Can I ask a favor from the group? Is it possible to summarize this thread for those who don't want to wade through 15+ pages?
Sure.
SAME IMAGE SCALE:
IMX183 has higher Q.E. (84% vs. 60%, so 40% more sensitive)
IMX183 has a larger FoV
IMX183 has lower read noise @ min gain (2.8 vs. 3.5, so 46% more sensitive)
ASI1600 has larger FWC (20,000e- vs. 15,000e-)
ASI1600 has lower read noise @ unity (1.55e- vs. 2.0e-, so 40% more sensitive)
ASI1600 has lower read noise @ max gain (1.13e- vs. 1.5e-, so 43% more sensitive)
At the same image scale, the two cameras will perform about the same, as read noise vs. QE tends to balance things out. The IMX183 has the FoV advantage, though, due to being 2:3 format rather than 4:3 format.
SAME FOCAL LENGTH:
IMX183 has higher Q.E. (84% vs. 60%, so 40% more sensitive)
IMX183 has ~40% higher resolution (2.4um vs 3.8um)
ASI1600 has bigger pixels (so more sensitive)
ASI1600 has a larger FoV
ASI1600 has lower read noise on normalized area basis at all gain settings (so more sensitive, balancing out IMX183 Q.E.)
At the same focal length, the ASI1600 is the more sensitive of the two, having much lower read noise and larger pixels (overpowering the Q.E. advantage of the IMX183). This gives it an edge for wider field narrow band imaging. However, the IMX183 has a distinct resolution advantage, allowing better sampling at any focal length. This can potentially give it the ability to sample as well as much larger scopes with much larger cameras that cost many times more, thus potentially saving you a significant amount of money for high resolution imaging. IMO, the IMX183 is best paired with an f/4 system around 1000mm for optimal image scale to maximize the resolution benefits on small objects.
Edited by Jon Rista, 21 January 2018 - 01:29 PM.