Quote:
Originally Posted by RickS
Hi Bob,
Something to keep in mind is that smaller pixels will require longer integration times for DSOs.
Cheers,
Rick.
|
Thanx, Ric, Can you explain why smaller pixels need more exposure, please?
I hear its common knowledge, but I dont understand why, do different size pixels (as in width & breadth) all have the same depth or are the smaller ones deeper ? because, if they all the same depth, then my 'thunking' says they fill the same rate, - I believe I am wrong tho,
Cheers any further insight
----------------------------------------------------------
,
,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiraz
both good cams.
The 1600 will be best around 1m fl and the 183 will suit shorter fast scopes.
|
Thanx Ray, if I use the 183 with 1200mm F/L - is that 'over sampling' ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiraz
As Rick points out, on any given scope, the 183 will require ~twice as long to get to any given image quality due to smaller pixels. The 1600 will produce lower res images in really good seeing, but will have twice the field of view.
the 1600 can do ROI at very high frame rates if need be (not as fast as the 183 though
|
Thnx again, Ray, I am thinking/wanting to do Galaxies, PN's and planetary - so no need the larger frame/chip, I assume, but plenty of room for when a real steady night drops by, could be interesting
Not sure if going about it the right way tho, would I lose out with 2arc seeing with the small pixels and 1200 F/L - it can get down to 1 - 1.5 arc here, not often tho, like anywhere
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merlin66
OK, here we have it.....
Directly from Sony.
"
With regards to your inquiry about “Does the Sony 183 chip have an AR coated cover plate?"
I’ve checked with our Japan engineers and they indicated that IMX183 has an AR coated cover panel.
"
That should remove any ambiguity on the subject!!
|
Cheers for confirmation, Ken, and every one, on this good point, ,