|
Hi Chris,
OK, in my last reply I was too hasty and not precise enough, my apologies..
The answer to your question about difference between say 24Mp sensors (cropped and FF) and 1000mm and 1600mm FL (respectively) is; there is no difference in terms of arcsec/pixel size (expressed in /um or nm for example). Please note, this number has dimension (angle/length).
However, this doesn't tell us the resolution ("sharpness" of the image) of those two systems, in general it will not be the same (It would have been, if we were dealing with ideal optics and infinitely small wavelength of incoming light).
In real world, the resolution (arcsec/pixel) will be determined by the linear aperture (diameter) of the lens, it's FL and (of course) it's optical quality and physical pixel size of the sensor.
In AP, term "magnification" should not be used, because it is non-dimensional number, reserved for visual magnification, which is defined as ratio between FL's of objective (primary) and eyepiece. It also tells us how much the angular size of the object observed through telescope appears to us compared to it's angular size when observed with unaided eye.
How do you define "magnification"?
If we keep F/ number the same, aperture of the telescope will be 60% larger.. resulting in (theoretically) 60% better resolution.
Now, if physical pixel size is larger than angular resolution of the optical system, there will be no improvement (you will only be able to record ~1/2 dimmer stars in the same exposure time (because amount of photons collected is dependent on square of the aperture, not it's linear size)
|