View Single Post
  #7  
Old 19-12-2018, 09:48 AM
Jasp05 (Aaron)
Registered User

Jasp05 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Rockhampton
Posts: 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickS View Post
Either camera would be a reasonable choice.

The ASI1600mm would have an image scale of 2.2 arcsec/pixel and a FOV of 2.84x2.14 degrees.

The ASI183mc would have an image scale of 1.39 arcsec/pixel and a FOV of 2.12x1.42 degrees.

(I have a spreadsheet but you can find formulae for determining image scale etc at http://www.wilmslowastro.com/software/formulae.htm)

ASI1600mm thoughts: wider field and lower resolution, more expensive but has the option of doing narrow band in future, mono processing arguably has a slightly steeper learning curve, image scale will be forgiving of bad seeing and less than perfect guiding. Will be fast enough to do short subs (maybe 30 to 120 secs?)

ASI183mc thoughts: smaller field and higher resolution, image scale still OK for typical seeing and not too demanding on guiding. Will be quite a lot slower than the ASI1600mm due to smaller pixel size and lower QE (84% is peak mono QE but you're imaging through a Bayer matrix and only getting 1/3 of the photons in each pixel.) Will still be OK for shortish subs due to low read noise but not as short as ASI1600mm.

My spreadsheet suggests that the ASI1600mm will collect luminance about 5 times faster than the ASI183mc. The difference is less for colour filters... more like 2 times.

Cheers,
Rick.
Thanks Rick. I must admit I'd be interested in having a peek at your spreadsheet if you wouldn't mind sharing it.

Would definately like to know how you estimate how long it would take to collect that luminance / colour data between cameras.
Reply With Quote