Quote:
Originally Posted by Atmos
Maybe my thinking is wrong on this but i see the dynamic range as basically being the amount of well depth above read noise. The 1600 will have considerably shorter subs than the 16803, 2.36x faster in fact at Gain 76 (full 12 bits) but the 16803 has 11x the well depth.
In Lum a 16803 on my scope at my dark site would be sky limited in ~230s which would equate to 97s with the 1600. Shooting any of the bright nebula like M42, M8, Tarantula the 1600 will undoubtedly struggle to cope with the dynamic range where as the 16803 will not likely have much of an issue. The resolution won't be too different either as I can drizzle the 16803 down to pretty much what I get with the QHY22.
With the 1600 if you're doing 97s subs to be sky limited, once any area is saturated, stacking cannot bring that back. This is where I am saying that individual dynamic range becomes important. I know I am using an extreme example as usually some 10s subs are thrown in there for that reason.
|
but won't the 16803 be getting about 6x as many photons/pixel/s as the 1600, so it will still saturate at lower flux?