Astrophotoguru · Compare

cameracomparison · 2-way

ZWO ASI183MC Pro vs QHYCCD QHY183C

ZWO ASI183MC Pro
ZWO

ASI183MC Pro

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

QHYCCD QHY183C
QHYCCD

QHY183C

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

Specifications

SpecificationZWO ASI183MC ProQHYCCD QHY183C
Sensor
Typededicateddedicated
SensorSony IMX183Sony IMX183
Sensor techCMOSCMOS
Format1"1"
Sensor size13.2×8.8mm13.2×8.8mm
Diagonal15.9mm15.9mm
Pixel size2.40µm2.40µm
Resolution5496×36725544×3684
Megapixels20.2MP20.4MP
ColorYesYes
Cooling
CooledYesYes
Performance
Full well15000e⁻15000e⁻
Peak QE84%84%
Advantages of ZWO ASI183MC Pro

Closely matched on the compared specs.

Advantages of QHYCCD QHY183C

Closely matched on the compared specs.

Best for — ZWO ASI183MC Pro
  • 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 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
ZWO ASI183MC Pro — 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 — 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
ZWO ASI183MC Pro — recommended user

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

QHYCCD QHY183C — recommended user

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

Recommended alternatives