|
Hi Greg,
Thanks for the feedback.
Yes, I do agree that it would be much nicer to have a larger FOV for colour vs mono luminance. However, the only cameras I've considered so far to have a larger FOV, but a not terribly similar resolution to the luminance (.88 arc-sec) are the SBIG 8050SC and the QHY12. When I have binned my colour 2x2 in the past I thought it somewhat degraded the sharpness of my luminance data...but, perhaps that was/is a processing mistake (of which I make many!). So, I have thought that since I'm going to lose resolution using a one-shot camera I would be better served by not getting too far from .88. One other option I could consider is just another KAF8300 camera. The resolution on my TEC140 would be 1.14 arc-sec and the FOV 48.1 x 64 (vs my TEC180 37 x 49.4) so, considerably larger FOV. If Terry is correct about the .7 figure then my "real" resolution in colour would be ca. 1.62 arc-sec (1.14/.7). Interesting because that is pretty close to 2x2 binning of the camera on the TEC180 (1.76 arc-sec). I think the bottom line would be that I couldn't expect to do any better than if I used a KAF8300 on my TEC180 and always binned 2x2.
All this exercise does is drive my thinking around in a circle back to the Trius. Yes, smaller FOV, but better resolution and more sensitive. I'm not rushing to decide. Later this week I will ask some experts very direct questions at AIC.
Peter
PS: Another "crazy" idea floating in the background concerns the new AP QUAD4 reducer/flattener that has been tested on the TEC refractors by Roland. It would make the TEC140 f5. Together with the ATIK 490 (3.69 micron pix) resolution would be 1.06 Arc-sec and FOV 48 x 60. Huge drawbacks, I think; the QUAD4 is $1500 before fittings, and what's the point to do that and use a small CCD and small pix? I can't see it as a serious option.
|