[Shiraz (Ray)]

I am leaning the other way Colin - to the point of thinking that per-sub dynamic range is almost a secondary consideration with a low read noise camera - provided the top end is not overloaded (ie, you have to keep the subs short). When you have the signal spread out over 400+ subs, it can be mighty thin in any one sub, but still come up well on stacking - something like the 16803 will have ~25x the information in each sub (16 subs vs 400 for example), but produce the same result on stacking. ie, the 16803 needs to be able to handle vastly more signal in each sub, so it needs much more in-sub dynamic range than the 1600.

that is not to say that the 16803 is anything but a very good chip - it is clearly excellent. But the 1600 makes up for lower in-sub dynamic range by having lots of subs and relying on the magic of stacking to boost the final dynamic range. The 16803 has big pixels and will win out on big scopes or very wide fields, but other than that, I cannot think of any parameter where it will outdo the 1600 after stacking. I know that sounds a bit ridiculous, but I genuinely cannot think of anything.

edit: and the average 16803 camera is probably going to be a bit less touchy re USB download settings than the 1600.