>>4199343>large sensor + bigger telescope would use a shorter exposure and have less noiseIt wouldn't be any shorter or cleaner than the same telescope on a crop sensor though, but other than that I generally agree.
>>4199351>There isn't. You can purchase infinitely longer lenses. The only limiting factor is your desire to work to afford them.This is just stupid, lol.
>But there is a limit here, you can't make a lens too short until we invent curved sensors. There's a lack of high quality rectilinear UWAs on extreme crop sensors for this reason. Retrofocus designs present their own challenges. The current widest on MFT is 15mm equivalent. Full frame has 8mm rectilinear lenses.That's a matter of cost. Phones have even smaller sensors and have like 11mm equivalents.
>Astronomers wouldn't care that much if sensor magnification revealed more coma, if it revealed the visible spectrum of a new star. However photographers might.It won't "reveal more coma", you can just look at it closer. At any rate with my setup aberrations are smaller than Saturn itself so I will indeed gain in detail.
>Reach from what? 100mm to 200mm? With crops you lose cropping potential, you've already cropped, you reach 200mm and that is it.How do you lose cropping potential? lol With more density you can crop the image circle even tighter.
>I have a 36mp full frame and one of my lenses could be exchanged for a 20mp micro four thirds and an adapter or an additional lens easily. I just find 16mp APS-C crops sufficient, and this reach debate hilariously stupid, because camera body magnification requires swapping camera bodies, which from an artistic standpoint totally changes color science and lens rendering mid set.Well then you just have low standards. I have a 20ish MP body and I'm cropping to just larger than 1/2.3". That is instagram size right now unless I go further than 100%.
