Exposure required of a CCD against a DSLR ??

[kirkster501]

^^^^

Since the CCD is more sensitive and less noisy, I take it that the exposures required can be shorter for the same amount of data that a DSLR would capture ? So to get what a DSLR would capture you can do it in what proportion of the time? Is this the way of thinking? Or is the thinking keep to the same exposure time but capture that much more data as a result of the CCD's better astro imaging attributes? How *much* more data would the CCD get in the same unit time as a DSLR?

Thanks, Steve

[ollypenrice]

If you wanted to get the same standard of image from a CCD as from a DSLR then you could work faster. But this misses the point. The idea is to get a better image! With a cooled CCD you can take longer subs and go deeper.

Olly

[kirkster501]

If you wanted to get the same standard of image from a CCD as from a DSLR then you could work faster. But this misses the point. The idea is to get a better image! With a cooled CCD you can take longer subs and go deeper.

Olly

Thanks - yes, that was my way of thinking too.

I don't want to work faster necessarily, this is something I love doing and is calm and peaceful compared to the hectic madness of the rest of my life of late. But sure, maximising the precious available imaging time in the UK is absolutely what I want to do.

BTW - I looked at your website Olly - I used to go cycling with a semi-pro team a lot around that area 20 years ago! Utterly beautiful. Some insanely brutal climbs around there. We could rack up over 30000 feet of climbing out of Serres in less than 60 miles of cycling..... And sometimes we did two circuits.... I would like to come along with my bike again at some point soon with my astro gear too