Digital SLR vs. dedicated Astro CCD Camera

Chris L Peterson wrote:

Both were made with high-end astrocameras.

Yes, thanks Chris. In fact, they appear to use perhaps
the same high-end camera (STL6303?), with the "turbinelegend"
examples being false color renditions of SII, H-Alpha,
and OIII wavelengths. *Far* beyond what I imagined possible
for a 152mm refractor, even if it is a TMB ;-) Roughly
analagous to what can be done with the sound of a fine
guitar in a fabulously-equipped recording/audio processing
studio.

*Truly* stunning work.

Maybe I'll skip the DSLR, and start with a lower-end
dedicated CCD.

Gregory

wrote:

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

Exactly, one can buy a used Canon 300D 6.3Meg pixel camera for
$500-$600, can be used for astrophotoghraphy or snaping vacation picture.
Julius

Mark S. Holden wrote:
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.


They are nice, high end pictures, but there is $15-$20 thousands worth
of equipment behind it. Not only the camera, but the scope, mount,
accessories, time and location involved etc..
Surely not for beginners, unless Trump is your father.
Julius

Chris L Peterson wrote:
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

....and high end telescope! Not Tasco class!
Julius

szaki wrote:
snip
They are nice, high end pictures, but there is $15-$20 thousands worth
of equipment behind it. Not only the camera, but the scope, mount,
accessories, time and location involved etc..
Surely not for beginners, unless Trump is your father.
Julius


Your estimate of cost is a bit low. The camera itself runs $13k.

But a setup like this is reasonably priced compared to a vacation home,
or a cabin cruiser.

Gregory wrote:

Chris L Peterson wrote:


Both were made with high-end astrocameras.


Yes, thanks Chris. In fact, they appear to use perhaps
the same high-end camera (STL6303?), with the "turbinelegend"
examples being false color renditions of SII, H-Alpha,
and OIII wavelengths. *Far* beyond what I imagined possible
for a 152mm refractor, even if it is a TMB ;-) Roughly
analagous to what can be done with the sound of a fine
guitar in a fabulously-equipped recording/audio processing
studio.

*Truly* stunning work.

Maybe I'll skip the DSLR, and start with a lower-end
dedicated CCD.

Gregory


There's a guy in Poland who has taken stunning images with an SBIG
ST-2000XM camera on a TMB 115.

That's not exactly a low end camera - but it seems like a bang for the
buck champ in its price range. (I've seen used ones go for about $2k)

A DSLR can still be a good camera to start learning on - and you can use
it as an everyday camera too. But magazine quality photos tend to come
from the dedicated cameras, at the hands of folks who are experienced
and meticulous.

Mark S. Holden wrote:
szaki wrote:
snip

They are nice, high end pictures, but there is $15-$20 thousands worth
of equipment behind it. Not only the camera, but the scope, mount,
accessories, time and location involved etc..
Surely not for beginners, unless Trump is your father.
Julius


Your estimate of cost is a bit low. The camera itself runs $13k.

But a setup like this is reasonably priced compared to a vacation home,
or a cabin cruiser.


What ever, I've seen guys blowing lot more money on sport cars, boats,
campers gambeling, woman etc...
If some one has the money and enjoy taking pictures, why not?
Julius

szaki wrote:
Mark S. Holden wrote:


CLIP

But a setup like this is reasonably priced compared to a vacation
home, or a cabin cruiser.


What ever, I've seen guys blowing lot more money on sport cars, boats,
campers gambeling, woman etc...
If some one has the money and enjoy taking pictures, why not?

I wnder if you can get a mortgage on a CCD camera?

lal_truckee wrote:

szaki wrote:

Mark S. Holden wrote:


CLIP

But a setup like this is reasonably priced compared to a vacation
home, or a cabin cruiser.


What ever, I've seen guys blowing lot more money on sport cars, boats,
campers gambeling, woman etc...
If some one has the money and enjoy taking pictures, why not?


I wnder if you can get a mortgage on a CCD camera?

I imagine some folks use home equity lines to buy them.

Chris L Peterson wrote:
If
you are interested in imaging typical DSOs through a moderate focal
length instrument (like an SCT) there is little need for megapixels.


Hi, Chris.

I'd disagree there; I switched to a DSLR because the small chips in the
usual dedicated CCD imager are far too small for typical DSO work at
focal lengths above 2000mm. In a 12" SCT even the DSLR can barely
accomodate globulars and smaller galaxies. The dedicated cameras are
fine with shorter scopes or very small objects like planetary nebulae.

John