Quote:
Originally Posted by Camelopardalis
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? |
Glad to hear your camera works very well
Perhaps I am a bit conservative, but at this stage, I would rather get a nice KAF-8300 based camera for a small fast refractor, for the reasons I mentioned in my earlier post
As for being fault free and well thought-out design, this solution to preventing dew forming on the cover glass indicates, well, I will let everyone make own judgement
:
https://astronomy-imaging-camera.com...ti-dew-heater/
In the end, I hope that this discussion will be somehow useful for Tim in terms of making the best choice for his next camera