Yep, I'm capturing at 5x zoom to get the ~1:1 pixel ratio. I realize the 1/160sec is simulated in LiveView (Jerry Lodriguss clued me into this last year, and some noise tests with the lens cap on showed no difference in the noise pattern across ISOs for the same EV), but it's still a valid reference point for the total EV for a given f-number (12800×1/160 = 80). So if the Canon EOS exposure is fixed at 1/30sec, then my camera's using an ISO of 80 ÷ 1/30 = 2400. By comparison, to get 1/200sec the dedicated cam would have to be using an ISO higher than 12800.
Where did you find the 1/30 reference? I hunted high and low last year and never came across it, but I searched specifically on the 600D/T3i…
P.S. If the exposure difference is 1/30 vs. 1/200, then this would mean that a planetary camera needs 1/30 ÷ 1/200 = 6.7 frames to equate to one EOS frame; so the ratio would be 6.7:1. Does that mean the planetary cam can handle turbulence 6.7 times worse than a DSLR?
OK, I'm guessing at the 30 fps framerate for Liveview based on the stats that I've been been able to find online for similar cameras (although having said that, the 700D appears to be updating at 60 fps, I never found this before! It must be a mistake, every other camera is 30 fps.).
80D - https://www.canon.ie...ml#liveviewmode
800D - https://www.canon.ie...specifications/
600D - https://www.canon.ie...ml#liveviewmode
700D - https://www.canon.ie...ml#liveviewmode
550D - https://www.canon.ie...ml#liveviewmode
60Da - https://www.canon.ie...ml#liveviewmode
When I brought up the issue of atmospheric turbulence and "freezing the seeing", Tom Glenn gave some additional insights into the nature of atmospheric distortion. I believe that some of the total distortion comes from high frequency "motion shifts" where the planet just moves as a complete disc and a fast frame rate might help, but other distortion that comes from path length differences through the atmosphere that causes the planet to distort or change shape away from circular that a fast frame rate can't fix.
When Darryl recently took images of Jupiter in high winds and still was able to create his usual extremely high standard of images using a 224, that was a turning point for me. There is no way that my DSLR could take images in that situation, indeed, when I was capturing under a low windspeed moving the scope slightly, I couldn't get any decent images out of that session.
It is well known that the Quantum Efficiency of the ASI224MC is higher than the DSLR (75-80% vs 40%), and being able to stream over USB3 is certainly an advantage.
So I ultimately purchased the ASI224MC because I thought the DSLR was hindering my progression in this field, by restricting me to only be able to take good images in very good to perfect conditions. I still believe the Canon DSLR system is able to match the dedicated planetary cameras in good+ conditions and am keen to continue to do some these tests to show the limitations of each, but in the future I think the 224MC will give me better outcomes.
Edited by Tulloch, 10 September 2019 - 05:57 AM.