Quote:
Originally Posted by Slawomir
Very true, but 80mm aperture is not necessarily optimal for high resolution imaging.
Assuming 80mm f/6 telescope, imaging with 3.8micron pixels might be a bit below a diffraction limit for such instrument, so gain in resolution over using 5.4 micron pixels might not be as significant as we might believe. Moreover, with 5.4 micron pixels we can get data more quickly (important for time-poor astronomers) due to higher sensitivity of larger pixels, and still recover some detail by drizzling. That is why I would be quite tempted to pair a KAF-8300 in a reliable camera with 80mm aperture.
But everyone's priorities can vary, and with certainty ASI1600 or similar would be a very nice choice as well.
|
The Dawes limit for a 80mm f/6 approximates to that of the pixel resolution with 3.8 micron pixels, so you'd see the difference between a good night and a duff one. I can certainly notice the difference on my Esprit 100. With larger pixels you're just oblivious to it.
I believe the Panasonic sensor has higher QE than the 8300 too, but that's largely anecdotal. One thing it does have in its favour is the read noise at high dynamic range is ~2e. It's generous to quote the 8300 at 8e, so even software binning the data from the 1600 the read noise is no worse...and surely, if 5.4 micron pixels are better than 3.8 micron pixels, 7.6 micron pixels must be better
And we have to get over the stigma of newcomers folks
In the same time that I've been imaging with my ZWO without a hitch, I've heard of several accounts of premium cameras suffering electrical faults, condensation, poor repairs from the OEM...what gives?