CCD or DLSR

[ve1drg]

Wondering which way is the best way to go. 

Should imaging start with a CCD camera right off,  or  is the Single Lens Reflex the better way to go.

Cost of course is something I am thinking about - so rather than having to buy both a CCD camera AND the Single Lens Reflex camera,  I thought I would buy the right one the first time around.

I know my question is a broad question and usually it generates lots of question such as - what do you plan to photograph.  How big is your telescope etc. etc..

But in my case I have a 120mm refractor which should be good for astro photography and my interests is both the planets and the stars etc..

Any thoughts on taking the first step into the new area of interest for me.

Thanks.

[Leveye]

I like using a DSLR myself. It can be used for pretty much any style of astrophotography I like to do. Plus all my programs I use are geared for it. When not imaging the stars it can be used for everyday photography. Try that with a dedicated CCD.

[oldpink]

for Planet & stars you may want to look at the Canon 600D which is very capable of planetary imaging as well as DSO

CCD seems to be more for DSO but not exclusive I have seen some planetary shots using CCD in video mode

plus with a DSLR you have a camera for everyday use and half the cost of CCD

[RikM]

If your refractor is the Evostar 120ED Pro, then yes, it will be fine for deep sky AP with the addition of the matching field flattener/focal reducer.

If cost is not prohibitive then I would say jump straight into CCD imaging. I started with a DSLR due to budget constraints and having since moved on to a mono CCD camera and filters the difference is incredible. I find the processing much more straight forward as well. You have to jump through so many hoops to compensate for the relative high noise and lack of sensitivity with a DSLR. Do it properly from the outset if you can.

I don't think your 120 will have enough reach or aperture for satisfying planetary imaging. You would need a different sort of camera for that anyway. A fast frame rate camera with video output. 

[Tiny Small]

Assuming that all you will ever want to photograph is DSO's... get a cooled CCD. If you wanted to do planetary at a later time you can always get one of the ZWO cameras nice and cheap.

[RikM]

I use my guide camera for solar system imaging.

[carastro]

If you want to do DS imaging then a Mono CCD camera is the way to go.  I started with a DSLR and it was great for a couple of years, gave me nice colour images, but I became frustrated with the noise it produced and moved over to a CCD camera.  The difference in detail is amazing.  There are a few "buts" to this:

Cost:  Mono CCD cameras are more expensive and require filters and a filter wheel

Learning curve:  Is greater to process the images.

Time: Takes longer to capture the required data.

However if you don't want to buy a DSLR for getting into DS imaging, and then have to buy a CCD later when you want to progress, then I'd dive straight into the CCD camera.  

OSC CCD won't give any better detail than a DSLR it will only reduce the noise issue.

Mono CCD cameras will enable you to do narrowband imaging which can be done in LP location and when the Moon is around within reason).  You can do narrowband with a DSLR but takes a lot longer to capture the data.

Carole 

[Owmuchonomy]

If you want a multipurpose camera and something relatively straight forward then a DSLR (that's what I do).  However, its one of those things that folk have lots of views on and there are significant advantages of the CCD route too.  Just check carefully what you want to photo against the image scale produced by your proposed setup.  The link below is useful.

Good luck whatever you decide.

Chris

http://www.12dstring.me.uk/fovcalc.php

[Luke]

I use a DSLR still but if you have budget for a suitable CCD I would go the CCD route. I will probably stay with the DSLR but only on grounds of cost as there is other gear I'd rather buy.

There's more noise with a DSLR, especially in the warmer months and if you go mono CCD that's better for narrowband imaging.

[ollypenrice]

Carole, it cannot take longer to catch the required data in a mono CCD!  

1) The S/N ratio is far better on a CCD. You're saying this yourself. More signal with less noise means a certain quality is reached sooner. 

2) Mono is faster than OSC. Think of it this way; a colour filter blocks 2/3 of the light. (Eg Red blocks green and blue.) Any OSC camera has one colour filter in front of every pixel at all times without exception, so it can can only work at a maximum of 1/3 of the chip's potential effciency. When shooting R, G or B the same is true of a mono camera. BUT now we shoot luminance in the mono and we are capturing all of the light simultaneously, which is three times faster than shooting through a colour filter. An hour of each of LRG and B beats four hours of RGB (whether OSC or filterwheel, no difference) in the ratio of 6 to 4. That is quite a saving.

One often reads that one shot colour is faster but this has to be false and it is false. LRGB was invented to save time, and it does. That is the whole point of the system. 

It can save time in other ways, too. Faint emission nebulae can be captured in defiltered DSLRs or OSC CCD cameras but it is far quicker to take a dedicated Ha layer than soldier on for the dozens of hours you'd need to catch the signal through colour filters. Lord knows how much OSC you'd need to capture Simeis 147 in an OSC but here's RGB on the left and HaRGB on the right...

You can also bin colour 2X2 (at some loss of quality notably in the stars) in a mono camera, gaining 1.5 to 2x the signal in the time.

I personally think DSLR is not the way to go and is not a necessary 'apprenticeship.' I went straight into mono CCD and am very glad that I did so. Indeed, once you start to want a certain quality in your pictures it gets easier to use a CCD.

Olly

[GuillermoBarrancos]

Olly,

What I would like to know what OSC camera was used on the left? And how much time was spend on that left image.

A good quality OSC camera (like the QHY10) has at least 50% QE in red and good dynamic range with 45k well depth.

Because all that Picture shows is that it's a pure Ha emision nebula. And then you are right that you would need 4 times more exposures to reach the same with a decent OSC.

But when we move towards galaxies and broader band nebulas and the immediate difference between OSC and Mono LRGB will be a lot less. All depending on the specs of the sensor.

The most Direct advantage of Mono cameras is broad band imaging. Mono then wins hands Down. No question. Sure you can do it with OSC too, but it will take more time to see "similar" results.

So personally (and no offence Olly), I think that comparison Picture of Simeis 147 is a little unfair to use and discredit OSC CCD imaging.

I will counter with this, to even the playfield between OSC and Mono a little.  

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ytoropin/7699660828/in/set-72157627512718101/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ytoropin/6130606355/in/set-72157627512718101/

[PhotoGav]

Ted, I use a DSLR and while you can get good results with one the vast majority of great images I see are taken with a CCD. Every image I create with the DSLR I look at and wish I had a CCD to turn the time taken in obtaining a good picture into time taken to create an amazing picture! So, if you can, dive in the deep end and go CCD. I will soon, but the piggy bank needs to fill up first!

The one thing in defence of the DSLR is it's lovely wide field of view...

Whatever you decide, the largest part of the learning curve is processing of the acquired data!

Good luck.

[carastro]

Carole, it cannot take longer to catch the required data in a mono CCD!  

Sorry Olly, but I disagree, we don't all have the luxury of an electronic filter wheel and regular dark skies.  

I did an image of M33 last year which took me 4 different venues over a period of a number of weeks to capture.  I could have produced a DSLR image out of any one of those nights - OK I wouldn't have had a huge amount of data but it would have been a complete image of all the colours.  As it was I was unable to finish processing the image as to start with all I had was green, I then captured Red at the next venue, luminance at the next one and finally I got blue and red at the 4th venue.  Each venue only had about 1 - 1/2 hours of clear sky.  You can easily capture a DSLR image in  1 1/2 - 3 hours.  

I don't find filter imaging quicker at all, but I prefer the results.  

Carole 

[dmahon]

RGB on a mono camera with a filterwheel takes at most the same time as OSC plus a second for each filterwheel change. As OSC is RGGB, and G is the least useful, I'd say mono is faster. Add in LRGB with binned RBG and mono is far faster.

Saying that, if you have access to a DSLR, or want to buy a second hand one (Canon 450D or newer) then you can play with that for a while then upgrade (and sell the DSLR for what you paid for it).

[ollypenrice]

Sorry Olly, but I disagree, we don't all have the luxury of an electronic filter wheel and regular dark skies.  

I did an image of M33 last year which took me 4 different venues over a period of a number of weeks to capture.  I could have produced a DSLR image out of any one of those nights - OK I wouldn't have had a huge amount of data but it would have been a complete image of all the colours.  As it was I was unable to finish processing the image as to start with all I had was green, I then captured Red at the next venue, luminance at the next one and finally I got blue and red at the 4th venue.  Each venue only had about 1 - 1/2 hours of clear sky.  You can easily capture a DSLR image in  1 1/2 - 3 hours.  

I don't find filter imaging quicker at all, but I prefer the results.  

Carole 

But Carole, you are not comparing equivalent quality with equivalent quality. You can indeed take an image of some kind in double quick time with a one shot colour camera, but on any one of the nights you discuss you could have produced a better image using LRGB in a mono camera given the same time. For the reasons I described above, you quite simply get more signal in x minutes from an LRGB CCD than from any OSC and certainly from a noisy DSLR.  But in terms of frustration if your run is cut by cloud then, yes, I agree that OSC is nicer to use. Considerably less exasperating, even! But facts are facts and for a given quality LRGB is the fastest imaging system available even if it is not the least infuriating! (By the way, I'm a very recent convert to electronic wheels and used a manual until last year. I don't think it makes any difference to the equation.)

Olly,

What I would like to know what OSC camera was used on the left? And how much time was spend on that left image.

A good quality OSC camera (like the QHY10) has at least 50% QE in red and good dynamic range with 45k well depth.

Because all that Picture shows is that it's a pure Ha emision nebula. And then you are right that you would need 4 times more exposures to reach the same with a decent OSC.

But when we move towards galaxies and broader band nebulas and the immediate difference between OSC and Mono LRGB will be a lot less. All depending on the specs of the sensor.

The most Direct advantage of Mono cameras is broad band imaging. Mono then wins hands Down. No question. Sure you can do it with OSC too, but it will take more time to see "similar" results.

So personally (and no offence Olly), I think that comparison Picture of Simeis 147 is a little unfair to use and discredit OSC CCD imaging.

I will counter with this, to even the playfield between OSC and Mono a little.  

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ytoropin/7699660828/in/set-72157627512718101/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ytoropin/6130606355/in/set-72157627512718101/

Your point is perfectly valid, Guillermo. The RGB image has far less exposure time than the HaRGB. This is because I already knew that chasing the deep sky object in RGB was a waste of time. My friend Tom O'Donoghue had already advised me of this, so I took enough for the stars and no more. He had devoted some time to LRGB on this object and found nothing to speak of beyond star colour. However, I think my wider point remains valid. It is far better to chase an object like this in Ha and colour rather than only in colour. Whether or not an OSC camera has an Ha filter in place it can still only collect Ha on its red filtered pixels so it will always be slow. There are so many Ha dominated emission nebulae that catching the Ha on all the pixels has to be a bonus. I also note Dmahon's point about the double quantity of G filters on OSC chips. It does seem counter productive to use this matrix for astronomy where green is so unproductive. I've thought about this before without coming to any real conclusions, but nobody shoots double quantities of green when using RGB filters. Well, maybe on Thor's Helmet!   

I have lots of experience of OSC and mono, having run a pair of Atik 4000s for around three years, one mono and one OSC. I often used them in conjunction with each other and found that theory was borne out in practice. OSC is equivalent to RGB in terms of speed but L, being three times faster, for obvious reasons, means that overall LRGB is fastest of all and beat the OSC by the predictable 6 to 4, more or less. In fact I wrote a magazine shootout but used M42 as my test target and maybe I should have used a fainter one because the faster speed of the mono didn't really show up much on that target.

You mention galaxies. Now I'm fairly sure Harry Page agrees with this (and if not, my apologies, Harry) but I never found my OSC very good on galaxies. It really dragged its feet, while on other targets it was more convincing. This brings us to the big mono CCD advantage of flexibility. You can tailor your captures to your target. I think galaxies like lots of luminance and need relatively less colour. So do very very faint things like the tidal tail in the Triplet. You are never going to get any colour out of that (he said. Famous last words!!!) But clusters thrive on plain old RGB no luminance, and so do star fields from which I always remove any lum.

Olly

Edit, I failed to compliment you on those images, Guillermo. Stunning. No doubt about that.

[JohnC64]

Wondering which way is the best way to go. 

Should imaging start with a CCD camera right off,  or  is the Single Lens Reflex the better way to go.

DLSR's provide a cost effective entry into astro imaging and I wouldn't have got to my present position without going via that step.  It gave me chance to get into the hobby and when the AP bug bit and funds allowed, I moved over to a dedicated CCD. DLSRs do have a higher noise content and this needs to be contended with in processing but good results can be obtained.

CCD's offer a greater depth of image capture (16bit instead of 12/14 bit for DLSR).  They are generally cooled which reduces the nose, and mono ccds allow the use of narrowband filters.

Both CCDs and DLSRs have their advantages and disadvantages, and both will be able to give you results that you will be happy with. Beware however, one thing that everyone will agree on, is that if the AP bug does bite, it can turn into an expensive hobby.

Research, research and more research is the key to obtaining the right kit for yourself

Good luck John

[lensman57]

Hi,

I use a DSLR, an Atik 428EXC and an Atik 314L+, the 428 has a hell of a sensitive and clean sensor but it is very susceptible to the sky condition, anything less than ideal and I'd need in excessof 30 frames to quench the noise, I am still working on a very noisy M101 from last Feb with 14X600s subs through a 6" F5 scope and  the noise is a killer, the data is there but I can not for the love god get the detail that I want. I think that perhaps with a similar exposure time with the 314L+ and just LRGB I would had a much cleaner capture. The DSLR with regret will not stand  a chance under my sky conditions even with 50+ subs.

If you have a DSLR then use it untill your skill and finance allows you to get a CCD of some sort, it is expensive and the sensor size small compared to a DSLR but it is worth it in the long run.

Regards,

A.G

[carastro]

 if your run is cut by cloud then, yes, I agree that OSC is nicer to use. Considerably less exasperating, even!

Well most of my runs are cut short by cloud and it takes me ages to gather enough data using LRGB.  I normally try to get 1 1/2 hours on Lum and then an hour each on RGB amounting to 4 1/2 hours and with clouds this can take me several nights.  Obviously I'd like to get more data than that but in the UK it's a tall order.

Carole 

[Owmuchonomy]

Wondering which way is the best way to go.

Should imaging start with a CCD camera right off, or is the Single Lens Reflex the better way to go.

Cost of course is something I am thinking about - so rather than having to buy both a CCD camera AND the Single Lens Reflex camera, I thought I would buy the right one the first time around.

I know my question is a broad question and usually it generates lots of question such as - what do you plan to photograph. How big is your telescope etc. etc..

But in my case I have a 120mm refractor which should be good for astro photography and my interests is both the planets and the stars etc..

Any thoughts on taking the first step into the new area of interest for me.

Thanks.

Now look what you've done! ;-)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Albaba]

Great thread! I was about to ask this same question myself, seems it's a bit of a can of worms!

[Uranium235]

Simply put, if you've got the cash for a CCD - get it. Even better if you can grab a 2nd hand Atik, unfortunately a 314L+ has just sold in the classifieds for 700 quid - so you might have to wait for another one to come up (they go very quickly). However, the 314L+ chip might be a bit small for that 120ED , so its either factor in a new  short focal length telescope (an 80ED).  Or, get a bigger CCD - but youre not going to get much change out of £2400 if you go down that road (possibly more depending on your choices).

The above however, is with a view to DSO work. For planetary - its a totally different bag of chips (needs a high frame rate camera), and there isnt really a camera that does both well - so its either one or the other.

I remember getting the first results from a CCD and thinking "why on earth didnt I do this sooner?!", socks well and truly blown off.

[StuartJPP]

A DSLR is by far the cheapest way to get started. For approximately £250 you can get a pre-modified Canon DSLR that will produce some good images. You may outgrow it fairly rapidly (though with the UK's weather I doubt it), or you may continue to use it indefinitely. Not much to lose if you change your mind and decide astrophotography isn't for you.

If money is no option, get a mono CCD with filter wheel and filters. I wouldn't expect much change from £1500 though.

This topic crops up every so often and I will try to use an analogy.  If someone asked me what should they get to get into bird photography I could quite easily say "A Canon 800mm f/5.6 L IS lens with a Canon 1DX body". The fact that the person is asking usually indicates that they aren't yet taking it too seriously (though they may want to in future). There are many other lenses and cameras that can take perfectly good bird images, some with more compromises than others.

People always use the phrase "If I had to start again, I'd buy xxx and skip yyy". Well what happens if you gave up after xxx? You'd have spent an awful lot of money realising that it wasn't for you, that is why people tend to upgrade incrementally. It is the natural progression that you make. Imagine telling the missus that you are going to spend £12k on kit because that is where you see yourself in 5 years time and that "I am going to save the money and go for top kit now".

If I had to start over again, I'd probably go exactly the same route.

[laser_jock99]

If starting from zero go for mono CCD.

If like many people you already own a DSLR- then there's no harm in giving it go. It can be a convenient way to shoot colour and be less daunting for the beginner.

Whilst it's possible to get nice images from DSLR's- world class astrophotographers all use mono CCD's.  

[ollypenrice]

Well most of my runs are cut short by cloud and it takes me ages to gather enough data using LRGB.  I normally try to get 1 1/2 hours on Lum and then an hour each on RGB amounting to 4 1/2 hours and with clouds this can take me several nights.  Obviously I'd like to get more data than that but in the UK it's a tall order.

Carole 

But when you say 'I normally try to get 1.5 hours of Lum,' you are also saying, 'I'm trying to get a serious quality image,' and I applaud that. Good for you. Absolutely. However, if you have just 1.5 hours and a DSLR you cannot get a serious quality image, you can just get 'an image.' So I think that you're setting a far higher standard for yourself in CCD than in DSLR and are not comparing like with like in terms of final results.

What I'll try to fnd the time to do is take one of my images and use only a small fraction of the total data - say a total of 3 hours in LRGB - to demonstrate what can be done with a short LRGB capture. What I predict is that this will give a reasonable image though not one which can be presented at 100%. (This does require lots and lots of data.) It will need more noise reduction, which nobody likes, and it won't take as much sharpening, but it will (I reckon) kick any comparable DSLR capture into the middle of next week! (There, I've said it, so in the next week or so I need to see if I can deliver. I like a challenge!  )

Olly

[frugal]

The one true advantage of the DSLR is that you can take it on holiday and take photos of the kids by the beach