Thalestris24 Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 Andy Ellis at Astronomiser is very good - He did mine.http://www.astronomiser.co.uk/Mine too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoffe Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 I have only heard positive reviews about astronomiser I think it is a safe place to send your camera to be modified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoffe Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 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.GI just saw that Atik383 has 17.5 mm back focus and I have only 15 mm (QHY9) with a zero space adapter (which I just have found). Maybe the vignetting is not an uncorrectable problem with my set up. I have not bought the zero space adapter yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_D Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 but if you possibly can go to a CCD with filters, DO, you won't look back.+1 on that...i still have a kidney and spleen on offer to fund a decent CCD but still no takers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lensman57 Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 I just saw that Atik383 has 17.5 mm back focus and I have only 15 mm (QHY9) with a zero space adapter (which I just have found). Maybe the vignetting is not an uncorrectable problem with my set up. I have not bought the zero space adapter yet.The debate about the use of 1.25" filters and the KAF 8300 chip goes on. This is a single 900s sub, uncalibrated, of IC1848 taken using WO Star 71 @F4.9 wiith a Atik 383L+ and a Baader 1.25" Ha filter. There is a little vignetting that flats will correct, not withstanding the tilt of the camera to the optical axis I have to correct by some means. You make a decision on your own research.Regards,A.G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ollypenrice Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 My view is that DSLRs are essentially pretty hopeless whatever you do to them. Sorry, but I do feel that. If you have an incredibly fast optical system you can approach CCD quality with them. It is all too easy to link to superb DSLR images but there are experts who perform out of their skin with whatever they are using. You could turn up at Silverstone in an Ariel Atom but you'd be soft in the head if you expected to lap faster than Lewis Hamilton in a Fiat Panda. It is far more instructive to look at the consensus, look at your average CCD and DSLR image.Astro CCD cameras are built for the job in hand. Go for mono and the flexibility that this brings. Complicated? You're joking. I have a feeling of dread when someone sends me a DSLR image to process because, quite honestly, there is so much wrong with the data that I rarely know where to begin.I'm wedded to monochrome CCD. I'm also wedded to 'easy' and, after a short learning curve, Mono CCD wins the day.Olly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoffe Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 I have not started to use my CCD camera yet (waiting for the correct adapters that hopefully comes this week) but I have used my monochrome planetary camera a lot. It was much easier to combine a nice image from three different files, stacking, post processing in Photoshop was easier to do any I had much more control of it before I did a final RGB image of it.lensman57 - it doesn't look to bad with your vignetting, I hope you can find a solution for the camera tilt problem. I got f/4 on my scope but my filter is closer to the sensor. I will publish a test here after a modification of an adapter in the lathe, a real sky test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dementedgr Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 My view is that DSLRs are essentially pretty hopeless whatever you do to them. Sorry, but I do feel that. If you have an incredibly fast optical system you can approach CCD quality with them. It is all too easy to link to superb DSLR images but there are experts who perform out of their skin with whatever they are using. You could turn up at Silverstone in an Ariel Atom but you'd be soft in the head if you expected to lap faster than Lewis Hamilton in a Fiat Panda. It is far more instructive to look at the consensus, look at your average CCD and DSLR image.You are absolutely right Olly, but I would like to add, look at your average CCD and DSLR prices!You can buy a 2nd hand APS-C sized DSLR off ebay for 100-200 pounds and even astromodify it yourself, when a similar sized CCD (say the Atik 383) + wheel + LRGB filters goes for over 2000 (i'm not gonna compare it with a 6mm diam. chip, its apples & oranges) and a decent telescope + an EQ mount is already some expensive equipment!100 pounds is a pair of jeans, 2000 is half a year's rent in Athens...If money was not an issue we would all have our very own James Webb telescopes, wouldn't we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ollypenrice Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 You are absolutely right Olly, but I would like to add, look at your average CCD and DSLR prices!You can buy a 2nd hand APS-C sized DSLR off ebay for 100-200 pounds and even astromodify it yourself, when a similar sized CCD (say the Atik 383) + wheel + LRGB filters goes for over 2000 (i'm not gonna compare it with a 6mm diam. chip, its apples & oranges) and a decent telescope + an EQ mount is already some expensive equipment!100 pounds is a pair of jeans, 2000 is half a year's rent in Athens...If money was not an issue we would all have our very own James Webb telescopes, wouldn't we? True, of course.Combining colours I do in AstroArt. Align them (one click) then open Trichromy and put the right file in the right box, tick white balance and click. Your RGB image appears. Not even I can call that complicated and I'm useless at IT!Olly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoffe Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 But if you already own a DSLR camera and have a plan to start to do astrophotography, that is a very good start. It is much job to get pinpoint stars, collimation, guiding, polar align, etc to work at the first place. One other thing that DSLRs are very good at, it is to take photos daytime and you only need to buy one camera for both astro and everything else. My own economy is not very strong and I have waited a few years to have the opportunity to buy a used CCD camera. The post processing is more advanced when using a DSLR and make astro imaging compared to a CCD. I have a lot of problem to post process my DSLR images and half of the objects is not even released on the web because I do not know how to do a good looking image of the stacked result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight of Clear Skies Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 My view is that DSLRs are essentially pretty hopeless whatever you do to them.I don't agree, I think this is quite nice for 30 minutes and minimal processing (I simply don't have the processing skills to do much to it at the moment).Taken with a 135mm f3.5 lens which cost me £18. Gives me a lot of pleasure and it's a view Tycho Brahe would have given his silver nose for. It's not a high quality image but it looks pretty good at the posted size or as a 6"x4" print, and there is plenty of scope for me to improve the IQ with my current equipment. Limited would be a better way of putting it perhaps, I do agree that DSLRs aren't very suitable for slow optics or dim targets. It depends what you want to do and what your budget is. I can enjoy some quite low quality images but I love the real deep and intricate stuff. It's like painting - you don't have to be an old master to enjoy it but doing it yourself gives you a better appreciation of real masterworks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glowingturnip Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 My view is that DSLRs are essentially pretty hopeless whatever you do to them. Sorry, but I do feel that. If you have an incredibly fast optical system you can approach CCD quality with them. It is all too easy to link to superb DSLR images but there are experts who perform out of their skin with whatever they are using. You could turn up at Silverstone in an Ariel Atom but you'd be soft in the head if you expected to lap faster than Lewis Hamilton in a Fiat Panda. It is far more instructive to look at the consensus, look at your average CCD and DSLR image.Ollyturning your analogy on its head, I'd love to drive an Ariel Atom into town and back every day rather than a Fiat Panda, but a) they're a *lot* more expensive - I could spend £2k on a CCD, but of course I'd also need to upgrade my mount to do it justice, and b ) they're not very practical for my purpose - for someone like me whose time at the scope is sadly far too limited, I simply don't want to spend the time collecting hours and hours of LRGB and narrowband, but prefer to come away with one night = one set of data.It seems to me that CCD work requires much more of a project-oriented viewpoint, which is fine, but all too often we see work-in progress presented - a few hours of Ha presented in monochrome, awaiting more and more channel data, and too infrequently do we see the finished articles (although when we do they are of course often fantastic).For me, I think the hobby should be about getting the technique nailed, so I can get better and better results with my current equipment and upgrading in parts as necessary, rather than just throwing money at the whole thing.As for 'DSLRs are essentially pretty hopeless whatever you do to them' - that's hardly fair, and you've negated that yourself in your next sentence. (hounourable exception being my DSLR which really is rubbish)I think I'll spend some time practicing handbrake turns in my Fiat Panda for a while until I've got them nailed, before I splash out for that Atom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lensman57 Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 turning your analogy on its head, I'd love to drive an Ariel Atom into town and back every day rather than a Fiat Panda, but a) they're a *lot* more expensive - I could spend £2k on a CCD, but of course I'd also need to upgrade my mount to do it justice, and b ) they're not very practical for my purpose - for someone like me whose time at the scope is sadly far too limited, I simply don't want to spend the time collecting hours and hours of LRGB and narrowband, but prefer to come away with one night = one set of data.It seems to me that CCD work requires much more of a project-oriented viewpoint, which is fine, but all too often we see work-in progress presented - a few hours of Ha presented in monochrome, awaiting more and more channel data, and too infrequently do we see the finished articles (although when we do they are of course often fantastic).For me, I think the hobby should be about getting the technique nailed, so I can get better and better results with my current equipment and upgrading in parts as necessary, rather than just throwing money at the whole thing.As for 'DSLRs are essentially pretty hopeless whatever you do to them' - that's hardly fair, and you've negated that yourself in your next sentence. (hounourable exception being my DSLR which really is rubbish)I think I'll spend some time practicing handbrake turns in my Fiat Panda for a while until I've got them nailed, before I splash out for that Atom.Olly has a valid point but so do you, I guess we just have to use the equipment that we have or can happily afford to buy. There is no point in spending £10000.00 on a 106 FSQ, a QSI 600 series of a sort or the other and Astrodon filters and then worry how the gas bill has to be paid at the end of the month.Regards,A.G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 My view is that DSLRs are essentially pretty hopeless whatever you do to them. Sorry, but I do feel that. If you have an incredibly fast optical system you can approach CCD quality with them. It is all too easy to link to superb DSLR images but there are experts who perform out of their skin with whatever they are using. You could turn up at Silverstone in an Ariel Atom but you'd be soft in the head if you expected to lap faster than Lewis Hamilton in a Fiat Panda. It is far more instructive to look at the consensus, look at your average CCD and DSLR image.Astro CCD cameras are built for the job in hand. Go for mono and the flexibility that this brings. Complicated? You're joking. I have a feeling of dread when someone sends me a DSLR image to process because, quite honestly, there is so much wrong with the data that I rarely know where to begin.I'm wedded to monochrome CCD. I'm also wedded to 'easy' and, after a short learning curve, Mono CCD wins the day.OllyI'd love to have a chance though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Davenport Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 As a modded DSLR user I know the limitations of my device and the processing needed to (partially) overcome these. Personally I would love an atik383 or an QHY9 and the filters that go with it, as it would give me way better results.But lets put some perspective on this, my entire second hand set-up (including my laptop, scope, reducer, mount and camera) are cheaper than one of these cameras.So the easy answer for me is that I need to get way better at what I do with my tools, to justify that kind of step up.Each to there own, we are all on a journey, mine includes a DSLR to start with, so that I really appreciate when I upgrade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.