40D or 50D? Or even something else?

[Zendrix]

Hello all!

I´ve been checking some DSLR's. My budget is around 600/800 EUR max. Within this budget i somehow got the model Canon 50D in my head, but i'm pretty sure i'm overlooking other interesting and effective models... I read that besides all the good qualities of Canon (which other brands might keep up with), Canon has a better software compatibility for different purposes.

My main goal is to picture Deep space objects. I have no experience at all in astrophotography. Could you kindly give me some insight?

Thanks in advance!

[GlassWalker]

The 50D is a nice camera, and I used to have one myself. For general photography it is better to handle than lower range models. But for astrophotography it doesn't really get you any benefit over cheaper models, and the increased weight may even work against you.

For deep sky, it is common but not essential to modify the camera to make it more sensitive to H-alpha emissions. These are in the deep reds and normally reduced by the camera's infra-red blocking filter. It helps for imaging emission nebula, but not so much for other objects. The modification will affect the camera's ability to be used normally.

So the question is what do you want to prioritise?

[Zendrix]

i see!

My priority are galaxies, clusters and nebula...So if i modify the camera (i suppose is what they call modded camera?), does that mean nebula are the only only objects i can photograph with that camera? or i can photograph galaxies and clusters as well?

If the 50D doesnt offer not much more to astrophotography, that means you would recommend a cheaper model? what model would stand up to these qualities, saving some money?

Thank you!

[Zendrix]

i've been reading a DSLR thread... it seems that the 1100D is a cheap reasonable choice among APers... What are the downsides to a 1100D?!

[GlassWalker]

I thought you also wanted to use the camera for normal use too, which would have complicated matters. If not, that makes things simpler.

The camera can be used, modified or not. If not modified, then crudely, it wont be as sensitive to the red glowy stuff out there. But it will be much the same for galaxies and other things.

The 1100D does seem popular. Never had one, but it is the cheapest new Canon DSLR around now. The features you don't get from more expensive bodies are largely not important for astro use. If you want to spend a bit more, the tilting screen of the 600D can make things easier if you're working at funny angles.

[Zendrix]

I heard that these cameras have liveview... Does this mean that i can control the screen of a 1100D from my Laptop, which maybe could compensate the fact of not having a tilting LCD?

Does modifying it really makes a big difference? I suppose more for nebulae?!

If so, is it advisable to do it myself or is there any place where you can buy a modified 1100D?

Thanks a lot for your time and advice mate.

[RikM]

The newer cheapo models seem to give some response to Ha even unmodded. I use a standard 1000D and have had some satisfactory results. Some people report the 1100D is even better but I haven't used one for deep sky AP. I do have one for work but actually prefer the 1000D over the 1100D for daytime use. The light plastic bodies put less stress on the focuser, which is nice.

[Zendrix]

would you advise then buy it and try it unmodded and then decide?

I saw some cooling methods for cameras... is noise going to be a problem with a 1000D or 1100D if there is no cooling systems involved?

Many thanks,

Rui

[GlassWalker]

Trying a standard one for starters will give you something to work with before you decide to modify or not. If you get someone else to do it, it can cost a fair bit. It can be done yourself if you're confident with opening up electronic equipment. Personally I find it a dust nightmare though!

As for noise and cooling, it will never match a dedicated cooled CCD, but you are paying far less for one. With work you can still get nice results.

For example, here's one I did a couple years ago with a standard 450D in a light polluted area. I've been meaning to have another go with a modified camera but not got around to it yet...

You will quickly learn that processing is also important for best results.

[Zendrix]

Amazing picture!

So this 450D was not modded at all? I wonder what kind of results can i get with my set-up (130mm sky-watcher f:900mm).

Btw, the pictures in raw format are always black and white and you get the colors in the processing stage? Or there is some color but they are enhanced in processing?

Thkx!

Rui

[RikM]

I am afraid I can't advise from personal experience, because I've never used a modded camera. That said, I have seen better images from modded cameras than unmodded so if I were buying a new* camera dedicated to astro use I would get a filter replacement modded 1100D from Astronomiser

*If it were me, I would probably actually get a second hand 1000D and get them to mod it for me...but that's just me.

[RikM]

This was shot with an unmodded 1000D.

[Zendrix]

yes, i was thinking about that second hand possibility!

Maybe i could get a second hand ALREADY modified 1100D... but... where to find it?! Any hints?!

[Zendrix]

WONDERFUL pic RIk!!

i guess you can still get some Ha on an unmodded 1000D (isn't all the red haze on the infrared spectrum?) What about liveview? can you connect it to the pc and control focus and viewing from there?

Thkx!

[Tinkerbell]

For cameras already modded try here

< http://www.astronomiser.co.uk/moddeddslrs.htm#1100d >

[RikM]

I use APT (Astrophotography tool) on a laptop to control the camera. i don't have a motor focuser, but set APT to take a series of short exposures and tweak the focus, viewing the result on the laptop until it is right. I use a Bahtinov mask to help. Wonderful gadget.

Depending on which focuser you have fitted, I am not sure a DSLR will come to focus on your 130 though. Older models didn't have enough inwards travel, but they may well have upgraded it by now.

[ollypenrice]

OK, so I will make myself unpopular with a totally different view. DSLRs are not serious astro cameras in my opinion. I would rather use a small chip CCD and a shorter FL scope (to restore the FOV) and get into serious imaging. It really isn't that difficult and nobody I know has ever gone from CCD back to DSLR. You just wouldn't.

You might even find a new Atik 314L for that price and you'd certainly get a used one. Honestly, it's another world. Just check out Rob Hodgkinson's work with the earlier Atik 16HR (Middlehill observatory) and see what I mean. Check out the Cocoon image. Could you take that in a DSLR? Let's be dead clear about this, you could not.

Olly

http://ollypenrice.smugmug.com/Other/Best-of-Les-Granges/22435624_WLMPTM#!i=1793644788&k=r8HTK72

[RikM]

No counter argument from me if you can find a secondhand CCD within budget, go for that.

[Zendrix]

ok!

I might very well consider that! What about software and ways to work with CCD? is there so much information on how to learn and develop your techniques on CCD? do they connect to laptop as well? Pardon my ignorance on this matter... Are there any downsides for the CCD's other than not being used in any other field than astrophotography?

thanks to all your inputs! you might just have changed my direction!

where could i search for second hand reliable CCD's?

[Zendrix]

BTW, amazing pic!

[GlassWalker]

On focusing, personally I use live view on the camera itself. Never bothered to get a laptop connected.

I've looked at CCDs in detail as I was working out what the real differences are and at what point they start to get interesting over a DSLR. In quantum efficiency, there is no significant difference between a colour CCD and DSLR per unit area. However, a smaller sensor colour CCD would of course be hindered by size. The CCD's advantage is through cooling it can offer lower noise, and what's left is more predictable so could be better removed. If you want to use narrowband filters, then a small mono CCDs can start to gain tangible advantage over DSLRs. At the end of the day, DSLR vs CCD is a really complicated tradeoff of many factors. Personally the advantages of a CCD over a DSLR only become significant once the cost also goes significant...

[Zendrix]

yeah... i just got a look at prices... 350EUR on a pure body 1100D vs one thousand something for an atik... decisions decisions... maybe i should start low and aim high?! im really confused now! lol

Also im not 100% sure about the 130mm sky-watcher and the focus problem... the only solution if i encounter this problem is a barlow, no?! whgich won't be very picture-friendly to have in between the camera and the scope.... :/

Does this problem occur with CCD?

Dont know what to do.. :/

[ollypenrice]

On focusing, personally I use live view on the camera itself. Never bothered to get a laptop connected.

I've looked at CCDs in detail as I was working out what the real differences are and at what point they start to get interesting over a DSLR. In quantum efficiency, there is no significant difference between a colour CCD and DSLR per unit area. However, a smaller sensor colour CCD would of course be hindered by size. The CCD's advantage is through cooling it can offer lower noise, and what's left is more predictable so could be better removed. If you want to use narrowband filters, then a small mono CCDs can start to gain tangible advantage over DSLRs. At the end of the day, DSLR vs CCD is a really complicated tradeoff of many factors. Personally the advantages of a CCD over a DSLR only become significant once the cost also goes significant...

C'mon, just look at the pictures. I couldn't care less about studying the quantum efficiency - though in idle moments I do. You see high quality DSLR images very occasionally and they have one thing in common; they come from ultra fast optical systems. That is, in effect, just a re-assertion of your correct point about cooling. I'm a bit of a CCD evangelist, I admit, but I'd be less vocal if one of the magazines were not so addicted to evangelizing DSLRs! I'm happy to stand up, be counted, and shot down again when it comes to images of M42. For what it's worth this is from a CCD less sensitive and more noisy (but with a larger chip) than the 314L.

Olly

[GlassWalker]

If it wasn't for local light pollution and my need for an upgraded mount I'm sure I could do that with a DSLR

Definitely a good CCD is better than DSLR. But good CCDs just don't go at lower price points, hence the popularity of using DSLRs for those who don't want to blow megabucks.

[Zendrix]

What about Imaging SOurce Cameras? They are in the category of the CCD and are lower priced... any good investments there?!