|
You're not hijacking the thread at all -its all good discussion and you bring up an interesting point.
Just on that point about going deep - this is where the low noise of the camera becomes really important. If the read noise and shot noise is low enough then stacking 5 minute subs is possible. I forget which but one of the noises is cummulative - I think its the read noise (the noise generated by reading the image). So if that read noise is low then lots of shorter exposures still works as an option.
I used to do 15 minute subs as my standard. I reduced that to 10 minutes mainly from tracking/flexure issues.
As I recall SBIG has a calculator on their site to work out the optimum exposure length for their various cameras at different F ratios and focal lengths. I suppose that would be a good tool for this sort of thing.
In your case with dark skies longer exposures would be the go. Its hard to invest in 20 minute subs though if you have the odd cloud that comes over. But for narrowband it is definitely the way to go. If you have great tracking 15 minutes is good for LRGB. For the 8300 on my scopes though, 10 minutes does see the brighter stars overflow there wells and look a bit messy at times (you can't really process it out either).
The 8300 on an FSQ106ED does not bloat easily but I have the 16803 for wide field. It is reluctant to bloat under any conditions and thats where the deep well depth, the high QE, the low noise, the larger pixels, the huge FOV plus its antiblooming makes that chip the cream of the crop at this point. It really has it all. But you lose that zoomed in look unless you have quite long focal length so not good for close ups.
Greg.
|