Thank you so much for your help. I'll reply to everybody in this post.
I'm willing to spend so no worries on this side.
I understand that I'm not able to fill the frame for most of the DSOs. Since it's inevitable, I'll crop then, no worries. I thought all the pictures I saw weren't and couldn't see much info in the description or exif.
I'm still reading articles about sampling optimization. So i'm sorry if I say something wrong.
I matched the focal length with my camera using this
website.
For the D800:
- Sensor width = 35.9
- Sensor height = 24
- Resolution width = 7360
If I put 450mm focal length, it's enough for andromeda galaxy. It also gives me 2.23 arcsecond/pixel, which is good, right ? A 80mm refractor is the best for this.
I would also be able to take pictures of all the big objects like M7, M8, M25, M33, M34, M42, M45, etc...
If I increase the focal length, I will be oversampling for anything more than 1000mm (?)
Do I need to be between 1-3 arcsecond/pixel ? I would then need another camera to match the telescope.
I think using 2 telescopes would be too heavy for the mounts I listed previously so the EQ8, G11 are more suited for the load. I'm more interested in EQ8 for EQMOD. The price of the Paramount MX is too much for me. I could spend the money elsewhere with $10k difference.
I haven't considered the newtonian because of coma and it looks BIG.
Ritchey Chretien and Astrograph are the same thing, right ? The pictures I saw look nicer and I like the effect of the diffraction spikes. I would consider buying one if it fits in the car with all the equipment.
I picked SCT, because it's easier to transport, but I can change my opinion. I'm not in a rush.
Is there a big difference between this and SCT for visual purposes ?