Sorry for coming back to this, but finally I had time to look at the graph to decide cooled/uncooled. It is pretty surprising there is a factor 10x difference for the ASI290 (it has 10x more noise) at -20C while it is roughly the same at 20C, compared to the ASI1600. I was thinking that that the physical source of noise is the same, so I expected the same dependency. Even a bit smaller multiplication factor for the ASI290 because of smaller pixels.
This way, having 2x the cost is hardly justified and so I'm leaning toward the uncooled and short subs. But I am interested in understanding, from a physical point of view, what is going on. Might it be related to the different way of measuring you mentioned?
