Quote:
Originally Posted by glend
Yeah, i admit i don't understand the reason behind it, i assumed it was because of his light pollution situation. And we all know about assuming......
Glad to hear about the camera news. A novice like me needs all the experienced help he can get. I am sure you will enjoy it.
|
Might just be so they can compare its performance using more traditional sub lengths? I dunno.
Cheers mate, I sure hope I do enjoy it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atmos
Just did some quick calculations, the difference between the 1600 and the 694 (674 as well as it is just a smaller version) with 3nm narrowband filters is negligible. The 1600 has lower read noise at gain 0 (3.6e- vs the 4.8e- I get) but also has smaller pixels (3.8 vs 4.54 microns) and a lower QE. Both cameras will require the same amount of time to reach read noise limited under the same situations, with the 1600 at gain 0.
|
Not sure if it's me just misinterpreting your wording or if there's a misunderstanding, but you start off read noise limited and increase sub length to try and overcome that, rather than "reaching" it.
It's also a bit hard to compare the performance of those cameras based off numbers alone because we still don't know the absolute QE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by glend
|
That's good news!