Quote:
|
The 814 didn't come up so well. I guess in good seeing though it would be hard to beat as it is giving .66 arc secs/pixel which I thought was ideal under good conditions. Roland goes for arc sec /pixel based on average seeing of around 3 arc secs. I think my seeing at home is more 2-3 so .66 arc secs to 1 arc sec would be ideal with 3X sampling. The 8300 sensor gives you .96 arc secs hence he goes for that.
|
The problem that we don't want to get caught up on is trying to have the most "efficient" system... there is no perfect system... you always have to make compromises. With the same telescope, smaller pixels will ALWAYS mean longer imaging time to get the same SNR. Conversely, larger pixels will NEVER give better resolution unless you oversample too much.
It is difficult to decide between 0.67 and 0.8 resolution. I personally would go for the 0.67 as my DSLR on my 10" F/10 has the same resolution. On a good night I can get about 3 FWHM. With a CCD as opposed to a Bayer Matrix, that would drop even further, as a guess, much closer to 2 which is perfect sampling (what I am aiming towards).
As Ray mentioned, all of this is a good way to give an indication of how long your exposures need to be to compare one optical system to another. In the real world though, it is a little pointless when trying to calculate what camera/telescope to use. Personally, I believe that your pixel scale should pretty much be the determining factor. The reason for this comes down to what you're wanting to do.
I personally am more interested in trying to get as close to possible to perfect sampling, it's the scientist coming out in me. I would prefer to be able to resolve every star that I possibly can within a globular cluster than shorter exposure times or wider FOV. All comes down to what you want though
