Quote:
Originally Posted by glend
Just another comment on the comparison with the 694. It is pretty obvious that just about all of the Beta Testing has been done on DSOs, and the planetary capabilities of the 1600 are for the most part ignored. This is, in part, due to the excitement about the low noise, high sensitivity nature of the sensor and system, and the background of the CN testers. Even here on IIS the discussion has be mostly related to DSO performance. This camera, with its very high frame rate video capabilties, pushed through Sharpcap and AutoStakkert is suppose to be an excellent planetary and solar camera as well. Can the 694 play in that space as well?
"One camera to rule them all" maybe a long bow to draw, but for people on a budget looking to try all aspects of imaging, it's not a bad assumption.
|
For planetary the 694 is not in the same league simply for the download speed. the 1600 has a high frame rate where as the 694 has a 2s download. it can be considerably sped up with subframing but not to the same extent.
What the 694 has is a higher QE. I am considering moving over to the 1600 (or at least testing between the two) because the high UV QE of the 694 is playing havoc with my refractor. As a rough guess, the 694 may be 1.5-2x as sensitive to OIII as the 1600. For me the difference between the 694 & 1600 is 250s & 60s (as Ray just showed). Or if run at gain 0, 150s. I personally would run the 1600 at gain 0 as it makes it a camera with 20K well depth and 3.6e- read noise. I prefer having less images to deal with. Could you imagine Rolf having done is 150 hour mammoth runs with 30-60s exposures!