I haven't done anything with drizzle so I don't really know how that relates to binning.
Drizzle helps you recover effective resolution from binning in order to work around performance issues with CCD or CMOS sensors that have noise or sampling that you don't want to overcome with horrendously long exposure times. This is binning typically done to overcome CCD issues and therefore undersample.
(only half the story... it varies between NB/LRGB/RGB/OSC.. people bin 2x2 on rgb in monos because detail is L, but some people don't shoot l and shoot unbinned RGB and extract L... so its a mix.. but whatever heh)
You can get those correctly sized pixels by buying a camera with the right size pixels. But if one doesn't exists, you might be able to get to that desired pixel size by binning a camera with smaller pixels. The question being explored here is - when you bin those smaller pixels, do you get the same SNR as if you were using the larger pixel camera?
This can only be compared if there was the same sensor in the comparison. If they come out with a chonky modern bigger pixel camera with same specs as 6200 in read/noise/error/well/adc, we can compare this.
To answer it in the comparison matrix as described in the 6200 vs the KAF - the sampling concern isn't 1:1
The 6200 is "faster" in every regard to the mentioned KAF (or your 071) in this topic regardless of sampling. 6200 is faster under/over/correctly sampled.
Appropriately sampled the KAF will have a bigger FOV for sure... (per the OP's messages, not yours)
more below in response to your specific camera
In my particular case, I'd like to use my EdgeHD8 at f/7 with a focal reducer and my APS-C sized sensor ASI071 camera. With that setup, I get 0.67"/pixel which is about the right sampling for my skies. Unfortunately, I've found that the FR produces unacceptable aberrations. And imaging at f/10, with that same camera, means painful exposure times, and oversampled results. Binning that camera puts the pixel scale larger than I want.
So, one solution I was considering was to ditch the FR, and move to a full frame sensor. The FOV at f/10 is about the same as at f/7 with the APS-C sensor. And if I can get to the same pixel scale, I should have the same etendue per pixel, so the same exposure time and SNR - in theory. Binning the ASI6200 pixels gets me to 0.73"/pixel, which is pretty close to what I want.
The question I was trying to answer for myself was: at f/10 will 2x-binned pixels with the ASI6200 FF sensor get me about the same performance as my ASI071 ASP-C sensor at f/7. And by performance I mean exposure time and resulting SNR.
The advantage of the 6200 is the 16bit adc, the 50k well, the astonoshingly low read noise, the no amp glow the much higher QE. The cost of over sampling with the 6200,2600 and 533 isn't the same as over sampling on anything else.
By switching to the 6200 in your case, you would choose to image more subs, shorter subs and you would have reduced overall exposure time because of the sensor regardless of binning. The context of binning should just be on appropriate scale but I believe that scale factor for correctly sampling also changes with the 6200.
I feel this topic drifted a bit. The OP asked about "shortening integration time with new equipment" and I guess my answer is that the "shortening" isn't because of Binning and its relationship to SNR on paper, but the actual benefits of the 6200 CMOS ESPECIALLY in comparison to the KAF which is correctly sampled for the scopes in question.
The question seemed asked in a way to do more in a single night.
My honest answer still says that any benefit of SNR and any benefit of the 6200 or being appropriately sampled improves SNR over the Kaf or over the 071 regardless of binning.
With the 6200 you're going to take more exposures
You're going to take shorter exposures
You may even need LESS exposures - especially compared to a KAF or your 071 for the SAME signal as before...
But why stop there? Why not use the 6200 as it stands on your own
I dunno where this is even going anymore... I guess i'm still talking about the OP's post and some of the responses to it on why the KAF is so great.. it is a great camera - but the reasons for the 6200s performance and value isn't its ability to bin for sampling and associated doubling of SNR (which is just being correctly sampled) because there isn't a comparible camera for the correct sampling - it's the ability for it to shine on its own and not be held to the same reasons binning exists for SNR that seem to be held there as a fact of life in CCD cameras.
like i mentioned before, you would probably have an increased SNR on the 6200 even being over sampled over the 071 because the sensor on the 6200 is that much better and you can overcome softness is over/undersampling by integration time, more exposures, dithering and drizzling.
You can push for odd extremes.
The camera is so amazing that "lucky imaging" and drizzling techniques change from a concern of specific sub SNR to total integration SNR and trade offs in integration computational time vs actual sub/stack time.
So yeah.. get correctly sampled.
6200 in your case would beat the 071 in apples/apples comparison at native or binned resolutions.
I think the 9.25 and imaging at f10 and how to make that work deserves its own topic as there is a whole slew of things that are different with that set up vs the ones referenced in the OP. You would have improved SNR with the 6200 but it wouldn't be some SNR that improves how many objects you can shoot in a single night, but better results of what you get in total integration.
Edited by sn2006gy, 17 August 2020 - 11:20 AM.