Modify my Nikon D610 or CCD OSC

[noideasteve]

Hi guys, 
   Let's start off by saying I love my Nikon D610, the full frame is great and the image below shows how big of a FOV I can get with my setup. My question is as I get better at photographing, should I modify my Nikon D610 and would this make it more sensitive? or should I sell the Nikon to help fund a CCD one shot colour? To make it clear at this stage I'm not interested in mono ccd's with filter wheels.

I know if I go a CCD the chip will be smaller so an image like this one is going to need a series of images mosaic style to achieve a nice panoramic. 

I guess another option could be to buy a 2nd hand D610 and get that modified as mine is still less than 1yr old.

Also my future setup will be to have two William Optics GT 81's both photographing at the same time to produce wider panoramics and to achieve more in one night.

Just some thoughts and opinions thanks guys and I do apologise if I haven't explained myself well enough as I'm very tired. 
Thanks, 
Steve
 

[Starlight 1]

I was going to get the new Nikon 810A But looking at your pic with the Nikon D610 its got a lot going for it and with a mod  it will be nice see the out come. Sorry that I can not help you.

[ollypenrice]

The advantage of CCD OSC over DSLR is probably fairly minor in comparison with the advantage of mono CCD over DSLR. Are you sure you are rejecting mono CCD for the right reasons? Many people reject mono CCD for the wrong reasons, thinking it to be slower and more complicated - which I would dispute robustly.

Olly

[Phillyo]

Agree with Olly. 

I went from a modified DSLR to a mono CCD and the difference in sensitivity and image quality was drastic! Also agree with the statement of people being wrong about it being slower and more complex.

For example. To take a full colour image with a CCD you may need 24 x 600s in luminance, then maybe 12 x 600 each in RGB. That's a total time of around 10 hours?? Now you may think you can do it all in one go with a colour CCD, but to get close to the image quality of the above, mono CCD; you would need to expose for around 10 hours anyway! Probably more. You also can't do narrowband with a colour CCD as far as I'm aware? And I THINK colour CCD's are affected more by light pollution than mono because you can't filter it out with specific narrowband or RGB filters, thought I may be wrong there.

In short, I wouldn't modify your nikon or sell it...not unless you don't use it for anything OTHER than astrophotography. 

Phil

[Starlight 1]

Just looking online and see Nikon was looking into it as its geting oil on the chip and have to go back to be clean ,not so good if a mod have been done on it.

[sharkmelley]

You pose a very interesting question and I don't think the answer is as straightforward as some would suggest.

Your starting point is a Nikon D610 - a very competent full-frame performer with QE (Quantum Efficiency) at 50% and low read noise.  If you buy an astro CCD then almost certainly it will be a smaller sensor size.  Reducing your sensor size requires good justification because the larger the sensor the better it is at swallowing photons (it's no accident that Tom and Olly used an Atik 11000 for that fantastic 400 hour image)   I am assuming that your scope gives you a sharp image right across the full-frame - if not, then moving to a smaller sensor does makes sense.

If the choice is between modding the Nikon and buying a cooled OSC (probably with a smaller sensor), the only justification for the cooled OSC is if thermal noise is the limiting factor in your imaging.  However, if light pollution is your limiting factor then a cooled OSC is likely to be a backwards step because its QE will be hardly any better and you lose the full-frame advantage.  The limiting factor for your imaging can only be judged by measurements taken from typical light frames and dark frames.  Are you in a dark place and what are typical night temperatures?

In theory, a mono cooled CCD will outperform DSLRs and OSCs both for full colour (RGB or preferably LRGB) imaging and especially for capturing H-alpha, where all pixels are responsive (not just the red ones).  But when you take sensor size into account I think you would be disappointed unless you had one of at least APS-C size.  But they don't exist - this is why I'm still imaging with a DSLR.  If Sony released mono versions of the latest APS-C Exmor sensors found in recent Nikon and Sony cameras to the astro-cam manufacturers (at a decent price) then it would be a game changer for anyone not already using the large Kodak 11002 sensors.  Such mono-astro cameras haven't appeared (yet).

I haven't answered your question directly but hopefully I've have given some considerations to weigh up.

Mark

[noideasteve]

Thanks for your replies guys and thoughts / insight.
 

I was going to get the new Nikon 810A But looking at your pic with the Nikon D610 its got a lot going for it and with a mod  it will be nice see the out come. Sorry that I can not help you.

That's cool....I too was looking at a Nikon 810A however the price I just can't justify where you can get a really nice CCD for that price.

Mark - I only photograph in dark sky locations, I've found the more I get into the hobby the more fussier I get with the night sky. I do feel I'm ready for a mono ccd it's just cost really. I was waiting until I got laid off from work to spend some more money into my hobby and that's where I was looking at either the QSI cameras or the Atik 11000, I've found once have a big sensor it's just wicked!

I was looking at a KAF- 8300 sensor to move to from the Nikon in OSC format. I would like to eventually get a mono ccd because the results do speak for themselfs! However I would like to do it in small steps by learning the difference between a DSLR and a CCD camera with setup and exposures etc. Would I be wasting my time learning a OSC CCD than a Mono or is there a big difference?

One last thing, I really do like high resolution images as I like to print and frame my own pictures, can OSC or Mono ccd's produce high resolution images for my big prints?

[sharkmelley]

If you are imaging at a dark site with that Nikon/Scope combination then in all probability your images are limited by thermal noise, especially since you have a climate warmer than the UK.  If you are considering a OSC as a stepping stone then don't do it - just go straight for a similar sized mono-CCD - it will outperform the OSC, especially for Luminance and for imaging H-alpha (and other Narrowband if you choose)

As for which model of mono-CCD to choose, or how good they are at producing high resolution images for printing, it's not my area of expertise.  I'm sure others can advise better.

Mark

[noideasteve]

Cheers heaps for that Mark, I think I'll just stick to the unmodified D610 that I have and wait a little longer to get myself a QSI or Atik camera, In the mean time learn how to mosaic my images together ready for the next camera for some nice wide field shots

[kalasinman]

Just a crazy thought..Why not buy a used Nikon D5100 or D7000 on Ebay and have it Baader filter modified and also use the Niknhacker true dark point firmware. It might give you some new ideas at a modest cost.

[ollypenrice]

Like Mark I'd skip the OSC CCD stage. It's more psychological than real, though people in frustrating climates like the fact that at least you get something complete.

There are plenty of big OSC chips available like the Atik 11000 and various 8300 cameras but I have tried neither. A friend who did try the OSC8300 found it dismally unresponsive, though, and soon sold it. I had an OSC 4000 and liked it pretty well but only because I could add Ha from a sister mono camera. Ha is so often the life blood of nebular images after all. 

Regarding speed, here's the sum for a 4 hour run. The best possible efficiency for a pixel behind a colour filter is 33% though I think it is really less than that. (Two colours are blocked, one is passed, so 33% efficient.) 

Hour 1; OSC 1/3 of an hour effective exp time. Mono (red filter) 1/3 hour effective exp time.

Hour 2; as above but with green filter for mono.

Hour 3; as above but with blue filter for mono.

So far there is no difference. But now what happens?

Hour 4; OSC 1/3 hour effective esp time. Mono in luminance, 1 hour effective exp time.

This means 4/3 effective hours for the OSC and 6/3 effective hours for the mono. A clear speed advantage for the mono. Plus,

- You can do colour in Bin2 if you wish with a mono. Faster still.

- You can do dedicated Ha at full effiency in the mono

- And you can do it in fairly significant moonlight.

Heretic that I am, I rarely use dedicated flats for each colour filter but just use a luminace flat for the lot. I find it makes no difference. This reduces the mono workload somewhat.

Olly

[frostynixon]

Hello,

i would like to propose a mono DSLR as another option. Depending on how skilled you are(fingers crossed), this could be a very cheap option. I bought a used D5100 specifically to turn it into a mono camera. Unfortunately my own mono attempt failed and i killed the the sensor. But luckily a very friendly forum member(http://stargazerslounge.com/user/39870-herra-kuulapaa/) from finland supplied me with a already mono modded sensor so that i got a mono dslr now that was 500,- € in total. If you think that this operation is too risky you could ask/negotiate with Herra, although i`m not sure if he does commissioned work.

If you don`t need to stick to Nikon, there`s also a company that already sells mono modded Canons (although i have no experience with them) (http://www.jtwastronomy.com/products/monochrome.html)

[sharkmelley]

For completeness, I really ought to describe a completely different alternative - the approach that I have taken.  Modify the DSLR and marry it very fast scope - in my case the Tak Epsilon 180ED.  This will take you out of the zone where your imaging is limited by thermal noise back into the zone where it is limited by skyglow.  Mine is only an APS-C sensor but Maurice Toet does it even better with a full frame sensor:  http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/229468-the-subaru-star-cluster/

Take a look at his website for some stunning full-frame DSLR imagery.

Food for thought

Mark

[Coco]

If you planning moving to full frame DSLR using a telescope expect to pay an awful lot to get a flat field, you will also need a very fast optic, its going to cost a lot of money.

I can see the attraction to OSC, I tried it twice with dedicated CCD and twice with DSLR (4x total), I am back using a Mono camera, I'd rather capture a high res Mono image ( by this I really do mean Mono) than a noisy under sampled
colour image from the same amount of time and living where I do time and clear sky opportunities are rare..  

Colour CCD's and DSLR's need excellent skies & very fast optics to make them give the wow factor.. 

[laser_jock99]

I might have a chance to 'borrow' a large cooled OSC CCD in the near future for a few weeks as I'm curious about how much difference the cooling really makes compared to a low noise DSLR. I'd like to get some good comparison shots under the same conditions.

For ultimate image quality mono CCD has to be the way to go.

[sharkmelley]

I might have a chance to 'borrow' a large cooled OSC CCD in the near future for a few weeks as I'm curious about how much difference the cooling really makes compared to a low noise DSLR. I'd like to get some good comparison shots under the same conditions.

For ultimate image quality mono CCD has to be the way to go.

The difference will depend on your individual circumstances: sky conditions, scope f-ratio and outside temperature.  A cooled OSC is beneficial under dark skies with a slow scope - especially on a warm evening.  This is because dark current becomes the dominant source of noise in the image.  For a fast scope, with greater light pollution and cool nights then the light pollution will be the dominant source of noise so the benefit of the cooled OSC is not obvious.

Mark

[ollypenrice]

The difference will depend on your individual circumstances: sky conditions, scope f-ratio and outside temperature.  A cooled OSC is beneficial under dark skies with a slow scope - especially on a warm evening.  This is because dark current becomes the dominant source of noise in the image.  For a fast scope, with greater light pollution and cool nights then the light pollution will be the dominant source of noise so the benefit of the cooled OSC is not obvious.

Mark

Agreed.

I also agree that the CCD-like DSLR images come from ultra fast optics. The problem of capturing high resolution, high contrast Ha data to blend with RGB does still remain, though. An Ha filter doesn't bring new data to the DSLR's table but it does bring higher contrasts and resolution. Red alone can be a bit soft compared with Ha.

Olly

[graemlourens]

Hey Steve.

Interesting, same time, different continent, but same situation

I'm also a D610 owner, but will now go mono CCD.

I was thinking about this a long time but its time to invest in a CCD. (i'll keep the D610 though for landscape & widefield tough)

Considering OSC to Mono, i have read honestly dotzens of Threads about this (not only here) and the consensis is very strongly towards mono for multiple reasons. It always depends on your situation tough for me mono is the way (opening up narrowband from my lightpolluted area)

Btw: My D610 wasn't doing toooo well imaging at -10 degrees this winter.

The sensor cleaning unit was squiitching and so on... The manual sais its not made for under 0 degrees (mostly battery reasons i guess than internal electrics)

[graemlourens]

Ah and BTW:

Also with an unmodded D610 like i have, you can get very pleasing images i think:

http://www.astrobin.com/full/164664/D/