Quote:I think you mean a 4020. With the KAI-4020 sensor. 7.4um pixels, interline sensor, lower quantum efficiency than the 8300 (e.g. 30% at H-a line). For pretty pictures, it would take almost twice as long to capture as an 8300.
Scopes: Meade SN6, 10" Dob, Meade LS6, 5" reflector, 8" reflector, 102GT
Mounts: LXD75 and LXD55
Camera: SBIG 8300M, Baader 7nm Ha, OIII, SII, LRGB
Quote:There's been a very long discussion of QE and pixel size. Suffice it to say that pixel size has no bearing on sensitivity. QE trumps pixel size and is the most important metric (the others being read noise and dark noise).I know it seems counter intuitive and that big pixels are better. But this is not so. I can't repeat the arguments but head over to Ron Wodaski's Yahoo group for the bloody details.
AT10RCF, TMB SV105 F6.2, C11, Obs 15, DS solarmax 40 AP900GTO QSI 683 & 640wsg-8 12' X 15'6" BYO http://www.astrobin.com/users/jaddbd/
My mistake was assuming big pixels = more electrons, hence better signal-to-noise ratio, etc.
Quote:Quote:Derek wrote:My mistake was assuming big pixels = more electrons, hence better signal-to-noise ratio, etc.I mean no disrespect as I am a novice at this stuff, but if your statement is true why is everyone binning their RGB subs in order to obtain better signal to noise ratio with shorter exposure times?Personally, I prefer to shoot all my subs binned 1x1 and many people tell me I should bin my RGB 2x2.Why?
Quote:Derek wrote:My mistake was assuming big pixels = more electrons, hence better signal-to-noise ratio, etc.