toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
They both have the same pixel size, but the 2600 is a 26MP versus the 6200 is a 62MP camera (hence the 26 and 62 in the model numbers, yes I just noticed that). The file size on the 2600 is going to be around 50MB while the 6200 is around 120MB per image. So teh 2600 helps with file size; however, it is a smaller FOV (same per pixel resolution). Here is an example of the FOV, using my ED80mm telescope.
M33 is one of my favorites and your pictures turned out great, considering it's just from 6*4 subs. Welcome to the site, though we are just a few weeks earlier.
2600 seems to have the same pixel size. Is the concern more for the fov and the file size?
On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 8:54 PM MJ Post <bldrpost@...
After many months of Covid and other problems with Software Bisque, and with Al Acker's help, I finally got one telescope working in Building 2, where I'm partnering with Tally O'Donnell. It is a PlaneWave CDK14 on an ME II mount, sitting side-by-side with an Officina RH 350 AT that still has alignment issues. Here's one of my first images with the PW - LRGB using six 600-sec unguided subs for each filter and binning 2x2 on a ZWO ASI 6200M camera. The scope still needs collimation tweaks, but I'm taking data anyway and hope to post more soon. Seeing and SQM reading are so much better at DSNM than where I live (near Boulder, CO), that I can't help but be excited for imaging endeavors with all of you in New Mexico.
P.S. Sorry about sending the first incomplete email - fat fingers!