#21  
Old 12-11-2015, 10:09 AM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 15,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Ward View Post
OK . 15%. absolute, 26% relative

Too-mate-oh. To-mart-o. Not fussed either way .


If it were a price increase in a new Mercedes I think you would see it my way!

Greg.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 14-11-2015, 10:10 AM
Peter Ward's Avatar
Peter Ward
Galaxy hitchhiking guide

Peter Ward is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 6,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregbradley View Post
If it were a price increase in a new Mercedes I think you would see it my way!

Greg.


Well look at it this way.... If I were to say that a Merc costs 20% more than the BMW...I've really not provided any useful information.... 20% more than what? (e.g. Milk that has 10% less fat? 10% less than what?)

Which is I why I find relative QE curves to be rather useless.

A straight: that one's $73k and that one $58k helps me weigh the values more easily.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 14-11-2015, 08:42 PM
Slawomir's Avatar
Slawomir (Suavi)
Amateur Photon Collector

Slawomir is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Proserpine
Posts: 2,741
One could also notice a 158.6 % increase in the dynamic range when swapping FLI's implementation of KAF-8300, namely ML8300, for MLx695...

http://www.flicamera.com/pdf/LifeSciCompare.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 14-11-2015, 10:31 PM
Shiraz's Avatar
Shiraz (Ray)
Registered User

Shiraz is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ardrossan south australia
Posts: 4,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slawomir View Post
One could also notice a 158.6 % increase in the dynamic range when swapping FLI's implementation of KAF-8300, namely ML8300, for MLx695...

http://www.flicamera.com/pdf/LifeSciCompare.pdf
Great site S. the graphs of absolute QE and the table of sensitivity figures of merit at standard wavelengths - all from a premium camera manufacturer - should be useful to anyone comparing cameras with Sony or Kodak chips.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 15-11-2015, 08:32 AM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 15,044
A great comparison and it makes the comparable performances very clear.

Is there a new Sony sensor that replaced the ICX694? I see they refer to it as the ICX695 and so does QHY. I wonder if its exactly the same or a later revised sensor?

Greg.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 15-11-2015, 08:58 AM
Slawomir's Avatar
Slawomir (Suavi)
Amateur Photon Collector

Slawomir is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Proserpine
Posts: 2,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregbradley View Post
A great comparison and it makes the comparable performances very clear.

Is there a new Sony sensor that replaced the ICX694? I see they refer to it as the ICX695 and so does QHY. I wonder if its exactly the same or a later revised sensor?

Greg.
The only difference is the specs (on paper) between 694 and 695 I could notice was that 694 is faster in data transfer - probably irrelevant in DSO imaging.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 01:34 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Lunatico Astronomical
Advertisement
NexDome Observatories
Advertisement
OzScopes Authorised Dealer
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Meade Australia
Advertisement
Nitecore
Advertisement
SkyWatcher Australia
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement