let's say you had a budget of $300k to purchase a camera for a 1-meter f/4.25 telescope.
and let's say you had narrowed down your decision to 2 cameras:
resolution: 0.49 arcsec/pixel
well depth: 102,000
full frame fps: 11
resolution: 0.73 arcsec/pixel
well depth: 300,000
full frame fps: 0.5
- the goal is to take pretty pictures
- preferred targets are nebula and galaxies
- average seeing is ~2.5 FWM - the very best seeing is no better than 1.5 FWHM
assumptions to be questioned/validated:
- deep well depth will allow the 1-meter aperture to really shine by using long exposures to capture faint features without blowout.
- high fps may allow for lucky imaging to try and beat the poor seeing, but will require very high QE.
- resolution is a less important factor because the poor seeing negates any low resolution advantage.
- kepler could do lucky imaging, but has a relatively weak well depth which won't allow for exposures longer than a couple of minutes
- kepler isn't available yet, and might not be available for another year.
- ikon can't do lucky imaging, but has a super deep well depth that will allow for long exposures that may capture very faint features in long (> 10 minute) frames
- ikon is available now.
so the question i'm asking is - which camera would you buy (or is there another camera which is even better given the scenario?) and why?