On a clear night after a long time, I tried a comparison that I've wanted to do for a long time.

RC10 telescope with 250mm aperture and 2000mm focal length (F/8.0)
VS
C11 + Hyperstar V4 with 280mm aperture and 540mm focal length (F/1.9)

Comparison of live action.
Computationally, the CHS11 at f/1.9 can collect light about 16 times faster than the RC10 at f/8.0. But how is it actually? Check that.

The camera used together is ASI294MM
RC10 is BIN2
CHS11 is BIN1 (to bring the resolution closer to RC10)
total exposure time

RC10 about 15 hours
1 hour for CHS11
Stack is
RC10 is Drizzle X1
CHS11 is Drizzle X2 (to bring the resolution closer to RC10)

With the above settings RC10 and CHS11 have almost the same resolution and calculated exposure time.
Editing is background separation and color adjustment, then stretching and noise removal.
No Sharp processing, saturation processing, etc.
FL2000mm is still higher in detail, but Signal's absorbency seems to be the result of calculation.
First photo: CHS11
Second photo: RC10
It might not be bad if you can shoot so far in an hour.

久しぶりの晴れた夜、以前からやってみたかった比較をやってみた。

口径250mm 焦点距離2000mm(F/8.0)のRC10望遠鏡
口径280mm 焦点距離540mm(F/1.9)のC11+Hyperstar V4
の実写比較。

計算上はF/1.9のCHS11はF/8.0のRC10の約16倍の速さで光を収集できる。でも実際はどうなのか?というチェック。

共に利用したカメラはASI294MM
RC10はBIN2
CHS11はBIN1 (解像度をRC10に近づけるため)
総露出時間
RC10は約15時間
CHS11は1時間
Stackは
RC10はDrizzle X1
CHS11はDrizzle X2 (解像度をRC10に近づけるため)

上記の設定でRC10とCHS11はほぼ同じ解像度と計算上の露出度時間。
編集は背景分離とカラー調整、その後ストレッチしてノイズ除去。
Sharp処理、彩度処理等はなし。
詳細の表現はFL2000mmの方がやはり高いが、Signalの吸収力はほぼ計算通りの結果の様な気がする。
1枚目の写真:CHS11
2枚目の写真:RC10
1時間でここまで撮れれば悪くないかも。
Mount :iOptron CEM70G
Guide: SVBony 60mm F/4, QHY290C

Eagle_HS11BIN1_SHO_Hubble_3_ABE-Edit01-Finish



EagleNoDistNoDriz_SHO_Hubble_3_Crop_ABE-Edit01-Finish