Comparing scopes with different focal lengths is difficult and gets misused in some cases. Look at advertisements for the hyperstar for example. It says exposure lengths are vastly reduced at F/2 compared to native F/10. The image scale is completely different as well so it means, IMO, nothing. To push it into the ridiculous you could cram all the light of M42 into 1 pixel and saturate it in a fraction of a second with the right optics. But you can't see any detail. Pointless.
My take on the whole thing is that you decide what image scale you want and then get the largest clear aperture you can afford or carry on your mount. Image scale depends on focal length and pixel size. Clear aperture depends on actual aperture and the central obstruction.
Twice the clear aperture (surface wise) at the same focal length will deliver twice the photons at the same image scale. *That* you can compare. *That's* why you don't see 66mm refractors mounted in those big Keck domes
DSLRs make things more complicated because of the ISO settings. Still the physics (photons per pixel) are the same. How they translate into ADUs and noise gives me a headache so I won't attempt to understand it. CCDs are easy comparatively.
-------------------- Best,
Sander
C11-HyperStar on Atlas EQ-Q driven by EQMOD
William Optics M110 With FR-III/TRF-2008
DS2090 guide scope
QHY-8, DSI-Pro and DSI cameras
watec 802h video camera with KIWI OSD