Appreciate all input everybody..
The CN Article is very interesting, , been clunkin' & thunkin' through it the last hr or so, brain hurts, in a good way ;-)
I think the 178 is a step in the right direction as far a camera advancements are going, resolution, dark noise, read noise, amp glow, back-lit, experimentations, etc etc.
There are some extensive 'going's on' in these astro cams, eh ?
Quite eye-opening for this duck...
Tho - Personally, I am considering towards the 1600 ATM, haven't imaged for some time & going by the stats, testing, and other relative factors, ie - scope, guiding ability, seeing, let lone processing skills, Lol, I am doubting I am capable of, - think the 178 is more for the experience imager ?
Tho it is cheaper,
But it requires more integration time ?
Good for Galaxies, PN's & Planets - which appear more interesting to me, and thus half the disadvantages tend to disappear using for this purpose, If I am understanding - in other terms, this 178 tends to need more 'user' care when doing longer subs for the faint stuff &/or going narrow bands.
BTW, I only have a few imaging scopes now, & the main two being the 8" F4 & the 10" F4.6, both within the recommended apertures & F/ratio's lengths, perceivably matching the cameras pixel to arcsec ratio <-- this is the 'sampling' amount ? I think, to small a pixel = over sampling - basically anyway
I get it, just cant explain it fully easily yet
Lots to learn, Lots to research
Kind Rgrds
