|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Digital SLR vs. dedicated Astro CCD Camera
Hello all,
I am thinking about getting into astro imaging, and am wondering something... The local club I belong to has an AISIG (Astro Imaging Special Interest Group). The majority of the club members that I have questioned about about getting started in imaging use Digital SLRs, mostly acquired in the last year or two. (In fact, only one member I have approached has an ST-7, and that is a few years old). These one-shot colour DSLRs are pretty popular, and are obviously taking a *lot* of business away from dedicated astro camera manufacturers such as SBIG and Starlight-Xpress. The dedicated astro cameras are *seemingly* much more expensive per newbie useful chip unit area, even taking into account the greater sensitivity of the dedicated CCD cameras, cooling capabilities, etc. Why should a newbie such as myself pay $6000 for a dedicated 6-MegaPixel astro CCD, or $1300 for a low-end 0.4-MegaPixel astro CCD, when $1400 can buy a less sensitive, less specific, but perfectly adequate large-format dual-purpose CMOS camera such as Hutech- converted Digital Rebel? Gregory |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 20:27:37 GMT, Gregory
wrote: These one-shot colour DSLRs are pretty popular, and are obviously taking a *lot* of business away from dedicated astro camera manufacturers such as SBIG and Starlight-Xpress. I doubt they are having much impact on these companies. Maybe on their one-shot color cameras, but those are just for newbies anyway, and don't represent a large part of their business (not for SBIG, anyway). In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if DSLRs are helping astrocamera manufacturers, since they represent a cheap way into the hobby, but don't provide much room for growth (so some users graduate to more serious cameras). Why should a newbie such as myself pay $6000 for a dedicated 6-MegaPixel astro CCD, or $1300 for a low-end 0.4-MegaPixel astro CCD, when $1400 can buy a less sensitive, less specific, but perfectly adequate large-format dual-purpose CMOS camera such as Hutech- converted Digital Rebel? It depends what you are after. One of the biggest mistakes beginning imagers make is thinking they need lots of pixels. The actual number of pixels you need is determined by how large a field you want to image. If you are interested in imaging typical DSOs through a moderate focal length instrument (like an SCT) there is little need for megapixels. Also, you shouldn't underrate the value of cooling. A dedicated astrocamera has _much_ better noise characteristics than even the lowest noise DSLRs (Canons), and more than anything else it is noise that determines image quality. Finally, color sensors do not generally produce good results compared with individual B&W exposures made through color filters. In short, if "adequate" is what you are shooting for, a DSLR may serve you well. If your goal is to keep pushing your skills and produce high quality astroimages, however, you will rapidly outgrow the DSLR. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Hello again Chris and all,
Chris L Peterson wrote: ...In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if DSLRs are helping astrocamera manufacturers, since they represent a cheap way into the hobby, but don't provide much room for growth (so some users graduate to more serious cameras). I see... ...One of the biggest mistakes beginning imagers make is thinking they need lots of pixels... Oh... The actual number of pixels you need is determined by how large a field you want to image. If you are interested in imaging typical DSOs through a moderate focal length instrument (like an SCT) there is little need for megapixels. OK -- I will be imaging with an f/5 300mm Newtonian. I was just looking at DSLR images such as the following: http://aisig.sdaa.org/astroblog/astr....asp?imgID=342 and thinking that I would be quite happy to produce such an image, spending less than $2000 on the camera equipment. Also, you shouldn't underrate the value of cooling...more than anything else it is noise that determines image quality. I see, I didn't know that... Finally, color sensors do not generally produce good results compared with individual B&W exposures made through color filters. In short, if "adequate" is what you are shooting for, a DSLR may serve you well. If the image referenced above is "adequate", I guess that would be OK with me for now... If your goal is to keep pushing your skills and produce high quality astroimages, however, you will rapidly outgrow the DSLR. Well, that *is* a goal, within my limited budget :-) Thanks, Chris! Gregory |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Gregory wrote:
Hello all, I am thinking about getting into astro imaging, and am wondering something... The local club I belong to has an AISIG (Astro Imaging Special Interest Group). The majority of the club members that I have questioned about about getting started in imaging use Digital SLRs, mostly acquired in the last year or two. (In fact, only one member I have approached has an ST-7, and that is a few years old). These one-shot colour DSLRs are pretty popular, and are obviously taking a *lot* of business away from dedicated astro camera manufacturers such as SBIG and Starlight-Xpress. The dedicated astro cameras are *seemingly* much more expensive per newbie useful chip unit area, even taking into account the greater sensitivity of the dedicated CCD cameras, cooling capabilities, etc. Why should a newbie such as myself pay $6000 for a dedicated 6-MegaPixel astro CCD, or $1300 for a low-end 0.4-MegaPixel astro CCD, when $1400 can buy a less sensitive, less specific, but perfectly adequate large-format dual-purpose CMOS camera such as Hutech- converted Digital Rebel? Gregory I'm using a DSLR to get over the steep part of the learning curve, but expect to upgrade to a monochrome camera with a filter wheel at some point down the road. It is more work, but the dedicated cameras can do much more than a DSLR. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks for the information, Mark; you recently wrote:
It is more work, but the dedicated cameras can do much more than a DSLR. OK...exactly how does the "much more" appear in the finished product? In other words, what differences do you actually see? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 21:18:22 GMT, Gregory
wrote: If the image referenced above is "adequate", I guess that would be OK with me for now... If your goal is to keep pushing your skills and produce high quality astroimages, however, you will rapidly outgrow the DSLR. Well, that *is* a goal, within my limited budget :-) Budget is important. If a dedicated astrocamera is out of reach at the moment, that is a very good reason to go with a DSLR (I'd recommend an unmodified 300D). You will get pleasing results and learn a lot about astroimaging. One thing to be aware of is that working with the images from a DSLR is a lot harder than working with either B&W or individual color frames from an astrocamera. Calibration, noise removal, and color processing with a color camera involve a lot of work. If you move on to a more advanced camera one day, you will be pleased with how much easier the processing is. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Gregory wrote: Thanks for the information, Mark; you recently wrote: It is more work, but the dedicated cameras can do much more than a DSLR. OK...exactly how does the "much more" appear in the finished product? In other words, what differences do you actually see? Dedicated CCDs result in smoother images and a higher dynamic range (higher contrast) than a DSLR. This comes as a result of higher sensitivity and cooling to reduce background noise. Since you are a beginner I would sooner recommend the DSLR because it is lower cost. If you decide you don't like astrophotography you are left with a good daylight still camera. Ian Anderson www.customopticalsystems.com |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Gregory wrote:
Thanks for the information, Mark; you recently wrote: It is more work, but the dedicated cameras can do much more than a DSLR. OK...exactly how does the "much more" appear in the finished product? In other words, what differences do you actually see? Here's a photo of the Lagoon nebula taken by Michael Downing. http://www.astroden.com/stl6303/tmb130/M8_Core.jpg Here's a shot of ngc6960 by Michael Sherick: http://www.turbinelegend.net/ASTRO/N...5/6-27-05.html Of course it's not just the equipment - these guys are experienced and gifted at astrophotography. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks again, Mark! You recently wrote:
Here's a photo of the Lagoon nebula taken by Michael Downing. http://www.astroden.com/stl6303/tmb130/M8_Core.jpg Here's a shot of ngc6960 by Michael Sherick: http://www.turbinelegend.net/ASTRO/N...5/6-27-05.html I am not sure which is the DSLR, and which is the high-end astrocamera... |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 04:51:33 GMT, Gregory
wrote: I am not sure which is the DSLR, and which is the high-end astrocamera... Both were made with high-end astrocameras. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Digital camera astrophotography | Frank Mazzola | CCD Imaging | 1 | May 13th 04 06:28 PM |
Settings for digital camera moon photography | Dr DNA | UK Astronomy | 4 | March 8th 04 08:43 PM |
mating Radian eyepiece to digital camera | Gary | Amateur Astronomy | 3 | December 9th 03 09:16 PM |
best digital or slr for amateur astro piccys? | pete | UK Astronomy | 3 | November 7th 03 09:36 AM |
Using Digital camera for astro photos | Liam Feeney | Misc | 2 | October 28th 03 11:09 PM |