Cooled DSLR or CCD

[thelargemonk]

I'm after some advice on my next step. I've been doing some imaging with a standard Canon 700d for the last 8 months and want to take it to the next step.

I'm trying to decide between maybe a cooled DSLR possibly the ULT-700D from JTW astronomy or a CCD.

I've got a very basic understanding of the differences between these types of camera and at this stage don't want to be going up to a £4k, but want to push up to the next stage and get some better images.

I think I'm best sticking to colour at the moment as don't have the know how of mono and incorporating colour images in with filters.

From my understanding the ULT-700D is modified to pick up more types of light for nebulas and so on and the cooling will help with noise reduction for longer exposures.

Is there anything I should consider about this camera and build quality of it.

Also is there a good CCD camera around at similar price that could perform better and still fairly easy to use, but can also be good for the next few years until I'm ready to move to the more expensive next steps.

Hope that makes sense!

[Scott]

For me, I'd be looking at a dedicated ccd rather than a cobbled (all be it very well cobbled) dslr. For the cost of the ult, you could get a second hand 314L+ and filters and wheel. 

With clear nights being at a premium in the uk, it seems a pity to lose one because of a moonlit night. Of course you could buy one of their debayered cameras, but you'd still need to buy filters etc for narrowband.

Bare in mind that this is coming from someone still using a modded dslr, but trust me, as and when the funds allow, it'll be ccd for moi

[thelargemonk]

So does the Atik 314L+ have a decent sized sensor?

If I go with a mono from my understanding you get more detail because it lets more particles hit the sensor, but then I'm not sure what the next step is with the filter wheels to bring that to a colour image.

Is the colour version decent or should I really be looking to a mono.

I can probably go a bit higher price wise as well if there are other good options.

[Scott]

So does the Atik 314L+ have a decent sized sensor?

If I go with a mono from my understanding you get more detail because it lets more particles hit the sensor, but then I'm not sure what the next step is with the filter wheels to bring that to a colour image.

Is the colour version decent or should I really be looking to a mono.

I can probably go a bit higher price wise as well if there are other good options.

Sorry for not replying last night. Zzzz . 

The Atik 314 chip is a lot smaller than the dslr but remember that if using a mono then the whole chip will be taking whatever colour the filter you are using whereas the dslr is only using 1/4 of the chip if using red. There is also the option for doing narrowband imaging which increases the use you'll get from your camera by allowing imaging when the moon is pestering.

I really haven't looked into the colour cameras as where I am, I think I'd greatly benifit from narrowband, but I'm sure Olly and Steppenwolf could entertain you for hours on the pro's and cons of both . 

Remember, this is just my thoughts. I know a fella who has the jtw 1100d (or has he moved up?) and he is really happy with it and gets great results.

What we need here is more opinions from both camps

[DaveS]

I too would jump from basic DSLR to cooled mono CCD, that is if you can afford it. My first sub of M27 in NB on a moonlit night when my DSLR would have been wiped out confirmed my choice.

These various modded DSLRs are OK if yo're on a tight budget and can't run to £ks, but if you possibly can go to a CCD with filters, DO, you won't look back.

[swag72]

I would definitely make the jump to a CCD - The downside is going to be sensor size. Take a look at this field of view calculator to get an idea of the difference you will expect to see. http://astronomy.tools/calculators/field_of_view/

Mono is also the route that I'd take. It really isn't difficult to combine different filters, you just need to align them and then assign them to the right RGB channels. I have found that mono processing is much easier than OSC and more forgiving all round. Also mono is more versatile, as you can use narrowband filters as well.

I suppose the biggest thing for you to get your head round is going to big chip size ......... a tough one.

[carastro]

Having used a DSLR for 2 years I felt I too needed to take the next step to improving my images to a Cooled CCD camera.  I took advice and went for Mono and all i can say is I was blown away with the difference in detail you can get compare to a OSC/DSLR.  With a cooled DSLR all you will gain is less noise not more detail.  

Depending on what software you use you can also see many objects on live view (looping), with a CCD camera by binning and stretching, so you know you have your object centred correctly.  

OK it took me a while to figure out how to combine filters etc, and now I also have the option of doing narrowband bringing out even more detail.  I've now been using a Mono CCD camera for 2 years.

The Atik314 does have a small chip, but if you use a low powered telescope such as the WOZS71 or similar you can almost get the whole of M31 into the frame.  You can use your more powerful scopes for capturing the smaller objects.  

HTH

Carole 

[thelargemonk]

Thanks for all your advice, looks like I've got a bit of thinking and looking at different mono CCD cameras to do!

From everyone points it looks like a mono CCD is the way to go to get more detail and can be a bit more versatile. Just need to do a bit or reading up on all the gear needed and the way to use and process with them!

[stoffe]

The big advantage with DSLR cameras is that you got a big sensor very cheap, it is also easier to post-process an image from a mono camera. I went to a mono planetary camera and it was a huge step for me. I am very glad that I did that step and also very newly got a used CCD for deep sky imaging.

[Uranium235]

Mono is the way to go, as it opens up the glorious world of narrowband imaging. But with a 314L+, I would not go below 400mm in focal length (which rules out refractors below 80mm) otherwise stars will start to get a bit blocky. The resolution of the 314 at 400mm is 3.33" p/p due to its comparitively large pixels, which is a bit borderline.

The next camera up would be a 428 (with smaller pixels), but chip roughly the size same as the 314 - or the 383 (with its massive sensor, but requires 2" filters).

[dementedgr]

How about going for a 2nd hand modded DSLR and making your own peltier cooling box?

A 2nd hand modded 1100D goes for ~ 300 pounds (check out http://cheapastrophotography.vpweb.co.uk/default.html),

the DIY cooler box shouldn't cost more than 100 and an UHC filter will get rid of that light pollution adding even more contrast to your pictures.

It would be a great upgrade from an unmodded DSLR, the cooling will help with the long exposures and you are still in colour territory.

Mono CCDs are definitely THE way to go but the costs for a decent sized chip + wheel + filters are many many times more (esp. for 2" filters...  ).

Even if you upgrade to a mono CCD in the future you will still have a pretty decent colour camera!

At least I know that is the path that I'm gonna follow in the near future and as you said, one step at a time...

[Scott]

Mono is the way to go, as it opens up the glorious world of narrowband imaging. But with a 314L+, I would not go below 400mm in focal length (which rules out refractors below 80mm) otherwise stars will start to get a bit blocky. The resolution of the 314 at 400mm is 3.33" p/p due to its comparitively large pixels, which is a bit borderline.

The next camera up would be a 428 (with smaller pixels), but chip roughly the size same as the 314 - or the 383 (with its massive sensor, but requires 2" filters).

Well this is what I like about threads like this. You can always learn something new. I did not realise what you have said about the 400mm fl. My 60mm lightwave is 420mm so should be ok, but add the 0.8 ff/fr, then I'm looking at 336mm. I also contemplated conecting it to a shorter camera lens for wider field images but that sounds like it may not be an option. Not swayed me away from 314 but it's definately good to know .

3.17"/pixel

3.96"/pixel with 0.8 reducer

[StuartJPP]

I wouldn't spend a lot on a modified DSLR, especially the debayered and cooled ones. My Canon 650D cost me £300 and there is a lot of sensor for that money (I modified it myself). I may cool my old Canon 1100D, more as an experiment but might just pass it on instead and put the money in the kitty.

If/when I do eventually go down the CCD route it won't be a small sensor/low resolution like the 314l+. To get an image to fill my desktop I would have to do a mosaic. A larger sensor with the same size pixels or a similar size with smaller pixels would be my choice...even if it costs much more.

For now I'd rather get the most out of what I have got and save up and buy the right equipment once...instead of upgrading bit by bit...which costs more in the long run.

[DaveS]

I would say that if you *can* see your way to a CCD, even if you're going to have to save up for a while then any kind of modded DSLR will be a waste of money, put it toward that CCD. You don't have to buy a full house of LRGB and / or S[iI], Ha, O[iII] NB filters. You can get very nice mono pictures of emission nebulae with only a Ha filter.

I think the sweet spot in CCD cameras ATM is / are the various incarnations on the Sony 694 chip. But then I would, wouldn't I

[Uranium235]

auspom, on 04 Oct 2014 - 11:53 AM, said:

Well this is what I like about threads like this. You can always learn something new. I did not realise what you have said about the 400mm fl. My 60mm lightwave is 420mm so should be ok, but add the 0.8 ff/fr, then I'm looking at 336mm. I also contemplated conecting it to a shorter camera lens for wider field images but that sounds like it may not be an option. Not swayed me away from 314 but it's definately good to know .

3.17"/pixel

3.96"/pixel with 0.8 reducer

The camera lens is still an option, its just that once you approach 4" p/p small stars are relegated to just single pixels, but if youre just after the overall impact of a large nebula then I guess stars can be sacraficed for the sake of a quick image. An idea might be that you can shoot with the lens, then make a "stars removed" version (something ive yet to try).

[lensman57]

I'm after some advice on my next step. I've been doing some imaging with a standard Canon 700d for the last 8 months and want to take it to the next step.

I'm trying to decide between maybe a cooled DSLR possibly the ULT-700D from JTW astronomy or a CCD.

I've got a very basic understanding of the differences between these types of camera and at this stage don't want to be going up to a £4k, but want to push up to the next stage and get some better images.

I think I'm best sticking to colour at the moment as don't have the know how of mono and incorporating colour images in with filters.

From my understanding the ULT-700D is modified to pick up more types of light for nebulas and so on and the cooling will help with noise reduction for longer exposures.

Is there anything I should consider about this camera and build quality of it.

Also is there a good CCD camera around at similar price that could perform better and still fairly easy to use, but can also be good for the next few years until I'm ready to move to the more expensive next steps.

Hope that makes sense!

May I suggest that you first consider having your DSLR AP modified and have a go with this for while to see how you get along. I myself have a 314L+ mono, 428EXC and 383 Mono as well as moddified 1000d, 1100d and a self modded to mono 350d. The CCD quality will always beat a DSLR if handled properly but there is also a lot going for a modded DSLR, you  can even do NB imaging using the Astronomik Clip filters ( at the cost of sensor resolution ). The disadvantage of an Uncooled DSLR is really evident during the warm summer nights but with a decent matched set of darks the effect could be minimised. The cost of the conversion is about £140.00~£200.00 depending on the options and you will end up with a large sensor camera with pixel dimensions to suit a variety of the popular scopes from 300mm of FL to about 600mm. A mono CCD is much more sensitive but I had to wait for over 12 months for my used 383L to show up for sale. The 314L+ has a lot going for it so long as you can partner it with a suitable scope, however I have imaged with a Canon 200mm F2.8 with it and so long as you are happy with a small image the blotchy stars are not too objectionable. You have a lot of options and a lot of thinking to do. If your pocket is deep the options are limitless as for about £2500.00~ £3000.00 you can go for cameras such as ATIK One, all the way to QSI 600 series.

Regards,

A.G

[stoffe]

Mono is the way to go, as it opens up the glorious world of narrowband imaging. But with a 314L+, I would not go below 400mm in focal length (which rules out refractors below 80mm) otherwise stars will start to get a bit blocky. The resolution of the 314 at 400mm is 3.33" p/p due to its comparitively large pixels, which is a bit borderline.

The next camera up would be a 428 (with smaller pixels), but chip roughly the size same as the 314 - or the 383 (with its massive sensor, but requires 2" filters).

Are you sure that Atik 383 camera requiers 2" filters? If the length between the sensor and the filter is very short, a 1,25" filter should do the job. But there are also 36 mm filters. I am just to begin to use my QHY9 with 1,25" filters, I have not tested it out yet.

[lensman57]

of onrequired

Are you sure that Atik 383 camera requiers 2" filters? If the length between the sensor and the filter is very short, a 1,25" filter should do the job. But there are also 36 mm filters. I am just to begin to use my QHY9 with 1,25" filters, I have not tested it out yet.

I am imaging with 383L and a WO Star71 @F4.9 using 1.25" filters. The FW is as close to the sensor that is possible and with this setup the 1.25" filters do work with a little bit of vignetting that good flats seem to correct reasonably well but if the scope was working @ F4 and faster then 36mm filters would be required. The confusing problem is that the so called 1.25" filters have actually have a clear aperture of only 28.6 mm and not 31mm as advertised.

A.G

[dementedgr]

You can see some pretty amazing results (at least in my humble opinion) with a modified (non-cooled I think) DSLR over here: http://www.astronomersdoitinthedark.com/index.php

Sure, you could get better pictures with a CCD for the same amount of integration time, but you get an idea of what a modified DSLR is capable of! 

[Thalestris24]

Hi

Well I wouldn't argue with a mono ccd + fw + filters - if you can afford it! I suggest you do some reading/research to see how lrgb and narrowband images are taken and processed. I have a qhy8l - an affordable one shot (colour) cooled ccd and have been quite pleased with it. I also have a recently full-spectrum modded 1100d. Only £80 so good value and it gives you lots to explore beyond an unmodded one without having to fork out lots of dosh. The general increase in sensitivity as well as increase at the red end is very noticeable. So I'd recommend it as a cheap stepping stone .

Louise

[thelargemonk]

Thanks for everyone's comments and advice!

I might look at getting my canon 700D modified and do a bit of saving to go for a CCD down the line with a larger sensor as my main imaging scope is a ED80, but do also have a C9.25 and do a lot or reading up!

Can anyone recommend a place where I can get it modified?

[swag72]

Andy Ellis at Astronomiser is very good - He did mine.

http://www.astronomiser.co.uk/

[stoffe]

I am imaging with 383L and a WO Star71 @F4.9 using 1.25" filters. The FW is as close to the sensor that is possible and with this setup the 1.25" filters do work with a little bit of vignetting that good flats seem to correct reasonably well but if the scope was working @ F4 and faster then 36mm filters would be required. The confusing problem is that the so called 1.25" filters have actually have a clear aperture of only 28.6 mm and not 31mm as advertised.

A.G

Very good to hear! Actually I got a f/4 telescope.. But how long distance do you have between your sensor and your filter? I got somewhere around 16-19 mm, I haven't done any precise measure yet, but I will. (sorry for borrowing the thread with an own question)

[lensman57]

Very good to hear! Actually I got a f/4 telescope.. But how long distance do you have between your sensor and your filter? I got somewhere around 16-19 mm, I haven't done any precise measure yet, but I will. (sorry for borrowing the thread with an own question)

Have not measured it but it is in the region of 22mm for the 383 and abut 18mm for the 314 and the 428.

A.G

[Uranium235]

stoffe, on 04 Oct 2014 - 1:49 PM, said:

Are you sure that Atik 383 camera requiers 2" filters? If the length between the sensor and the filter is very short, a 1,25" filter should do the job. But there are also 36 mm filters. I am just to begin to use my QHY9 with 1,25" filters, I have not tested it out yet.

I sidestepped the 36mm filters since I could only find them as unmounted (which I dont like the idea of), and the rest of my optical train is M48 so to restrict it to 36mm seems a bit of a waste.

1.25" filters will only take you to about f6 with the 383, once you get to f5 and below the vignetting becomes uncorrectable (as the filter cuts into the light cone) - and that was having my FW mounted to the camera with a zero distance adaptor (so I couldnt get closer if I tried).