Types of astronomical cameras and their relative advantages

[Perene]

Do you think the information from this chart is accurate as of today? The source is a book called "Digital SLR Astrophotography".

Can you guys describe briefly how non-SLR digital cameras work? I mean, some of the best/recommended models, if they are easy (as the chart says) to configure and if they record properly (including videos from, say, the Moon, for minutes) and with quality worth of being considered over DSLRs?

Regards,

TYPES OF ASTRONOMICAL CAMERAS AND THEIR RELATIVE ADVANTAGES, AS OF 2007

Key: 

* = Unsatisfactory

* * = Usable

* * * = Satisfactory

* * * * Very Satisfactory

* * * * * = State of the art

1) Film SLR

Typical cost: $ 200 + film and processing

Megapixels (image size): Equiv. to 6-12

Ease of use (for astrophotography): * * *

Also usable for daytime photography?: YES

Suitability for:

Moon (full face, eclipses): * * *

Moon and planets (fine detail): * *

Star fields and galaxies (wide-field): * * *

Star clusters and galaxies (through telescope): * * *

Emission nebulae (wide-field): * * * * (if suitable film is available)

Emission nebulae (through telescope): * * * (if suitable film is available)

****************

2) Digital SLR

Typical cost: $ 800

Megapixels (image size): 6-12

Ease of use (for astrophotography): * * *

Also usable for daytime photography?: YES

Suitability for:

Moon (full face, eclipses): * * *

Moon and planets (fine detail): * *

Star fields and galaxies (wide-field): * * * *

Star clusters and galaxies (through telescope): * * * *

Emission nebulae (wide-field): * * * (* * * * * if modified)

Emission nebulae (through telescope): * * * (* * * * if modified)

****************

3) Non-SLR digital camera

Typical cost: $ 200

Megapixels (image size): 3-8

Ease of use (for astrophotography): * * * *

Also usable for daytime photography?: YES

Suitability for:

Moon (full face, eclipses): * * * *

Moon and planets (fine detail): * * *

Star fields and galaxies (wide-field): *

Star clusters and galaxies (through telescope): *

Emission nebulae (wide-field): *

Emission nebulae (through telescope): *

****************

4) Webcam or astronomical video camera

Typical cost: $ 150

Megapixels (image size): 0.3

Ease of use (for astrophotography): * *

Also usable for daytime photography?: NO

Suitability for:

Moon (full face, eclipses): *

Moon and planets (fine detail): * * * * *

Star fields and galaxies (wide-field): *

Star clusters and galaxies (through telescope): *

Emission nebulae (wide-field): *

Emission nebulae (through telescope): *

****************

5) Astronomical CCD camera (smaller format)

Typical cost: $ 2000

Megapixels (image size): 0.3-3

Ease of use (for astrophotography): * *

Also usable for daytime photography?: NO

Suitability for:

Moon (full face, eclipses): *

Moon and planets (fine detail): * * * *

Star fields and galaxies (wide-field): * *

Star clusters and galaxies (through telescope): * * * * *

Emission nebulae (wide-field): * *

Emission nebulae (through telescope): * * * * *

****************

6) Astronomical CCD camera (larger format)

Typical cost: $ 8000

Megapixels (image size): 4-12

Ease of use (for astrophotography): * *

Also usable for daytime photography?: NO

Suitability for:

Moon (full face, eclipses): * * *

Moon and planets (fine detail): * * * *

Star fields and galaxies (wide-field): * * * * *

Star clusters and galaxies (through telescope): * * * * *

Emission nebulae (wide-field): * * * * *

Emission nebulae (through telescope): * * * * *

[D4N]

I can't imagine how anyone can think a film SLR would be easier than a webcam.

Getting focus and exposure right on film is a very steep learning curve!

Webcams tend to be 1-2 mega pixels and far cheaper than that now too.

No mention of planetary cameras there either.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pete_l]

Personally I'd adjust the "star rating" between film SLRs and DSLRs.

So far as film SLR use is concerned, it's essentially an obsolete technology. Focusing has to be done manually and is impossible in real-time on dim objects. The sensitivity of the film is minute when compared to DSLR and it suffers from reciprocity failure. It takes days to get it back from the lab - and there are so few "wet" film developers any more. Plus, the results are not compatible with digital enhancements: stacking, noise reduction, LP removal - unless you're willing to scan your slides or prints.

So, given that a webcam has a 1 or 2 star rating, I'd place film SLRs at less than that.

PLUS, since 2007 when this survey came out, the cost, capability and techniques for all kinds of digital sensors has improved enormously.

Just my personal opinion.

[perfrej]

Very strange comparison. $800 for a DSLR suitable for AP? An 8MP ccd with reasonable real estate is $4000, not 8000.

Nah, just forget that table!

/ per

[beamer3.6m]

Table is out of date.

Why is a Non SLR camera better than a SLR camera. I don't understand that.

Webcams far easier to use than film cameras. How would you know you even have the object captured if you have to wait for the film to be developed. Expensive waste of time that seems to me.

In simple terms I think the table should be as follows:

Dedicated CCD camera (5*)

DSLR - depending on model (4* - by reference to fact that dedicated CCD 'must' be better - prepared to be shouted at for that)

Webcam (2* for deepsky but 4* for planets)

Video Astronomy Cams (PD1 etc) 4* for DSO and 3* for planets

Just my thoughts.

[pete_l]

DSLR - depending on model (4* - by reference to fact that dedicated CCD 'must' be better - prepared to be shouted at for that)

Not shouting at anybody

One advantage that a DSLR has over a dedicated CCD or webcam is that it can be used standalone without the need for a computer. And if you use a telephoto lens, without even needing a telescope

[Perene]

The author mentions the shutter vibration was one of the weaknesses from film SLR's, that even with the mirror locked up to keep moving the shutter always vibrated the camera enough to blur pictures of Moon/planets (not so much problem for DSO).

He also mentions that DSLRs suffer from the same vibration problem, not being ideal for lunar and planetary work. I have seen somewhere written (and also from images you can infer the same) that DSLRs don't show close detailed pictures from planets due to their wide FOV (it was something like that, I don't recall what exactly).

It is also mentioned that non-SLR digital cameras work "much better" with their tiny, vibration-free leaf shutters, though are not suitable for any kind of DSO work because of tiny, noisy sensors.

And for detailed lunar and planetary work webcams and other viceo devices work better yet, being totally vibration-free, with the output video images consisting of many still pictures in succession.