newbie ccd astrophotography

[toxic]

You can learn a huge amount and especially get the hang of the image processing.. I know it is only 12megs which is nothing these days - but as I get back not the game of imaging it will give me many years of useful work and only cost a few hundreed to buy and modify.

If this repeats anything said elsewhere - my apologies!l

i think you will find as i did that dslr image processing is completely different especially color to mono then filters. and megapixel is not necessarily the most important in imaging -pixel ratio - censor size - sensitivity - cooling it all plays a big part all of which i am just now starting to learn. i wish i had gone the ccd route first but i didn't it would have been cheaper in the long run. but if you already have the dslr then use it.

[ollypenrice]

Since posting on the subject of binning and artefacts a guest has sent me some binned data and asked my opinion. It came from an Atik 490 and shows some small dark artefacts around stars. They are nothing like as severe as those we had with an SXVH36 but they are visible. Interestingly binning is often discussed on here but binning artefacts are not. I now have direct experience of three cameras on which it has been a problem, albeit a minor one in the last case. 

I wonder if anyone else has seen this?

I process mostly CCD data but am occasionally given DSLR data to play with. It behaves very differently in my view.  This makes me wonder about the validity of the DSLR into CCD route and I still favour 'CCD and be done with it!'  (Of course, I do run CCD courses so maybe I would say that!!! I think I genuinely think it though... if you get my drift.    )

Olly

[Stub Mandrel]

Some earlier posts talk about the cost of going down one route and then changing to the other later on (colour v mono etc). For that reason I started with a standard reasonable DSLR (which costs less if you don't buy the lenses). You can learn a huge amount and especially get the hang of the image processing. Then you can sell the DSLR quite easily - or indeed use it as a normal camera if you decide you want to go the dedicated astro-imaging route.

I have had a Canon 450 adapted for astro imaging by having the IR filter removed etc. I know it is only 12megs which is nothing these days - but as I get back not the game of imaging it will give me many years of useful work and only cost a few hundreed to buy and modify.

If this repeats anything said elsewhere - my apologies!

I invested £39 in a Canon D10 in 'well used' condition. Budget £25 for a selection of adapters, a remote, body cap, lens caps, CF card and CF reader (it won't work with post XP windows) and its dead slow. Perhaps I could have got a 350D for £65?

Plus side I can use it with all my old Pentax lenses that haven't been used for nearly 20 years, and all the stuff will work with a more modern canon if I get lucky!

Can't wait to try it out on eth night sky, although my bridge camera takes better pictures for terrestrial stuff.

[kalasinman]

Since posting on the subject of binning and artefacts a guest has sent me some binned data and asked my opinion. It came from an Atik 490 and shows some small dark artefacts around stars. They are nothing like as severe as those we had with an SXVH36 but they are visible. Interestingly binning is often discussed on here but binning artefacts are not. I now have direct experience of three cameras on which it has been a problem, albeit a minor one in the last case. 

I wonder if anyone else has seen this?

I process mostly CCD data but am occasionally given DSLR data to play with. It behaves very differently in my view.  This makes me wonder about the validity of the DSLR into CCD route and I still favour 'CCD and be done with it!'  (Of course, I do run CCD courses so maybe I would say that!!! I think I genuinely think it though... if you get my drift.    )

Olly

I don't think many , after reading comments about the advantages of CCD would say starting with DSLR is better technically.  In my case since my whole kit is worth about the same as a good CCD, the consideration is about being able to start within modest means. I comment about starting mostly to encourage poverty cases like myself to get going any way they can.--Jack

[ollypenrice]

Let's not forget the OP's original question, though, which was about the learning curve of CCD and cameras for an SCT.

Olly

[Woodwind]

Spartan - have you looked at Ron Wodalski's book "The new CCD Astronomy" first published in 2002 I think ?

Approach with a bit of caution - I found it pretty hard to fathom out and indeed exchanged friendly words with Ron about this subject when in the States. But if you are looking for some pretty comprehensive guidance it might be of use.

Has anyone published a more accesible guide to CCD imaging since ? I have often thought about going the CCD route but (as mentioned in my earlier post) wanted to get the basics sorted in terms of scope set-up etc using a standard DSLR, and then go across to the "dream" SBIG camera when I can afford it.