|
The Atik link gives a pretty good summary of the pros and cons. I'm also weighing up the ZWO 1600, but am happy learning the ropes with my DSLR at the moment.
One of the key messages is that colour cameras don't necessarily save you any imaging time. The bayer mask that provides the colours significantly reduces the sensitivity, so you need to take longer/more subs with the colour camera. There is a "myth" that colour cameras have less resolution, but this is only partially true - they have the same number of pixels and the luminance image has the same resolution. The colour mask is in a 2x2 grid, so colour information has a lower resolution, but in practice this does not affect image sharpness.
The mono camera requires you to take separate red, green, blue & usually additional luminance, but you can generally have shorter/fewer colour subs and bin these to get more sensitivity over less time.
The main factors are flexibility and cost. The mono camera, with filters, will allow you to do different things - narrowband, spectroscopy etc. , but you'll need to buy the extras! The colour camera requires less messing about, but limits what you can do.
Most people seem to recommend mono cameras, particularly if you have a light pollution problem, because you can use narrowband filters to get impressive images in your suburban back yard. When I get a CCD, I will be getting mono + motorised filter wheel. But I'm going to master all the "other bits" with my DSLR first :-)
John
|