Quote:
Originally Posted by meellor
So essentially if I end up over-sampling with the 183, all I'm really doing is getting the same(ish) amount of detail I'd get from the 1600, but it's just taking me a hell of a lot longer to get there due to the smaller pixel size?
|
Pretty much
Quote:
Originally Posted by meellor
This was really helpful actually, thank you. I'm realising now that the benefit of higher resolution is really only gained on a "once in a blue moon" kind of night. Also that down the track when I get a larger/longer FL scope the 1600 will be a better fit.
I'm curious if you've ran into the microlens issue, that Atmos mentioned earlier, with your Esprit 100?
|
Yeah the seeing along the east coast of Australia isn’t usually anything special. Also consider what you may be intending to achieve with a longer FL scope is comparable to shrinking the pixels. The SNR will improve with larger aperture/faster f-ratio, but the resolution you’ll be able to achieve is limited by the seeing. (Assuming decent figuring of optics...)
The seeing is the real wildcard here. Do you get the smaller pixels in the hope that you get good seeing more regularly and potentially better resolution? Or do you sacrifice a little resolution for speed on every occasion? More likely, you’d not notice the difference with 80mm aperture, but it’s not impossible.
I have seen the microlens issue with my 1600 / Esprit 100. Only once was it really noticeable, and that was while imaging the Horsehead nebula. Alnitak is a nuisance, and the microlens pattern is pretty obvious in that shot. I’ll see if I can dig it up to demonstrate. But it’s the only image I recall it being an annoyance, YMMV...