Which mono camera

I am planning within upcoming 2 months to go with a dedicated astro mono camera, and there are 2 options i ended up after a lot of reading and reviews, but still can't decide between the two.

1. ASI1600

2. QHY163

I read about both specifications, each has kind of pros and cons, and both are same mp and nearly same price, so which one?

I live in a hot humid environment, so that i get some recommendations of one above the other, but other members came to tell that both can be used in that hot humidity environment, both can have anti dew control, but one of them have it as built in which is i want, but the other is separated item for anti dew and it is more popular use with astrophotographer, so i am lost in between.

You really need to get this info in an astronomy forum that uses these type cameras alot . Check out this forum if you haven't already . You'll get the info you need .
https://stargazersloun​ge.com/?_fromLogin=1

Celestron wrote in post #18369781
You really need to get this info in an astronomy forum that uses these type cameras alot . Check out this forum if you haven't already . You'll get the info you need .
https://stargazersloun​ge.com/?_fromLogin=1

I am a member there and i asked there and another forum too, didn't get a right or clear answer, so i thought why not here as well, maybe someone is experienced here in Astronomical section can answer it.

Thanks!

There's not much between them. They are the equivalent camera from the two manufacturers using the same sensor. The ASI1600 from ZWO was on the market before the QHY so it got a bit of a head start in market share and users. ZWO seems to have a bigger fan base.
I have the ZWO color version of this camera and QHY mono camera of a different model. IMHO, the QHY camera has some technical advantages (dew heater, anti-amp glow and read buffer) which are things that QHY have had in their cameras for some time.
The ZWO has a larger user base. If you have troubles, there are more people to ask about the ZWO.
I had a problem with my ASI1600 which they confirmed the problem remotely with Teamviewer, and repaired and returned it in a few weeks to New Zealand.
I don't think you'd go wrong with either.

Steve.

SteveInNZ wrote in post #18371174
There's not much between them. They are the equivalent camera from the two manufacturers using the same sensor. The ASI1600 from ZWO was on the market before the QHY so it got a bit of a head start in market share and users. ZWO seems to have a bigger fan base.
I have the ZWO color version of this camera and QHY mono camera of a different model. IMHO, the QHY camera has some technical advantages (dew heater, anti-amp glow and read buffer) which are things that QHY have had in their cameras for some time.
The ZWO has a larger user base. If you have troubles, there are more people to ask about the ZWO.
I had a problem with my ASI1600 which they confirmed the problem remotely with Teamviewer, and repaired and returned it in a few weeks to New Zealand.
I don't think you'd go wrong with either.

Steve.

In fact i was planning to go with that QHY due to its dew heater control system and read buffer, and also somehow slightly cheaper, i didn't like that anti-dew control strip to be used on ASI1600, regardless how great and popular and more users of ZWO ASI, and because of less users that is why i asked, so maybe i thought there are issues with QHY model that more users choose ZWO over QHY.

I also asked about if i got QHY mono camera, can i use ZWO filter wheel on it or it must by from QHY as well?

Tareq wrote in post #18371683
I also asked about if i got QHY mono camera, can i use ZWO filter wheel on it or it must by from QHY as well?

Yes and maybe.
Both cameras have an internal T-thread mount and all filter wheels (ZWO, QHY, XAGYL, etc) can be mounted to an internal T-thread with a (usually provided) adapter. However, that adapter takes space. Both QHY and ZWO have a means of attaching their camera to their filter wheel directly which puts the filters closer to the sensor. Having the filters closer means you can use smaller (cheaper) filters and get comparatively less vignetting.
I haven't seen either filter wheel so I couldn't tell you if they are interchangeable at that level.
If you went for 36mm unmounted filters (not much more expensive) you would covered if you changed cameras and needed the spacing or went to a fast optical system.

Steve.

SteveInNZ wrote in post #18371769
Yes and maybe.
Both cameras have an internal T-thread mount and all filter wheels (ZWO, QHY, XAGYL, etc) can be mounted to an internal T-thread with a (usually provided) adapter. However, that adapter takes space. Both QHY and ZWO have a means of attaching their camera to their filter wheel directly which puts the filters closer to the sensor. Having the filters closer means you can use smaller (cheaper) filters and get comparatively less vignetting.
I haven't seen either filter wheel so I couldn't tell you if they are interchangeable at that level.
If you went for 36mm unmounted filters (not much more expensive) you would covered if you changed cameras and needed the spacing or went to a fast optical system.

Steve.

Thank you very much!

I think i will go with the biggest filter size, i know that is very very expensive because i will buy that most expensive filter brand [Astrodon], the filter wheel itself isn't expensive between the two sizes, but the filters are.

Tareq wrote in post #18372106
Thank you very much!

I think i will go with the biggest filter size, i know that is very very expensive because i will buy that most expensive filter brand [Astrodon], the filter wheel itself isn't expensive between the two sizes, but the filters are.

The biggest size would be 2" mounted or 50mm unmounted. That's a lot of money for filter area you aren't going to use. Your sensor has a 22mm diagonal so you'd probably be OK with 31mm and certainly OK with 36mm. The advantage of 36mm or less is you can get LRGB, Ha, Oiii and Sii all into one wheel.

Steve.

SteveInNZ wrote in post #18372162
The biggest size would be 2" mounted or 50mm unmounted. That's a lot of money for filter area you aren't going to use. Your sensor has a 22mm diagonal so you'd probably be OK with 31mm and certainly OK with 36mm. The advantage of 36mm or less is you can get LRGB, Ha, Oiii and Sii all into one wheel.

Steve.

Sorry, i was not clear in my post, i should say bigger not biggest, and that was 36mm ones, but even 36mm ones are very expensive over 1.25" or 31mm, and i asked questions about vignetting with 1.25" or 31mm unmounted in threads [not here on POTN] and i didn't get answers or not clear answers, they only telling me that if i go with faster it will not help, now how fast is fast for non vignetting, also the sensor in those cameras are much smaller than DSLR, i did attach my Canon 1DX with 3 filters attached at once all 1.25" and i saw vignetting not that much bad which can be solved, then how much bad it will be if i use one filter on those mono cameras?

At the end, whether i go with 1.25" or 36mm i have to make sure i know what to do, i will buy that 7 or 8 filter wheel at the end and that will definitely help for stacking with filters, but still not sure if i 36mm or 31mm one.

I am all new to this, but since February 2017 until today it is too much things or details i learnt about astronomy or astrophotography, i went far from my regular photography here, and i somehow started to forget about POTN since a while, but i will try to be around here as much as i can because i still choose this site as my best source for photography, and because astro/celestial is more dedicated photography so i try to go to those dedicated sites more nowadays, but i will share something here sometimes if possible and will learn from here too.

If you like math, you could work it out with a bit of trigonometry. Otherwise you can draw it out on a piece of paper.
Let's assume the fastest optical system you are likely to use is f/4. If you use 36mm filters, the difference between the sensor size and the filter size is 36-22=14mm. At f/4 the distance to the filter is 4x the diameter difference so you could have your filter up to 4 x 14 = 56mm in front of the sensor. If you used 1.25" filters (with a clear aperture of 27mm), the filter would need to be (27-22) * 4 = 20mm or less in front of the sensor.
So you can see the advantage of getting a filter wheel close to the camera.
Have a look at the two manufacturers options and see how close the filter is to the sensor. If it's less than 20mm you could use 1.25" filters if you don't go faster than f/4. There would still be some vignetting because the filter is out of focus but you can cater for that with flats.

Steve.

SteveInNZ wrote in post #18372972
If you like math, you could work it out with a bit of trigonometry. Otherwise you can draw it out on a piece of paper.
Let's assume the fastest optical system you are likely to use is f/4. If you use 36mm filters, the difference between the sensor size and the filter size is 36-22=14mm. At f/4 the distance to the filter is 4x the diameter difference so you could have your filter up to 4 x 14 = 56mm in front of the sensor. If you used 1.25" filters (with a clear aperture of 27mm), the filter would need to be (27-22) * 4 = 20mm or less in front of the sensor.
So you can see the advantage of getting a filter wheel close to the camera.
Have a look at the two manufacturers options and see how close the filter is to the sensor. If it's less than 20mm you could use 1.25" filters if you don't go faster than f/4. There would still be some vignetting because the filter is out of focus but you can cater for that with flats.

Steve.

Same answers i got recently, it is about how close or far is the filter wheel from the camera sensor, but i am not good to find out about those filter wheels, someone posted an example he did with 1.25" filter on f/4 scope, it wasn't that bad, he mentioned that he can correct it with flats or processing, also he said if he went with another wheel to give smaller spacing then it won't cause much problems, so to me it is like i will be fine, i don't think i will go with faster scope.

In the same thread i created the user/member also did images with a Canon lens, i think that image is done with the lens [600mm f4IS II] that is why it is f4, my longest prime is 300mm 2.8, so i hope that 2.8 isn't a problem, but i can always stop down or even use an extender 1.4x to make it f4, or if longer then 2x, but in all cases i have to decide one day or another, and i feel that 31mm unmounted is slightly better than 1.25", so i will go with that first.

You can always crop the image. You have 16Mp to play with so you can afford to loose a few off the sides if you need to.

Steve.

Sure that is an option too.