Should I buy a modified 100D or a CCD?

[jason32]

Hi guys,

I have a Panasonic G7 which I use with 130PDS, the fov I get is nice but the problem with my camera is it only does 128secs exposure so its very limiting and I am looking to buy a new camera. Should I get a modified Canon 100D (I like the weight and the fact that I could use clip on filters and use my other lenses with it and its touch screen) or I could get a Nikon 3300D much cheaper but not modified but it has more resolution.

Or should I just ditch the idea and get a CCD? I can spend about £400, I can see these CCD camera are very expensive and resolution is very low? something like 1mp to 5mp? what the hell?

 

Please help me dicide I want to buy it within the next 1-2 days.

[red dwalf]

difficult choice but if your budget is £400 then a modded Canon would be the way i would go, a good second hand entry level ccd will be around £600, atik 314 or 414, if you go down the ccd route you`ll have to decided if you want one shot colour or a mono camera, mon camer means you`ll need filters and a filter wheel, it all adds up. 

[jason32]

6 minutes ago, red dwalf said:

difficult choice but if your budget is £400 then a modded Canon would be the way i would go, a good second hand entry level ccd will be around £600, atik 314 or 414, if you go down the ccd route you`ll have to decided if you want one shot colour or a mono camera, mon camer means you`ll need filters and a filter wheel, it all adds up. 

Ok with filters that would go up to about £900 I think way over my budget at the moment. So a modified dslr is better than a stock one?

[Andy Mitchell]

22 minutes ago, jason32 said:

So a modified dslr is better than a stock one?

It will certainly be much better at seeing low frequency reds such as the hydrogen alpha emission line. Stock cameras try to match the response curve of the human eye, so that colours look right, and we are not very good at seeing those frequencies.

So lots better on the large emission nebulas

[ollypenrice]

19 hours ago, jason32 said:

Hi guys,

I have a Panasonic G7 which I use with 130PDS, the fov I get is nice but the problem with my camera is it only does 128secs exposure so its very limiting and I am looking to buy a new camera. Should I get a modified Canon 100D (I like the weight and the fact that I could use clip on filters and use my other lenses with it and its touch screen) or I could get a Nikon 3300D much cheaper but not modified but it has more resolution.

Or should I just ditch the idea and get a CCD? I can spend about £400, I can see these CCD camera are very expensive and resolution is very low? something like 1mp to 5mp? what the hell?

 

Please help me dicide I want to buy it within the next 1-2 days.

 

Resolution is not measured in megapixels. This assumption is brought in from the daytime photography world where the verbal shorthand is not too misleading because most chips are the same size. 

Resolution is measured in arcseconds per pixel, a value which is determined by just two things, pixel size and focal length. So when you thnk about a CCD camera you need to find its resolution in arcsecnds per pixel, which you can do here: http://www.12dstring.me.uk/fov.htm  You are likely to find that most amateur camera-scope combinations lie between about 0.5 and 3.5 arcseconds per pixel. The fewer the arcseconds per pixel the better your guiding has to be and the better the seeing (or you simply won't capture at that resolution.) Many UK imagers feel that about 2 arcsecs per pixel is a sweet spot. So pick a camera with the right pixel size for your scope.

Then look at the chip size. This determines your field of view. CCDs are expensive and are very expensive when they have big chips. On budget you might find an old Atik 16HR mono and maybe a basic filter set and maual wheel. That might be a bit optimistic. The field of view would be small but the sensitivity would be far beyond DSLR.

Olly

[Physopto]

Try CCD Calc and set up different scope and CCD combinations. It will give a read out for each combination. You can have a few instances on scree at the same time to compare.

Available from here:

http://www.newastro.com/book_new/camera_app.html

 

Derek

[jason32]

3 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

 

Resolution is not measured in megapixels. This assumption is brought in from the daytime photography world where the verbal shorthand is not too misleading because most chips are the same size. 

Resolution is measured in arcseconds per pixel, a value which is determined by just two things, pixel size and focal length. So when you thnk about a CCD camera you need to find its resolution in arcsecnds per pixel, which you can do here: http://www.12dstring.me.uk/fov.htm  You are likely to find that most amateur camera-scope combinations lie between about 0.5 and 3.5 arcseconds per pixel. The fewer the arcseconds per pixel the better your guiding has to be and the better the seeing (or you simply won't capture at that resolution.) Many UK imagers feel that about 2 arcsecs per pixel is a sweet spot. So pick a camera with the right pixel size for your scope.

Then look at the chip size. This determines your field of view. CCDs are expensive and are very expensive when they have big chips. On budget you might find an old Atik 16HR mono and maybe a basic filter set and maual wheel. That might be a bit optimistic. The field of view would be small but the sensitivity would be far beyond DSLR.

Olly

Ok thanks looks like I'll have to spend a lot more if I go the ccd way, I think sticking to a modified dslr would be better at the moment. Ok one more thing about these canon dslrs, we know they are generally very noisy and have obsolete sensors as compared to other brands but recently the newer models like 750D has a new sensor and seems to be better but obviously its expensive. Has anyone tested the difference in noise levels in lets say a 1200D vs. 100D vs. 750D? thats 3 generations of sensors. Just want to know if paying an extra £200 for 750D would yeild cleaner images and if its worth it?

[StuartJPP]

Gary Honis has some comparisons however it stops at the Canon 650D...

http://dslrmodifications.com/DSLRcomparison.html

[jason32]

23 hours ago, StuartJPP said:

Gary Honis has some comparisons however it stops at the Canon 650D...

http://dslrmodifications.com/DSLRcomparison.html

Thanks looks like there isnt much difference in digic 4 and 5. I'll just save money and get a 100d or 650d

[StargeezerTim]

I got a modified 100d and am very happy with it. Can't comment on how it compares to a ccd but it is much better than my 550d unmodified. The 100d is very light and puts much less strain on the focuser than the 550d did. Hope this helps, Tim.

[Interstellarshaw88]

I've personally got a 750d that I use for daytime and a 500d that I use for Astro imaging with the scope I must admit the noise is a lot more on the 500 but not impossible to remove with stacking ect, 

but i actually wanna check my modded 500 as it don't seem so sensitive tbh need a quick way of checking if anybody could help ? 

[wxsatuser]

On 1/30/2016 at 18:54, Andy Mitchell said:

8 hours ago, StargeezerTim said:

I got a modified 100d and am very happy with it. Can't comment on how it compares to a ccd but it is much better than my 550d unmodified. The 100d is very light and puts much less strain on the focuser than the 550d did. Hope this helps, Tim.

 

A 550D has virtually no Ha responce, modding brings it to just slightly better than a 60Da.
If a camera can see aleast 20>30% Ha it's good to go for true colour.
Modding actually makes emission nebs redder and this will drown out other colours.

Is this good or bad, depends on your taste and what you want to see.

All nebs are not the same, depending on the chemistry going on, temperature and how much
dust absorption, nebs can range in colour from red, pink, magenta, purple, blue and green.