Quote:
Originally Posted by Camelopardalis
I get the maths part 
If you compare a single image, there is that potential for differences in gradations, but when that is coupled with higher read noise (in a CCD with deep wells, for example), then the uncertainty of the obtained value of a pixel is increased.
But...the ADC width becomes largely irrelevant when you start stacking a bunch of subs, as you're averaging and increasing the precision along the way. You should end up with the same resulting numbers over the same period of time with either 14-bit or 16-bit. (let's imagine we had the same sensor but could change the ADC width...)
I'm sure either of them would make a great cooled, calibration-enabled, un-messed-with full frame camera with any camera lens or scope. I can't help thinking that for the extra US$300 I'd rather have the finer resolution, seeing as all the other stats seem to be otherwise comparable.
I'm loving the 183 on my f/4 newt...although living close to the ocean can show up a fair bit of variance within a night and from one night to another. Such is life  |
Yeah I get that too. That is the small well playing their part in imaging vagaries.
I remember threads about digital cameras and 14 bit and that lot of the capability of 16bit is not even used. You see that in astro images where the bulk of the data is in one small part of the histogram. All the rest is empty space not even being used.
Greg.