|
There are certainly pros and cons.
There's no escaping the smaller pixels and shallower well depth of the 183, and the read noise is about 30-40% higher at "optimal" gain levels when compared to the 1600, but the lower thermal noise balances it out. I find exposures (on the same scope) are about 2x longer with the 183 than the 1600. The 1600 has the larger FOV of course, at the potential risk of resolution under the right conditions at shorter focal lengths.
As a bit of an extreme example, I've been doing some lunar imaging with the 183 this past week and it's proven itself to be very adept at it, with practically no noise in the shadows while not overblowing the highlights.
|