Quote:
Originally Posted by jase
The ML8300 (with 5.4um) + 180 (which has a theoretical res of .66 arc). If I've crunched the numbers correctly, you're getting .88 arcsec - oversampled data...which is always better than undersampled, but I'm wondering if you're running any deconvolution here. I'd expect the stars and details to really "pop". Wouldn't the U16 be a better match?
|
To make something pop I think is more a question of focal length and total length of exposure and probably a little less the camera. I think overall the U16M is the better camera as per this:
http://www.pbase.com/gregbradley/image/108830707/large
And the FLI Microline 8300 is no slouch either with this:
http://www.pbase.com/gregbradley/image/109538475
Both of the above are with the TEC180mm.
I was thinking of using the U16M with the Baader fluorite flatfield converter which will do anywhere between 2X and 8X depending on the spacing. But that would give me F14 to F40. Great for planets. Not sure what that means with imaging. I think it means long exposure time for that size aperture. what do you think? 17 megapixels and high QE with deep wells and very low noise chip has got to do something nice! It'd be an expensive experiment though if it didn't work out as I can easily use a Powermate to get focal length for planetary work.
I got the ML8300 specifically to get better image scale whilst retaining the F5 of the BRC and the F7 of the TEC.
Greg.
Top shot!
