Quote:
Originally Posted by CDKPhil
A very informative review Greg.
What are the overall dimensions of the two Chips?
And have you compared the image quality / resolution of the two different cameras on the same object?
I have been looking at the different cameras that are available and the FLI's caught my attention. I have some time to think about it as my MX is quite a long way off. September, October or maybe November, December. 
Kodak Sensor Solutions has a downloadable PDF for each chp they make with its specifications. From memory the 8300 is about 12x19mm
and the 16803 44 x 44mm.
Comparing the 2 cameras on the same scope gets into matching pixel size and seeing and scope resolution. There is an ideal pixel size for each scope used at a particular seeing level. I have used both on the CDK17 where the 8300 is not well matched but the 16803 is and the 16803 generally gives better performance. But if it were a night of great seeing or a bright object the difference would be a lot less.
There are lots of 8300 images on the net with various scopes and it performs well and is why it is so popular. It works particularly well on faster scopes due to its small pixels.
Cheers
Phil |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Haese
Good reviews Greg.
I don't agree about the KAF8300 exposure duration. With both the TSA and RC I have been doin 20 minute subs on lum and blue for some time now. In particular the TSA never seems to bloat stars with this sensor. The RC does on brighter ones but some min filtering gets rid of most of the issue. My recent Corona Australis shot is done with same exposure lengths and I did not do any star size reduction. So it might pay to revisit this with your camera.
|
Weren't you imaging at F8 or longer with small aperture though?
At longer f ratios and smaller apertures yes you won't have a problem. Its a question of how much signal builds up in the chip's wells. At 25,500 that isn't a lot for all scopes. So for example I would expect with Mikes F3.6 12 inch scope you would see bloated bright stars pretty quickly QSI, Apogee, FLi, SBIG the lot as its the chips specification here not the camera maker. It can only hold so much. The 11002 chip holds 60,000. the 16803 about 105,000 most of the commonly used chips have decent well depths. That just one of the compromises so as you point out it may not be a problem with a smaller scope of longer f ratio. It depends on the object with my scopes. I have quite a few like you mention yours worked out. But then I also have done quite a few where a few bright stars
Also the 8300 is a better match for your TSA due to its shorter focal length than the RC where it will be oversampling and losing sensitivity as a result ( it will perform noticeably better in good seeing compared than say an 11002 camera on the same night). At least that is the theory.
Its something to consider when buying a particular chipped camera independent of brand. Another brand can't make the wells deeper and it will vary depending on the object and scope. Larger aperture or faster F ratio with an object with lots of bright stars may do better with 5 or 7 minute subs instead of 10. At least that the theory and something I intend to do with mine next time I use it to see if it works. I see lots of images with 8300 cameras and all the stars are perfect but usually I also see they used 5 minute subs. Wolfgang Promper for example.
The QSI is a good camera and the combined OAG and filter wheel is a winner and something FLI has to match as that approach made the STL11 the camera of choice for several years - so convenient having it all together.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frolinmod
Good review. Please keep writing them.  |
You're welcome.