From dslr to ccd, is it so much better.

[piprees]

I'm tentatively playing with the idea of moving up to cooled ccd imaging. After a couple of years using a Canon 40D, would I see a noticeable change. I'm considering a ZWO asi1600, a QHY9 mono or a Moravian g2-8300, all with LRGB filters. I'm mainly into deep sky objects with a skywatcher 200p on a NEQ6. There's lots of figures available on the sensor specifications for these instruments but quite frankly they're rather baffling.

Does anyone have experience with any of these and how different would the workflow be?

Kind regards,

P.

[MattJenko]

Hi. the workflow is indeed different. The main difference between your DSLR and those cameras are the fact the sensors are set point cooled. As well as being able to expose for longer, it also means you have a constant background noise and much less of it. It means your frames calibrate out much better. Another major advantage is that they give better resolution than the bayer matrix sensor in your DSLR as every pixel is used for every filter. All this amounts to much higher quality subs. The overwhelmingness of starting out in mono is balanced by the fact that once you get your head round it, it is extremely flexible, with RGB, LRGB, HaLRGB, bi-colour, and full narrowband all open to you as options. You can do more imaging during fuller moons with the Ha filters and it starts to make you think a lot more about what you are doing as opposed to point, track, shoot.

The workflow is still all about "calibration, aligning, stacking" and the processing of a colour image, but with mono, there are some steps in between those 2, to process each of the channels and then the combination in to the RGB space before the final processing steps.

Would you see a noticeable change. Absolutely, yes. Not just in how you go about collecting data, or just in how you process the end results, but also in your whole approach to DSO imaging.

Much as I liked my DSLR DSO imaging, mono CCD sensors rule. One caveat is that being in the UK sucks.

 

[gnomus]

The images will certainly be cleaner.  As Matt says you have many more options with a mono CCD.  You will still need the calibration frames - but because you are taking all frames at a set temperature (say -20) then you can use your darks (which were the biggest pain in DSLR imaging) over and over again.  I typically shoot a bank of darks during the daytime or on dreadful nights, and I reuse them over and over.     

Of the cameras you mentioned, I have a Moravian G2-8300 and I am really impressed with it.  It cools better than my Atik 383 (same chip).  

[piprees]

Thankyou, both of you. It really is a major step, not least being the cost!!! But two things here, one, we only get one chance at this life, gotta take it, and two, I've got this wonderful theory that learning, and especially steep learning, keeps dementia at bay, (I would put lol in here but I can't stand that expression).

Wish me luck.

P.

[gnomus]

24 minutes ago, piprees said:

Thankyou, both of you. It really is a major step, not least being the cost!!! But two things here, one, we only get one chance at this life, gotta take it, and two, I've got this wonderful theory that learning, and especially steep learning, keeps dementia at bay, (I would put lol in here but I can't stand that expression).

Wish me luck.

P.

I agree with all of that.  There is a bit of a learnng curve going from DSLR to CCD, but it is not too steep.  Do yourself a favour and get hold of a decent piece of control software.  I use and like SGP - much easier to use than the software provided by the company.  

Good luck.