Sony 694 v Kodak KAF8300 - Help please!

[rfdesigner]

No, I image regularly at F3.9/328mm, F5.3/450mm and F7/980mm with the Atik 4000s. I use F7 the least of the three. At F3.9, when the seeng is very stable, I get slightly blocky stars which I process out reasonably easily. On nights of average seeing the sky does it for me! I also use Yves' SXVH36 with the full frame version of the 4000 chip at F6.8 and FL 2.4 metres. This camera can't be used in Bin2, which is a blow.

I don't consider the 8300 particularly noisy by Kodak standards, I just think it's slow. The OSC version is a disaster. As for filter size, the QSI has an internal wheel which cannot be duplicated by an external one. The QSI also has electronics and cooling to match its price. I'd consider one myself, certainly, and have used one in my Tak. But otherwise I'd call it a shoot out between the 4000 and the 460. I'm not enamoured of the 383 chip, really, and the shutter can be a pain. I recently had an SX one here which was full of black paint shed by the shutter, a problem (aren't they always?) now rectified. Only it wasn't and had to go back again.

My feeling is that I'd rather have the 460 chip quality and the 4000 chip size. It's that simple. I don't think the 4000 is long in the tooth, I think it's under rated. The square chip makes the most of the cheapest filter size and the light cone of any scope with a limited flat field. The TEC can almost cover the 4000 without flattener (at lord knows what price from TEC, bless'em, and you'd need a medium format Hasselblad to exploit it!)

When I imaged with the 460 I thought it was a real beauty, sensitive, quiet and well designed. The removable dessicant plug is likely to be a boon in the UK. It's first light for its owner contributed to a Pic of the Month in Astronomy Now which was a nice start. So, good decision. Have fun!

Olly

Olly

thanks for correcting me.. I just felt that the skglow flux at the sensor would make a significant difference to the performance. A slightly noisy chip would really suffer under such conditions while a truely low noise one would excell.. but how many of us have such dark skys?.

Derek

[ollypenrice]

Olly

thanks for correcting me.. I just felt that the skglow flux at the sensor would make a significant difference to the performance. A slightly noisy chip would really suffer under such conditions while a truely low noise one would excell.. but how many of us have such dark skys?.

Derek

Indeed. I have only imaged here so I know nothing about battling skyglow. A nice problem to have!

Steve, a Kodak chip looks like a hand grenade going off in a confetti factory compared with your dark...

Olly

[dmahon]

Just saw this and was going to give you my cameras, fwheel and OAG while I go away for a week or so, but it looks like you've already hit the credit card.

FWIW, my choice was 4000 vs 460 too (but SX rather than Atik). SX thmselves pointed me toward the Sony chip.

[Steve 1962]

a Kodak chip looks like a hand grenade going off in a confetti factory compared with your dark

That's reassuring - thanks Olly

was going to give you my cameras, fwheel and OAG

"give"???? - Crikey Dave - that's generous of you! Are you off anywhere nice?