|
Greg, I have and Esprit 100 and both a 1600 and a 178, the latter being the smaller sized sibling of the 183, possessing the same 2.4 micron pixels architecture.
They are certainly different animals. The higher QE of the 183 doesn’t much compensate, in practice, for the significantly smaller photosite...the 3.8 micron pixels of the 1600 have 2.5x the area.
I find the 178 needs more light (i.e. exposure time) to get the best out of it, but it can eek out that last bit of detail from the scope, assuming the atmosphere cooperates. On an average night, you won’t notice the difference, and the 1600 will get you signal more quickly.
The 178 is much more tricky to calibrate, and doesn’t always work perfectly, and after stacking you can sometimes still see some pattern noise. The 1600, on the other hand, is a very solid performer and produces nice clean results, making it amenable to a dark library. The 178 is a less consistent performer in that respect. Some of the darks I’ve seen from the 183 are shocking.
Pros and cons for sure. If there was a smaller pixelled version of the 1600, I’d get one in a heartbeat, but the Sony sensors (178/183) come with baggage when it comes to DSO imaging.
|