Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry B
You have made a good summary.
I have a few comments.
I live at 1100m altitude in dark rural site. Getting better than 2arcsec seeing is rare for me. It does occur but not often. 3 is the norm.
Galaxies are little objects and most are relatively dim. You are using a short focal length resulting in a small image size and compensating for this by using small pixels.
There is a reason that pro telescopes are big. They collect more actual photons and have a higher resolution. A larger diameter scope and larger pixels collects more photons for the same image scale.
The short focal length refractor is best at wide field imaging.
I think hunting for increased resolution and hence higher magnification with little pixels is not the best way to go. A bigger scope is needed.
|
Thanks Terry
Good points!
I guess my major concern was the the impacts of such significant undersampling on the quality of images produced.
It seems to me that I'm already significantly undersampled with the 420 and the 314 might be taking it too far. Even if I switch to a 1.2m focal length I'd only be marginally oversampling with the 420 and still undersampled with the 314.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merlin66
I use the 314L for spectroscopy....
I'd be amazed if you get consistent seeing of 1 arc sec. A dark sky site doesn't mean good seeing.
IMHO I be assuming around 2 arc sec on the best of nights...
Both are good cameras....
|
I think there's been some miscommunication here :-)
I wasn't thinking that I would get 1" here, I figured that if 1" was considered good seeing at a dark site that I should get about half as good. It might be that I was being overly optimistic though, it seems like 3 might be a more realistic number :-)