Quote:
Originally Posted by Camelopardalis
Pretty much 
Yeah the seeing along the east coast of Australia isn’t usually anything special. Also consider what you may be intending to achieve with a longer FL scope is comparable to shrinking the pixels. The SNR will improve with larger aperture/faster f-ratio, but the resolution you’ll be able to achieve is limited by the seeing. (Assuming decent figuring of optics...)
The seeing is the real wildcard here. Do you get the smaller pixels in the hope that you get good seeing more regularly and potentially better resolution? Or do you sacrifice a little resolution for speed on every occasion? More likely, you’d not notice the difference with 80mm aperture, but it’s not impossible.
I have seen the microlens issue with my 1600 / Esprit 100. Only once was it really noticeable, and that was while imaging the Horsehead nebula. Alnitak is a nuisance, and the microlens pattern is pretty obvious in that shot. I’ll see if I can dig it up to demonstrate. But it’s the only image I recall it being an annoyance, YMMV... |
I'll say I'm definitely set on a 1600MM/163M now after your help. Realised after doing more searches the microlens issue was really only popping up on the same targets for people (horsehead, etc). It's a sacrifice I'd be willing to make for the sake of hugely increased sensitivity and ease of use.
Thanks again for the advice!
