Camera & strategy planning question:
I have a couple of dark(er) sites available - a state park that looks to be at the good edge of Bortle 5 about a 45-minute drive and a dark site owned by the local club (that I shall be joining shortly) that is Bortle 4 about an hour and a quarter drive. (I realize the limitation of estimating darkness from cleardarksky.com, but it is certain both are much darker than home and the farther away one will be darker than the closer state park). Home is at least Bortle 7, but probably more like 8. I expect I would be able and willing to make either drive a couple of nights a month at least. But I am unlikely to stay at either site much past midnight to 1am - I'm old Kind of limiting during summer.
As I get close to spending the money on a cooled camera, I'm thinking in a couple of directions.
1. The simple answer is to just get OSC, that would let me capture useful signal in a few hours at a time at the dark sites and I would just deal with the limitations of OSC imaging from home. I get by so far with a dslr, so I am aware of the added difficulties of dealing with light pollution gradients during processing (I rarely to never use a filter). This would also be the cheapest, and I can always sell and move up to mono at any time.
2. Mono. Can do narrowband at home, but I do like also shooting broadband targets. So my question is - if I use my dark site time for luminance on broadband targets, is it practical to add the color components from the much more polluted home? Would that give a better end result, or will the gradients in the color channels still be just as bad?