Quote:
Originally Posted by gregbradley
Hi Mike,
You make a strong case there.
Although I think sampling has a lot to do with it. If your camera is well
matched to the scope to get your 1.6 arc sec/pixel type sampling then it
should work out similarly with the biggest aperture usually winning out
especially on dimmer objects.
The comparison may not be so true for dimmer objects do you think?
Greg.
|
OK, getting back to your original idea that a 16" F3.6 scope wasn't well suited to imaging galaxies, well actually it is, becasue it has enough FL and thus image scale to produce impressively detailed images "and" a nice wide FOV when it is really needed. How you crop around and thus "frame" the galaxy is then totally up to the imager which is better than having to be limited to a narrow FOV (ala Fred V
) and the restrictions that can place on your framing, think of NGC 253, M33, NGC 55 etc... not to mention all the great medium sized nebulae out there. Here is another case in point, take my recent NGC 3603 & NGC 3576 image set ie. several images were possible, from wide field to close in detailed crop, simply becasue I had the FOV "and" adequate (but not too much) FL...it's a pretty simple concept really
In a nut shell with a standard 9 micron 35mm sized sensor a FL anywhere between 1000mm and 1500mm is pretty well perfect...IMO of course
If you were imaging from a location with sub arc sec seeing (very rare places) well then, that's another ballgame altogether, that's when the <1"/pixel image scale would come into its own
Mike