Astrophotoguru · Compare

cameracomparison · 2-way

QHYCCD QHY183C vs QHYCCD QHY183M

QHYCCD QHY183C
QHYCCD

QHY183C

A strong fit for dedicated deep-sky imagers pairing with longer focal lengths where framing is tight.

QHYCCD QHY183M
QHYCCD

QHY183M

A strong fit for dedicated deep-sky imagers pairing with longer focal lengths where framing is tight.

Key differences

Color vs mono

Specifications

SpecificationQHYCCD QHY183CQHYCCD QHY183M
Sensor
Typededicateddedicated
SensorSony IMX183Sony IMX183
Sensor techCMOSCMOS
Format1"1"
Sensor size13.2×8.8mm13.2×8.8mm
Diagonal15.9mm15.9mm
Pixel size2.40µm2.40µm
Resolution5544×36845544×3684
Megapixels20.4MP20.4MP
ColorYesNo
Cooling
CooledYesYes
Performance
Full well15000e⁻15000e⁻
Peak QE84%84%
Advantages of QHYCCD QHY183C
  • One-shot color — simpler workflow
Advantages of QHYCCD QHY183M
  • Mono sensor — ideal for narrowband and LRGB
Best for — QHYCCD QHY183C
  • Longer focal lengths — tighter framing on small targets
  • Planetary and lunar high-resolution imaging
  • Long-exposure deep-sky under any sky
  • One-shot color — quick results, less processing
Best for — QHYCCD QHY183M
  • Longer focal lengths — tighter framing on small targets
  • Planetary and lunar high-resolution imaging
  • Long-exposure deep-sky under any sky
  • Narrowband and LRGB workflows
QHYCCD QHY183C — typical FOV & scale
  • On 250mm refractor (wide)
    FOV: 3.03° × 2.02°Scale: 1.98"/px
  • On 800mm SCT reducer
    FOV: 0.95° × 0.63°Scale: 0.62"/px
  • On 2000mm SCT native
    FOV: 0.38° × 0.25°Scale: 0.25"/px
QHYCCD QHY183M — typical FOV & scale
  • On 250mm refractor (wide)
    FOV: 3.03° × 2.02°Scale: 1.98"/px
  • On 800mm SCT reducer
    FOV: 0.95° × 0.63°Scale: 0.62"/px
  • On 2000mm SCT native
    FOV: 0.38° × 0.25°Scale: 0.25"/px
QHYCCD QHY183C — recommended user

A strong fit for dedicated deep-sky imagers pairing with longer focal lengths where framing is tight.

QHYCCD QHY183M — recommended user

A strong fit for dedicated deep-sky imagers pairing with longer focal lengths where framing is tight.

Recommended alternatives