Which 8300 were you using? The FLI and newer SBIG cameras download frames in less than 1 second. The FLI 16200 (which is the outlier in terms of performance) is ridiculously good.
These are 5 minute narrowband subs with the FLI ML16200 and I would take similar sub exposures with the 6200 I have. You are making these cameras out to have like 30e of noise or something, which just is not the case. The FLI 16200's have 5-6e noise with a 6um pixel size and when cooled have negligible levels of dark current. They are still exceptional cameras and the new Sony chips dont change that at all. The FLI ML16803 has a 100k full well and 8e noise with 9um pixels. The frames are monstrously large (36x36 IIRC) and download within a reasonable amount of time for such large frames. That camera is still rocking around 14 stops of DR.
Cost is what I would hang on the CCD cameras. The cost of them is much higher than similar sized CMOS chips. Lets not act like everyone with a CCD is using KAI1100 chips though. Those you can beat on for high noise, high dark current, etc.
Ok, for the newer KAF the USB download may be quick for a kodak. The 6200 (or qhy600) is still faster
entirely besides the point.
Which i think is still lost here.
If you treat the 6200 like you did a KAF, you are wasting all of its benefits. May as well use the KAF if you have experience and money to do so... bin away to get your sampling the way you need it.
no further discussion needed...
Edited by sn2006gy, 17 August 2020 - 12:23 PM.