Quote:
Originally Posted by PRejto
Greg, Many thanks for the additional information!
This discussion is reminding me just why I decided initially on the KAF8300 CCD.....it's just about the correct size that I can get away without a flattener on my TEC140 for one thing, and it seems to offer performance for a reasonable cost. I know the pixel size is not optimal and the well depth is shallow, however. Is it a mistake to think that any of these shortcomings can be addressed by binning 2x2 with the KAF8300? I don't think well depth is changed by binning, but at 2x2 I'd be at 2.24 arcsec/pixel.
Peter
|
Actually Peter, the 8300 is close to ideal of 1arc/pixel on a TEC140. 8300 isn't ideal at 2 or 3 metres though as it gets too affected by the seeing and 9 microns performs noticeably better. I use both and I stopped using the 8300 on my CDK 17 for this reason. If you had superb seeing or were using an AOL it may be ok.
TEC140 though it should be perfect. Its just not a very wide field of view and TEC140 is capable of wondrous widefields.
You can bin but you would only need to do that if seeing was terrible or you wanted to get Ha fast etc. Otherwise no need to bin it.
To me larger chips are always better than smaller chips as FOV is everything.
Greg.