|
Interesting post Ray. I can see you put a lot of work into it. Is the relationship between pixel size and focal length though a division of their squares though? How did you figure that?
Something must be a little off as it does not match my experience with various scopes.
I doubt using a 200mm RC with a KAF8300 is going to take 12 times longer to get the same signal to noise ratio.
Doesn't it more come down to aperture not focal length? And QE.
I take it when you worked out those average QEs you took the same samples of each of the sensors QE graph? 16803 has peak 60% QE and so does KAF8300. I have noticed a drop in sensitivity with oversampling but its not that dramatic.
From my experience only I would rate a 200mm RC at F8 and KAF8300 taking 4x longer to reach the same signal to noise than a 300 F3.8 an 16803 camera. Perhaps 5X max but unlikely 12X.
For example my RHA is 305/F3.8. If I take an image of something that I have imaged several times with different scopes it sure is faster but not 12X. So perhaps that pixel/focal length formula is not correct.
Camera read noise comes into it as well. What do you think?
Greg.
|