£1300 and half way through Making Every Proton Count...

[Fordos Moon]

Examples of CCD? ( for research purposes!)

[mgirdwood]

I some how thought the camera question would raise its head.. Check out the deep sky forum and you will see amazing imagery taken with the canon 1000 and 1100d. As Olly says ( and I would agree) for "proper" work CCD is the way to go and then you are talking money the Atik 314L which is be of the favoured entry will set you back close to the 1000£ mark. But the you will likely one to couple that with a Nice APO Triplet etc. its time to talk to the bank manager about now

As my company is so fond of saying -start small and think bigger.

[Andymac79]

Is this gonna be a hobby that you will devote a few hours a month to? given full moon and cloud? Or is it gonna be a living that requires the best tools?

My advice? Get a light, cheap, highly capable canon, get out amongst the clouds and have a go

[Fordos Moon]

Sound advice thank you!

[SplintUK]

I picked up a canon eos 300d as old as the hills but with the internal filter removed for about £150 with bits. I paid £10 ish for a timer shutter controller and I'm up and playing. I then spent £140 ish on an astonomik clip filter (cls ccd)

If it works out then fine I will probably upgrade to a better (newer) canon dslr and make use of my extras with that. if not then I can ship it on at not much of a loss. Something to cut my teeth on with limited exposure. (Long winded post for a rubbish pun - but I think it was worth it - all true as well).

[Andymac79]

Thats my problem, limited exposure............

[moogoomonkey]

Proton? Photon

[Andymac79]

Proton? Photon

Thats an Iranian science manual

[Fordos Moon]

Oops only just realised my schoolboy error, almost a Freudian slip but can't get away with it!

[Fordos Moon]

The book is on the table in front of me too!!

[ollypenrice]

A used, modded DSLR does have things going for it. But I reckon you'd find an Atik 16HR second hand for a couple of hundred (at most) more than a new budget Canon. After all, Atik were doing the 314L, the later version of the 16HR, for £850 at Astrofest last year, I'm told. The chip is small but it is a million miles ahead of DSLR in other respects. There's also the Atik 320E, which I've beta tested, and although the chip is small it's very sensitive and would be a demon in a tiny apo.

A guest this year said something I thought interesting. He said that under the influence of one of the magazines he'd wasted a lot of time and some cash on starting with DSLR and wished he'd gone straight into CCD. I went straight into CCD myself, encouraged by Ian King, and I'm glad I did.

This is a tough one and there's no 'right answer.' The DSLR gives you a big chip at a low price. I suspect, though, that beginners feel that since it is a familiar sort of camera it is going to be less complicated to use and images will be easier to process. I don't believe this is so and, indeed, think the reverse is true. You have to work around so many of the unwanted features of a daytime camera, and battle so hard against noise, that getting clean data from a purpose built device is easier after an initial familiarization.

Not many people recommend going straight into CCD but I'm one who does - and I spend much of my life doing imaging with beginners. I realize it's more costly, though.

Olly

[swag72]

I started off imaging with a DSLR - I dabble in daytime photography, so it seemed like a natural progression, as well as more attainable than dropping over £1k on a CCD after spending £2k on scope and mount. The DSLR's that I had were rather on the heavy side, so I bought a small 1000D specifically for AP, then wanted it modded (cost more than the camera!). Of course I needed a LP filter (read expensive Astronomiks clip in filter) and also wanted to image when the moon was up (expensive clip in Ha filter!!) and then realised that the noise levels I got with it imaging over here in Spain was just too much, so I bit the bullet and got a mono CCD.

With hindsight, I wish I'd missed out the DSLR stage, as it lasted less than 6 months before a CCD was purchased. I think that the data capture process on a CCD is no more difficult than with a DSLR (just a new routine to learn). You are getting much more sensitivity and versatility with a CCD as well. Processing wise, if you know no different and start with a CCD, then it's no more difficult than a DSLR. Yes perhaps the initial stacking stages and calibration stages are more cumbersome as you are stacking and aligning potentially 4 channels (LRGB) whereas with the DSLR you don't have this. But when you actually come to stretching the data, working with it and trying to make it into a pleasing image, you have to work far harder with a DSLR image in my opinion, to combat noise and mainatin colour to name but 2 areas.

So if you can afford to bite the bullet I would definitely say go straight to a CCD. As Olly says there are second hand Atik 's out there that will set you back little more than a DSLR. Of course if you chose a mono version, then you need filters and a filter wheel as well.

[ollypenrice]

But when you actually come to stretching the data, working with it and trying to make it into a pleasing image, you have to work far harder with a DSLR image in my opinion, to combat noise and mainatin colour to name but 2 areas.

Exactly.

[tingting44]

stretching is one thing i dont get? do you normally stretch when in PIPP then in registax, and do you also stretch in PS also? or do u only stretch say in 1 of the previous 3 programs? as pipp and R6 ask if you want to stretch RGB? but i really dont get stretching as of yet

[swag72]

I can't help you specifically on planetary stuff, but with DSO imaging, you stack the images, then align the different channels (RGB). Then you combine each individual stack into a single RGB image THEN stretch that RGB image. That's very basic but gives you an idea of the process.

[tingting44]

I can't help you specifically on planetary stuff, but with DSO imaging, you stack the images, then align the different channels (RGB). Then you combine each individual stack into a single RGB image THEN stretch that RGB image. That's very basic but gives you an idea of the process.

thanks, its all so confusing lol just like i thought collimating was confusing the other week but now got that under the belt....

just reading through this long pinned topic at the mo but all the pictures are not coming up

[Fordos Moon]

Hey this is all great reading and the CCD is definitely on the options list ( my job is helping the military write business cases to achieve value for money!) and having read these last posts it is becoming stronger.

I have no interest in using a camera for anything other than with the scope as I always have my iPhone in my pocket for any instant moments.

Thanks yet again!

[Andymac79]

Although I have a cheap Canon and recommed it highly but sure, if I had the money (try finding a cheap one on the sh market) and wanted a purely astro cam then I would go CCD

I guess it comes down to money, for me the 1000d was the most cost effective way of getting images that I am happy with between other commitments, the moon and British cloud. There is alot of time the astro gear gathers dust just waiting to be used, for me, better £500 kit gets dusty than 5k

[Gina]

Although I have a cheap Canon and recommed it highly but sure, if I had the money (try finding a cheap one on the sh market) and wanted a purely astro cam then I would go CCD

I guess it comes down to money, for me the 1000d was the most cost effective way of getting images that I am happy with between other commitments, the moon and British cloud. There is alot of time the astro gear gathers dust just waiting to be used, for me, better £500 kit gets dusty than 5k

That's alright for you perhaps but I've been bitten by the bug - a true AP addict I don't think I've quite reached 5K pounds yet but I haven't added up all the bits - it is possible!

[Andymac79]

That's alright for you perhaps but I've been bitten by the bug - a true AP addict I don't think I've quite reached 5K pounds yet but I haven't added up all the bits - it is possible!

Im not sure my commitment to the cause can be judged on that. I may indeed put more effort in than most when you see what I have to work with.

[Fordos Moon]

I think the bug is nibbling at me. I took this photo with my iPhone up to the eyepiece the other night and I want more and more! I have a strange affection for DSOs now.

So current thinking is ED80, HEQ5 and CCD. So over budget already lol!

Will await any overexposed / oh dear comments in my photo but thought would share ;-)

[Gina]

Im not sure my commitment to the cause can be judged on that. I may indeed put more effort in than most when you see what I have to work with.

I wasn't knocking you in any way - just the way I'm addicted and can't stop spending almost all the money I have

[Coco]

Ive spent well over 10K on 'new' gear in the last 5 years, buy second hand or like Olly says try astrofest?

I can recommend OSC CCD which is a compromise between DSLR - MONO, more sensitive less noise than DSLR and you bag single shots between the clouds.

All these images where taken with a OSC camera http://astroanarchy.zenfolio.com/p830355939

Cloudy UK skies make completing LRGB images very difficult..

[Fordos Moon]

Wow the costs can build up can't they?! Thanks for the info and the pics.

I'm going to stick with my DSLR while I learn the trade!

[Gina]

Yes, I stuck with DSLR until I was more expert. Get the hang of things before spending too much money

I found just using RGB unbinned I could quite quickly capture plenty for M42 - admittedly a bright nebula - with my mono Atik 324L+. The result is very sharp as I'm using all the pixels for each colour. With OSC you need 4 pixels for each colour pixel though the human brain helps make the resolution apparently higher by using the luminance of each pixel. Yes, with mono v OSC you need a filter wheel and set of LRGB (or at least RGB) filters which adds to the cost a fair bit. It all depends what type of object you are most interested in. But I don't think it takes any longer to capture RGB imnages with a mono camera than with an OSC. Of course, if you have an interest in nebulae and narrow band there's no real choice. If your sky isn't very dark or you wish to image while the moon's out then NB can be the answer. As clear nights often seem to coincide with a full moon I wouldn't like to stop imaging because of it. In my own case I like NB so bought a mono CCD that's all there was to it.