much more affordable but have been wondering how much better the 174 would be now that I can upgrade. I use an Explore Scientific ar-102 with daystar quark. Thanks for the info. I think you just helped me seal this deal.
Glad I could help! If you are using the Quark, the 174 is a better choice. Good Luck. Cheers
Great video - good technical knowledge presented ! I agree with the comment by @astrodysseus and his points. I would also suggest to check your quark and try different settings ( the knob move 5 position clockwise and another 5 anticlockwise 0.1A /click ) I own lunt 60 mm and quark on 102 mm and from my own experience the washed out details of the surface on your pictures are indicating your quark is off band. Regardless of seeing conditions , you should get much more definition of the chromosphere futures with your setup. Fantastic work overall. Thank you .
Thanks Bart, I'll play with the knob to see how it affects the surface detail. Cheers
Very good video 😃!
I have a question......Can you use a focal reducer to photograph the sun?
Thank you very much 😊😊😊.
Thanks! Don't see why not, you can use a barlow. Cheers
Only after the Quark, otherwise its gonna fry as the endcap. But then you will have Barlow + Focal reducer, no sense. I wouldn't use it
A while ago I read that a person used a focal reducer to take images of the entire solar disk. Excuse my English 😔.
@@anacal8871 Yes, you for sure can with a dedicated solar scope like a Lunt. I am not so sure it works with an eyepiece filter such as a Quark. Cheers