View Single Post
  #185  
Old 30-05-2016, 11:13 AM
codemonkey's Avatar
codemonkey (Lee)
Registered User

codemonkey is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Kilcoy, QLD
Posts: 1,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiraz View Post
naah, keep it. The QEs of the Sony CCDs still give them a significant edge in conventional imaging with medium size scopes. The big Kodak chips also still have their place because they are best matched to large, long focal length scopes or widefield with scopes like the FSQ106.

However, the 1600 opens up some entirely new ways of doing things with medium size scopes and even camera lenses (including high resolution DSO, solar and planetary imaging) and doesn't appear to give up much/any performance in conventional long-sub DSO imaging, if you want to use it that way.

Mine just arrived at the local PO, so now begins the process of changing cameras and sorting out all the little issues like focal plane tilt, vignetting, software etc - groan. One nice thing though is that the back focus is almost identical to that of the 694, so, for initial testing, I will just be able to unscrew one camera and screw on the other (that's the theory anyway)
It's all about trade-offs. I've been wanting better sampling, so the 3.8u pixels are attractive, vs the 4.54u of the 674. I've been wanting a bigger FOV for nebulae. The lower read noise will offset the reduced QE to an extent, but it's obviously impossible to say how well because no one knows what the QE is.

The other thing to remember is that by virtue of having a much bigger sensor, scaling down for presentation has the effect of averaging the image, improving the effective SNR.

Unless something big becomes apparent about these cameras, I'll probably sell the 674 to finance an ASI1600.
Reply With Quote