So I've always been a mono-camera guy since I live in a orange/white zone and had more or less convinced myself that RGB imaging, and especially imaging with a OSC given light pollution and the moon. I defaulted then to narrowband assuming that if and when clear nights come up there'd be a good chance that I'd be contending with the moon, so it made the investment I had made in RGB filters seem pretty wasted.
I primarily did Ha/OIII bicolor images, though (though I sometimes added SII) because I prefer "semi-RGB" to SHO palette.
I left the hobby a few years ago but am getting back into it - but before doing so I want to have a plan for what I'm going to be after (last time I didn't so I ended up buying and selling lots of cameras and telescopes to try out what I liked and ended up spending a stupid amount of money on endless tinkering/experimenting). So I want to really understand the advantages and disadvantages of mono and OSC cameras given the likelihood I'd be imaging under very bad light pollution and/or a bright moon. I also want to point out that while I do have processing experience and own a copy of PI, I'm ###### at processing. I also want to leave myself room for possible upgrading as I have barely tested my current mount (the AVX) and have no idea if it'll hold up to guiding for 10 minute+ subs.
Anyway, here's what I'm trying to understand - particularly about OSCs:
With OSC, I'd always accepted the conventional wisdom that narrowband imaging was, even though possible, not really advisable for quality imaging because of the Bayer matrix. But - now there are filters (tri-band and quad-band) that allow you to image in each of the RGB channels but using very narrow FWHM channels (including H-beta). I understand that this filter can be looked at as an extreme light-pollution filter, as well as a way to produce full color narrowband images of emission nebula using a OSC with the emission lines mapped to (more or less) their "true color."
So depending on the target, with a OSC you could use a multi-pass filter for emission nebula, but for galaxies, reflection nebula, etc., you obviously DON'T use that filter...so you just flip in some kind of general light pollution filter such as the Astronomik CLS-CCD?
So for OSC, two filters then is all you need for just about any DSO and you can do that with a simple drawer - or just a 1.25" filter holder (I have one from Scopestuff) that threads onto the camera's T-adapter?
Okay, for mono then is the advantage that you can set exposure times deeper for a particular channel? It seems like now though that to accomplish what a OSC camera can do with a multi-pass filter, for a mono you'd need each narrowband filter with a filter wheel (and have to refocus between each filter), AND you'd also need a set of RGB filters plus a light pollution filter for galaxies and reflection nebula?
So for mono, you'd need three or four narrowband filters + RGB filters + a filter wheel to do what a OSC can do for a lot cheaper and with a lot less additional equipment?
Yes I understand there will be arguments over resolution, but I'm not going to make poster sized prints - mostly just after "pretty pictures" that I can share with my kiddos or other astro-dorks.
The reason I'm asking this is because I know the kinds of flexibility I want in my imaging set-up (my goals are to make pretty images of things like M42, Andromeda, the Iris, the Pleiades, , the Heart and Soul, the Wizard - which covers a fairly wide range of challenges as some are narrowband, some are RGB, some are a little of both). At the moment I've got an old CCD camera, no filter wheel, and a single H-alpha filter. Before I go and start buying more stuff to build out the capabilities of my camera, I guess I'm wondering, why should I? Wouldn't it just be cheaper, simpler, more economical, and more fun to instead pick up a cooled CMOS OSC and try to drive a bit further out of town?
Thanks for reading!