So simply, without confusing the mathematics and physics which makes my head spin, with the mechanics: the suggestion is that if I buy a much bigger aperture , I had better be prepared for a much larger sensor with larger pixels?
It would seem that small refractors up to 800 are well paired with apsc size 4.3micron pixel sensors at 1.1 arcsecond but a much larger aperture can benefit from a full frame with 6 micron pixels ?
Where is the useful limit of tolerance , 0.8 to 1.2 “ ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stefan Buda
Now that you provided some numbers, it is much easier to answer your question.
In a nutshell, yes the larger setup would produce better results in some respects but not all.
As you said, the field of view would be the same. The required exposure for extended objects would also be the same. The main advantage would be in resolving fine detail in nebula and the stars will be smaller relative to the larger pixels. That is a big advantage if you are going after a globular cluster, but not big if you are chasing the Running Man nebula.
EDIT: I got it wrong. Exposure time would be the same if you used the same sensor, but with the scaled up sensor the bigger scope would be better at catching up with the Running Man nebula too.
|