I have an opportunity to buy a never been used, still in the box ST-10. Is there a downside to buying a camera that has sat around unused for years? Or should it be as good as the day it was purchased? Larry
Hi Larry, that's a pretty old camera with an very good to excellent CCD sensor. You can find the software and manuals here: https://diffractionlimited.com/legacy-product-support/ If you want to send me a PM with the serial number, I might be able to provide some additional info. There were some industrial ones (not self-guiding), and some with special sensor coatings etc. If it is not a USB version (eg XME or XE), you'll have a tough time getting it going. The parallel port ones might still work on an old Windows XP computer with a real parallel port, but not much software will support it, other than the stuff on the page above. The electrolytic capacitors degrade over time, and so the power supply will often fail or be a bit weak/ripply. Our @Bill has a handful of brand-new power supplies that will likely work with that camera. Bill might suggest doing a tune-up on it, especially if it sat for a long time. It's a great candidate for an "eyeball transplant". The details are here: https://diffractionlimited.com/sensor-transplant-service/ You could upgrade it to an STF-3200 or Aluma U3200.
Colin, where are the electrolytic capacitors you mentioned located - in the power supply or the camera? Larry
Colin, I was able to borrow the camera in question. I took a bias and a dark at -6.7C in my office so no light or flat. There is significant horizontal banding that is not in my camera using the same power supply. See attached. Is this fixable or should I avoid this camera?
Hey @Bill can you take a look at these FITS and comment for Larry? I think some may subtract out, but I really think the camera could use a bit of service. It's not horrible... but it could be better.
Every time a took another bias or dark the banding pattern was a little different. Would it still subtractout by the time there were masters? Should I send Bill these images for his opinion? Larry
Bill is on the forum and can have a look. It looks like noise to me, and the cause is mostly in camera I think. If you want to contact him direct - his email and direct phone are here: https://diffractionlimited.com/support/ Or call our office and I can transfer you through. BTW the camera wasn't at temperature yet. I recommend CCDOPs or MaxIm for these kind of tests BTW.
I've seen them. It's very subtle. I wouldn't be surprised if it came out of Production this way. My guess would be the ccd. -Bill
The ripples are less than 2 ADU. The read noise is at 8 ADU. So what you're seeing is at 1/4 the amplitude of the read noise. The human eye is spectacular at picking up patterns - to the point of seeing patterns when there aren't any! But yes these are certainly real. I agree with Bill that it probably was like this when it was first built. My suspicion is a little bit of random noise on a power supply or something. Since the pattern is random it will get averaged out by stacking. Not ideal but it is not large, and very far from a show-stopper.
