toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Interesting result. Would you consider swapping cameras to validate the comparison? -Best, Robert
On 06/01/2021 9:58 PM Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...> wrote:
Result #2: Tracking with 2 refractors piggyback
The sky unfortunately was not pristine during my imaging session. High level clouds continued to drift thru the image, so the tracking was at times a bit unsteady, but overall not too bad. Here is one tracking graph that was typical of the evening. 1 pixel = 1.45 arc sec in this graph. In this 15 minute period the tracking was less than 0.5 arc sec pk, and approx 0.14 arc sec rms.
From: Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...>
To: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Tue, Jun 1, 2021 11:47 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Will the Mach 2 support .....
sult #1: CMOS vs CCD
The 683 has an 8300 chip that's not very efficient but it's monochrome. There are better CCD chips with much higher quantum efficiency such as the Starlight Xpress Pro36, which is a full frame camera with exceptional low noise. It has a 7.4 micron pixel size.
The ZWO 6200C is a color CMOS camera with very low noise, but is it as sensitive as a monochrome CCD? It turns out that it isn't as sensitive as the 8300 monochrome chip. In a side by side test of these two cameras, the ZWO produced a peak intensity of the core of M106 that was only 75% as high as the QSI camera. And that's with a 50% greater light grasp of the 160 EDF vs the 130 EDF that the QSI was attached to. The CMOS did have a signal/noise advantage because of the low noise chip, but part of that was due to the higher light grasp of the 160 mm aperture.
See image below: