|
Lower modes on a DSLR are simply smaller files. I don't know that any DSLR does binning. May be they do.
With a CCD 2x2 binning on most CCDs (not all) means a big boost in signal to noise ratio but it comes at a cost of lower resolution.
An 8 inch Newt around F8 should work well with the KAF8300 sensor which is in many cameras and has 5.4 micron pixels. 8 inch F8 is 1600mm focal length which is getting quite long.
The Sony ICX694 sensor is 6mp and 4.54 microns but considerably more sensitive than the KAF8300 and much lower noise. But a bit smaller in physical size. Its also an excellent match for your Newt.
DSLRs - Canon or the Sony would be the go I imagine. Canon has dominated for ages. But as their newer models get more and more pixels and their underlying architecture of their chips does not basically change you are getting noisier chips and less detail in the shadows. Sony excels there -Sony Exmor CMOS sensors are arguably the best on the market.
I could be corrected here but I think the earlier Canon EOS cameras may be a bit better than their later DSLRs for telescope imaging.
Not sure where they peaked but I'd say it was a few years ago now.
Sony A7s or A7 would be hard to beat. Sony though don't do a true 16 bit RAW they do a compressed 14 bit RAW which in 99% of cases makes no difference but nevertheless they do compress their RAWs and its worth knowing. Usually that shows up only in skies that are heavily pushed in processing. But as you push deep sky images I wonder if that will show up.
If you are imaging at F8 200mm = 1600mm focal length you will need bigger pixels. The old Canon 5D would be ideal. I think they are around 9 micron pixels much like the more expensive larger CCDs we use.
I get the idea NZ has reasonable seeing - is that right?
Greg.
|