[gregbradley]

Thanks for that Suavi.

I checked the Atik website and no mention.

You are probably right about QSI as their platform may not handle the size of this sensor as its only a bit smaller than a full frame sensor (35mm).

It would suit many but not all. A large APS would not work on these smaller refractors I would predict, perhaps they would. A Tak 2.7 inch focuser is probably the minimum size as they handle a DSLR. Any setup that handles an APS DSLR would probably handle this although I think its a tad larger than most DSLR APS (there are 2 APS sizes in DSLR cameras).

I am a it unsure if its worthwhile for my AP Honders. 6 microns says yes but for large FOV I can use the Proline 16803 and learn PI's drizzle function to get back most of the res lost from undersampling.

The 694 sensor is great for narrowband but the FOV is small. Its also good for 2x2 binning losing very little to 1x1 binning but picking up a lot of sensitivity. Its good for galaxies but then that is my CDK's primary role. Honders is good but ultimately it would not quite match the CDK17. Close though. The Honders is fabulous for cutting through light pollution. So the Honders is more for narrowband, medium to widefield plus the occasional galaxy.

So what do members think? Replace the Trius with a 16200 sensor camera or perhaps a KAF8300 camera (a bit wider field of view
but less sensitive and still has small wells)?

Either way I keep the Proline as it works on any scope that can handle the large sensor. But wondering about whether the Honders is optimised with the 16200 or not at 1 arc/sec/pixel. The 16200 should not lose anything if cropped if I want a closer look at a galaxy.

Per Ray's sensitivity formula pixel size is squared so 6 microns at 60% QE is better than 4.54 microns at 77% QE.

Greg.