Could someone please explain to me what the difference between the images produced from a Kodak KAI-11002M with 9 x 9 microns and 60 000 well capacity to a Kodak KAF-8300 with 5.4 x 5.4 microns and 25 000 well capacity. I believe that my image with the 11002 will have a wider field of view compared with the 8300 and that the well depth will allow longer exposures without blowing out stars hence getting maybe more nebulosity. What I am lost with, unless everything I have said is incorrect, is the pixel size. Will the smaller pixel size of the 8300 show more detail as opposed to the larger pixels in the 11002.
Thanks H. I will be taking possession of a TEC 140 sometime next year so am trying to work out which camera would be best and I suppose that depends on the field of view I want. I have seen a lot of positive comments about both combinations. I am uncertain which way to go. I will be imaging from suburbia on the Sunshine Coast so I do have light pollution but probably not as bad as if I was in a capital city.
Smaller pixels allow finer resolution, bigger pixels collect more light, at the expense of resolution.
I guess it depends on what telescope you'll be coupling the system to, as well.
H
This is true except "seeing" usually limits resolution. At F7, the TEC will have a resolution of 1.14 arc seconds per pixel. The 11000 chip will be 1.89 arc seconds per pixel.
As has been mentioned already, the KAF-8300 will give you finer resolution with an image scale of 1.14 arcsec/pixel vs 1.89 arcsec/pixel for the KAI-11002M. Neither is hugely oversampled for the seeing that you're likely to get in SE Qld.
The FOV of the KAF-8300 would be 47.4x62.9 arcmin and 84.2x126.4 arcmin for the KAI-11002M, so the KAI will give you a much bigger FOV.
The KAI has much deeper wells, so it will suit longer exposures better (bright objects like stars won't saturate as quickly).
The bigger pixels of the KAI will give you an advantage in the speed of data collection. With your system you would get to the same SNR with the KAI approximately twice as quickly (largely because you are imaging at a lower resolution.)
The KAF has lower read noise at approx 8e- vs 11e-, so that's a win to the KAF and reduces the benefit of faster imaging to a degree.
Hope that helps a bit. You really need to consider the resolution and FOV that you'd like to have by thinking about what targets you might want to image. My choice would be the KAI because I like the benefits of big pixels when imaging time is limited... you'll get a lower res image but a nice big FOV and good SNR with less imaging time.
It's been a hard decision for me - keep the Atik with the KAI 04022, or sell off and buy from a good friend his FLI KAF 8300 chipped Microline.
I decided to go with the FLI - for a variety of reasons - ultra cooling and resolution being my primary requirement. My smallish refractors that I image with I think will be better suited to the KAF 8300 chip than the KAI 04022. (over 1000 pixels difference in resolution). Sure, with the KAI I can make A3 prints, but that is not my goal at all.
