Which Dedicated Camera?

[Z3roCool]

Hi there, I have spent the last year shooting with my Canon 7D and 400mm 5.6L lens sitting on an NEQ6 mount with dual saddle for guide scope and camera.

I have been looking at getting a scope, most likely a Refractor but think the next step should really be a camera to make the most difference. 

I have decided to go mono for sure as want to do NB images from my house (Bortle 5) and LRGB from my Dads house (Bortle 3-4).

I plan on getting a refractor in the future around the 380-500mm mark, but will use my Canon lens and others for the time being with the EFW for ZWO and EOS adapter.

I have read a load about a lot of cameras and have come down to the ASI183MM Pro and the ASI1600MM Pro. 

I know there are lots of dicussions on resolution etc and noise between the two cameras but just wanted to see via a poll, if in my siuation, which would you go for? The 1600 would be pushing my budget but would be able to get some basic filters. The 183 is cheaper and would allow maybe a better Ha filter to start with along with basic LRGB and other NB filters down the line. Please give some advise if you were in my scenario, would be much appreciated. 

Forgot to add what I will be shooting. Mostly Nebula and some wide field work. Nothing too small. 

Tommy. 

[vlaiv]

Between the two, I would choose based on following criteria (not necessarily in that order):

- wanted FOV - depending on used kit (lens and scopes)

- usable corrected field, again depending on used kit (lens and scopes)

At the end I would look which one gives me the most flexibility resolution wise (needs to be over 1"/pixel, and software binning is allowed, so x2 or x3 that resolution on particular focal length are in play as well. x3 is more usable with 183 sensor due to larger pixel count).

 

[Z3roCool]

13 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

At the end I would look which one gives me the most flexibility resolution wise (needs to be over 1"/pixel, and software binning is allowed, so x2 or x3 that resolution on particular focal length are in play as well. x3 is more usable with 183 sensor due to larger pixel count).

Thanks for that, I think at 400mm the 183 would serve me better with less undersampling than the 1600. Also pixels would suit smaller focal lengths. Pretty new to the whole pixel size etc so still not that clued up. 

[vlaiv]

To be honest, I have 80mm F/6 scope, which coupled with x0.79 FF/FR gives me about 384mm FL. With ASI1600 that gives about 2"/pixel - and I never felt that was undersampling for wider FOV shots.

With such aperture it just felt right. Here is one shot with above combo at full res (might as well be first light of that setup, corner stars suffer a bit improper FF/FR spacing).

If you look at it at full resolution, M13 does not look like it was shot at small FL.

[Z3roCool]

13 hours ago, vlaiv said:

To be honest, I have 80mm F/6 scope, which coupled with x0.79 FF/FR gives me about 384mm FL. With ASI1600 that gives about 2"/pixel - and I never felt that was undersampling for wider FOV shots.

With such aperture it just felt right. Here is one shot with above combo at full res (might as well be first light of that setup, corner stars suffer a bit improper FF/FR spacing).

If you look at it at full resolution, M13 does not look like it was shot at small FL.

Impressive! Thanks for the info once again.