Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b83b14cd4142fe10848741bb2a14c66b.jpg

DSLR for imaging - which one?

rocketandroll

By rocketandroll
in Imaging - Discussion

Recommended Posts

rocketandroll

rocketandroll

Posted
Posted

Sorry, this is the fourth thread in this one forum I've started in the last 24hrs, I promise this'll be the last one for today!! :-)

So, I'm looking to upgrade from the Eos 350D I've been using since I got into imaging at the start of the year.

The 350D has been great but I want liveview and a bit more resolution.... so... which Eos do I go for?

I'm gonna buy one astro-modded and it'll purely be for astro work, not normal photography.

I am somewhat swayed by the smaller pixel size of the 500D but I also want compatability with remote programmable timers and software in the future.

So far I've kinda narrowed it down to the 1000D, the 450D or the 500D, with a strong veering towards one of the latter two for the increased resolution.

Does anyone have any experience, good or bad, with these three?

I know the 1000D is popular, but I don't want to upgrade again in the near future so I want the smallest pixels and the highest res I can get.

Anyone had problems with software support, or after-market accessories on any of those? Are they all fairly well supported? I couldn't easily find a proper programmable remote for the 500D like the great one I have for the 350D when I searched online... don't want to make the wrong choice and find I can't get the extras I need for it.

Thoughts?

Ben

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pete_l

pete_l

Posted
Posted
So far I've kinda narrowed it down to the 1000D, the 450D or the 500D, with a strong veering towards one of the latter two for the increased resolution.

The 500d seems to have it, so far as lowest noise is concerned Though whether the (almost imperceptible) difference is worth the extra - what? £100-200, is debatable. Think what other toys you could buy with that :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rocketandroll

rocketandroll

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Just curious but....

Why do you think that "the smallest pixels" (higher MP count) is a good thing?

http://www.astrophotography-tonight.com/dslr-astrophotography-calculator/

http://www.ccd.com/ccd113.html

Peter...

Well... assuming there is no vignetting, surely greater detail in a given area has to be a good thing.

In not sure what counts as 'oversampling'? I guess at some stage the limitations of the scope start to show up, but more detail surely has to be a good thing?

The way I see it... Imaging the same target with 4.2micron pixels means I can blow up an image 50% more than with 6.8 micron pixels.

Sure, you're limited also by the optics of what you're imaging through, but I still dont see a down side (other than larger files).

Am I missing the point?

Ben

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Psychobilly

Psychobilly

Posted
Posted

Maybe... :)

Have a look at the sensors in "proprer" astro CCD's anything with more than around 8.3MP is invariably 35mm sized...

Canon have tried microlensing some of their sensors starting with the 550D...

I would look more at the long exposure noise performance rather than MP count...

I have got a range of DSLR's 3 Canon's (350D,1000D and 500D), 2 Nikons (D200 and D50) and and a Konika Minolta (5D)...

Peter...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ollypenrice

ollypenrice

Posted
Posted
Well... assuming there is no vignetting, surely greater detail in a given area has to be a good thing.

In not sure what counts as 'oversampling'? I guess at some stage the limitations of the scope start to show up, but more detail surely has to be a good thing?

The way I see it... Imaging the same target with 4.2micron pixels means I can blow up an image 50% more than with 6.8 micron pixels.

Sure, you're limited also by the optics of what you're imaging through, but I still dont see a down side (other than larger files).

Am I missing the point?

Ben

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

Yes! (Bluntly and in a nutshell.) The kind of dream CCD cameras we'd all really like have pretty large pixels. Eg the 11 meg chip found in the big Atik, SBIG, etc. Resolution is a poisoned chalice. The seeing has to allow it to be realistically possible.

Meanwhile, signal to noise is your real problem and here the larger pixels score big time over the small. Daytime imaging (about which I know next to nothing) is not the same as astro imaging in which getting past the noise is the big thing.

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites
swag72

swag72

Posted
Posted

I agree with Shaunster on this one - A 550D new and then modded is going to cost not an awful lot less than a QHY8. If I was going to upgrade my astro camera, currently a modded 1000D, I would go for a QHY8, not an upgraded DSLR model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rocketandroll

rocketandroll

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Cheers all for the thoughts and links....

So, simple answer, smaller pixels are less sensitive than larger ones :-)

That makes sense.

Essentially I want to try and get a bit more detail out of small objects... and that's gonna be a trade off between more resolution in the imager and longer FL (with all the agro that goes with that). A little more resolution seems a good first thing to try.

As for why I'm not going for a dedicated CCD, because I have nowhere near home to image from so I always have to take my rig out to a field or car park, set it up quickly, and pack it away quickly afterwards... so I have so far sworn I won't use anything that NEEDS a laptop to operate.

I've done ok so far keeping it simple, though the Synguider may have just tipped it over the egde to the point a laptop may be sensible :-)

Anyway, for now... I've had some great results with DSLR astrophotography and plan to move on to CCD imaging when I have an observatory, which is likely to be 2013 some time. I'm enjoying the journey for now... building up the complexity slowly.

This is all somewhat of a moot point anyway as someone kindly offered me an astro-modded 500D the other day and I've bought it :-)

I'd have liked to keep the 350D too as a back up and to compare results... but I need the money from it to pay for the 500D.

I'll let you know how I get on :-)

Ben

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Squif

Squif

Posted
Posted

I had just started with the canon eos 400d and I think it is awsome! so easy to play about with- image quality is awsome - the 450d is similar- so I guess it comes down to what else you want to do with it

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rocketandroll

rocketandroll

Posted
  • Author
Posted
You need a laptop! You really do.

Olly

No NO NOOO!!!!! :-)

I can resist at least a few months longer I think Olly :-)

If I come back from Kelling a nervous wreck from trying to get the Synguider working and manage operating the rig with 12 cables and four seperate hand-cobtrollers... then maybe that's when I'll have to give in.

Ben

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.