Why on earth would I buy a DSLR for astrophotography?

[George Gearless]

I've been checking out prices on various recommended dslr's. On top of the purchase price, I'll need to add a modificaton cost. The dslr (unmodified) has the advantage of being usable for other than AP, and so it would be reasonable to assume that I am paying for features and capabilities that are irrelevant for my purpose.

So, if I had, say, £600 in my budget for a purchase. Would I not be able to get a 'much better' CCD camera for the same money? Or a 'equaly' good CCD for much less?

I guess what I'm asking: Is there an advantage to DSLR's that I am overlooking?

 

[Demonperformer]

Even a modified DSLR can be used terrestrially (at least the canons can) by appropriate setting of the colour balance controls.

But for AP, I would agree: go for a ccd or cmos camera with that sort of budget, preferrably a set-point cooled one.

[Wiu-Wiu]

Also depends where you want to be imaging and how much battery power you want to be bringing along. 

For me, local storage and operating has also been a great factor. Since the asiair, I was able to transfer from dslr to cooled camera, since it not only saves my subs, but also takes care of the dithering and guiding.

but the dslr will still be kept in business for the times where portability is key, and I have no access to net current.

[alacant]

4 hours ago, George Gearless said:

Is there an advantage to DSLR's that I am overlooking?

 

Hi. On a dedicated camera, £600 buys you a miserably small sensor whereas £400 gets you an astro modified dslr with a big aps-c sensor. It depends upon what you want to photograph. HTH.

[billyharris72]

I'm with alacant on this. The cheapest dedicated astro camera I could find out there with a half decent sensor size(still smaller) was the ASI1600, which was about £1200 (maybe a bit cheaper now). That's by no means a bad deal (you get a lot of camera for the money) but still  quite a bit more than the DSLR. Add to that the greater flexibility (are you totally sure you'll never use it for anything else) and I still reckon it's the best way to start out. Bear in mind also that you don't need to mod it, though you might want to. Clusters, galaxies and a lot of nebulae don't really need it - depends how much you want to image the fainter Ha emission nebulae.

Billy.

[teoria_del_big_bang]

Also you can pick 2nd hand DSLRs pretty cheap especially the body only sales if you only want it for astro and using it with your scope.

A good spec astro camera still seems to command a fair hefty price.

I think that personally I would have not bothered with DSLR and jumped straight in and bought a dedicated camera but I just couldn't afford (still can't but saving ? ) but it is a real cheap way of getting into astrophotography. And even if you pay out to get it modified usually you can get a reasonable amount back when you sell it on so really costs very little in the end.

Steve

Edited January 7, 2019 by teoria_del_big_bang

[GraemeC]

The DSLR is the camera I prefer to use if I don't want to spend time setting up a laptop.  I also like the idea that you get instant results (eg focusing) and flexibility in use.  The CCD choice might clearly be the better one if you have a permanent secure observatory in a dark sky area.

Graeme

[happy-kat]

If your time is short and you don't have a permanent rig then I'd go second hand canon dslr to get going and see if it works for you and if there's a desire to push further into the hobby or not as a dslr doesn't even need a laptop to be used.

[MarsG76]

I agree with @alacant and @billyharris72 that the sensor size is a major difference and adventage... the ASI1600 is the closest to a APS-C sized DSLR for considerably more money than a second hand DSLR with modding... IMHO the ASI 1600 is the next best camera for astrophotography when cost and sensor size is concerned.

[tooth_dr]

A used Kodak KAF-8300 based camera eg QHY9 would be just about doable for slightly over the budget of £600, and a used Canon modded DSLR would be around £100-140.   I dont see the benefit of buying a new DSLR for astroimaging given the used prices these days of already modded ones (and I bought my first Canon DSLR brand new and modified it straight away).  The ease of use of a DSLR and large field size allow for cropping of defects and are more forgiving when framing.  I would recommend cutting your teeth on a DSLR, and then consider progressing to an astro CCD or CMOS.

Edited January 7, 2019 by tooth_dr

[Ouroboros]

Would I be right in thinking that a modded DSLR is still one shot colour? In which case it's only fair to compare it with the prices of one shot colour CCDs/CMOS cameras of similar chip size. As already said, these will be more than the £600 budget allows. And going down the mono CCD/CMOS route is more expensive still given the additional costs of filter wheel, filters etc. 

I agree with the comment that DSLRs are a good entry to astrophotography, potentially for significantly less than £600. In fact they're so good I've never stopped using mine. Nor have I made the transition to CCD/CMOS. But then I'm an occassional imager who finds the essential simplicity, self containedness and reliability of a DSLR as one less thing to worry about when setting up and tearing down on each occassion. 

Mind you, having said all that, had I not owned a DSLR before starting astrophotography I would probably have spent £1500+ on a mono CMOS + filters system.  I don't think there's much point trying to achieve that with a budget of £600. You either bite the bullet and spend a decent amount on a decent camera plus accessories, or go for a cheaper DSLR which will provide a hugely enjoyable learning experience and decent imaging for a fraction of the cost.  

[tooth_dr]

7 minutes ago, Ouroboros said:

I don't think there's much point trying to achieve that with a budget of £600. You either bite the bullet and spend a decent amount on a decent camera plus accessories

Absolutely a good point.  At £600 the budget is a little too limited.  However, I would respectfully disagree about the decent camera comment and the need to spend over £1500 - a used KAF-8300 is a good buy, and for about half of that amount will get you into CCD RGB imaging.

I still would recommend a used DSLR though, and maybe an H-alpha filter to use on moonlit nights.

[pete_l]

9 hours ago, George Gearless said:

On top of the purchase price, I'll need to add a modificaton cost. The dslr (unmodified) has the advantage of being usable for other than AP, and so it would be reasonable to assume that I am paying for features and capabilities that are irrelevant for my purpose.

The most cost effective route into astrophotography is a s/h modified DSLR. There are companies and individuals out there who buy used DSLRs and modify them to sell on. You can either pick up an "off the shelf" one or have them modify a DSLR that you own. There is nothing really to gain from buying a new one - a low shutter count used model is just as good.

I have a mix of one shot colour astro CCDs, mono CCDs with filters and modified DSLRs. The major advantages of the DSLR are about simplicity: ease of attachment to the telescope, getting results quickly, less cabling, simple to use, the software to run a colour DSLR is less complex and they have a large sensor size. The disadvantage is that you won't take Hubble quality images.

[spillage]

I started out with modded dslr (550d) the was under £200 and already modded. This to me was a cheaper way into astrophotography, it helped me learn the basics and decide if this hobby was for me. After a few months I made my mind up and went for the asi1600 mono then sold the canon for near enough the original purchase price. Yes I could of just gone straight in for the asi but at nearly £2k (including filters, wheel) that would have been a leap of faith. I think if you only spend £600 on brand new ccd then the chip size will be very small. Of course it depends on what you want to photograph but if it was me I would buy a cheap pre-modded dslr and keep on saving for a larger sensor.

[George Gearless]

Thanks all for the very good responses. I think all the bases have been covered as far as I can tell.

I have to say that the portability issue did not occur to me. So thanks for bringing that up. Generally, I will be moving my setup 10m into the garden. 90% of my viewing/photographing will be undertaken here and so I won't be far from an electrical outlet. That solves the power issue. But I will need to think about where to place a laptop.

I already have a DSLR. In fact, I have two. I have a Canon Powershot SX50HS, which I still use for regular photography. It is a very fine camera for that purpose. Alas, it is unusable for AP since it does not have a removable lens. I then bought a Nikon DX40 second hand for around €50, for the specific purpose of AP. I have not modified it since the intent is to use it as an 'entry level' camera. As also suggested in this thread. I did need to purchase extra fixings to make the whole thing work for its purpose. T2 rings, a remote, and some distance rings. I think those extra things cost more than the camera itself :). But it enables me to learn the same lessons that I would also need to learn if I bought a brand new EOS(X). Albeit the results may not be as good.

Due to several lengthy periods of bad weather, I have not been able to test the setup on more than a couple of nights. I have yet to take a picture that I dare post here as a 'show and tell' on my progress. Or the lack of it, as it were.

So, I am not on the verge of making a large purchase at my local camera dealer. I am just using the 'downtime' for some investigative research and picking the brains of those who have already been where I am now. It is a great help!

 

According to Telescope Observer these cameras are the best that money can buy today (for AP). But with prices starting at £800, it just got me thinking that a camera that was produced with one purpose in mind, ought to be cheaper than a camera that is designed to perform multiple tasks. Extrapolating on that premise, it was logical to assume that you would get a much better single-purpose camera with the same budget. Anyway, it made sense in my mind .

Somewhere down the line, if/when my AP enthusiasm evolves into something more than a passing fancy and I feel that a camera upgrade is needed, I will definitely be picking your brains once again. I must say that the multitude of choices out there, is very confusing to someone at my level. If having a Nikon DX40, Alt-Az goto GTI mount and a 127mm Mak grants me any level at all ?.

Thank you all for your helpful advice and deliberations.

 

Edit: Corrected a few spelling mistakes.

Edited January 7, 2019 by George Gearless

[happy-kat]

That article is not I don't think related to using a DSLR for astrophotography using a motorised equatorial mount but a static tripod out and about. There is no mention of pixel scale or onboard noise reduction turnoff for example so I wouldn't take that article as a base line guide for choosing a DSLR.

[happy-kat]

That's a nice mount you have to get started with and toe wet experience, it can work in EQ mode with a camera and lens, what did your nikon come with lens wise? I've seen that mount also being guided on posts.

For imaging planets or Moon your 127mm can be used in altaz tracking mode as you would take video rather than individual frames,

Edited January 7, 2019 by happy-kat

[George Gearless]

42 minutes ago, happy-kat said:

That's a nice mount you have to get started with and toe wet experience, it can work in EQ mode with a camera and lens, what did your nikon come with lens wise? I've seen that mount also being guided on posts.

For imaging planets or Moon your 127mm can be used in altaz tracking mode as you would take video rather than individual frames,

Indeed I am very happy with my mount. Granted, it's not quite up to snuff for AP. But I am encouraged even with the meager results I've achieved so far on my few nights out. My exposure time limit is somewhere between 20 and 30 secs. After that, I start to get trails. Still, I should be able to get some half decent results once the #"¤#&#¤¤% weather clears up. I saw in the alt-az challenge contest thread, that quite beautiful results can be achieved. Although I'll reluctantly agree that the results can be more readily achieved with 'better' equipment. 

The camera is only one of many things in my set up I will be upgrading, some time down the line. I think a decent equatorial go-to mount will be at the top of the to-do list before anything else. I have my eye on this equatorial mount from Skywatcher. It is within my budget (or, it will be soon) and should offer quite the step up from my current, wouldn't you say?

The camera article I referred to is by no means exhaustive. But since it delves into assessing the cameras from a pure AP point of view, I do believe it gives me some inclination as to the price range. From new, that is. No doubt, bargains on the second-hand-market may be struck. I suspect that is where my search will begin, once it is relevant.

The camera I bought came with a 18-55 mm lens. I have not used it for anything else than AP through my Mak since my needs for normal photography is easily covered by the Canon Powershot. Unfortunately, the Nikon DX40 is incapable of recording video. So it will all be single-shot with this camera, I'm afraid. No matter. I have found that even though the planets and especially the moon are impressive to watch with my long focal length telescope, it is deep sky objects that truly leave me in awe. I've grown to find it 'my favorite thing' in the past year or so.

But I did print out a particularly good photo of a section of the moon which was quite sharp and had beautiful shadowy craters. I am a humble man and don't like to toot my own horn, so I framed it and hung it up on the door in my office ?.

[happy-kat]

Your mount right now on a wedge (with free firmware update) can work in equatorial tracking with go to. 

That's nice to do print and hang to enjoy an image you've taken.

Before spending any significant sums on either a new mount or camera I would suggest to buy/read the book Making Every Photon Count so you understand the reasoning for any buying decisions.

[George Gearless]

57 minutes ago, happy-kat said:

Your mount right now on a wedge (with free firmware update) can work in equatorial tracking with go to. 

That's nice to do print and hang to enjoy an image you've taken.

Before spending any significant sums on either a new mount or camera I would suggest to buy/read the book Making Every Photon Count so you understand the reasoning for any buying decisions.

Oh my god! The wedge. You're brilliant, Happy-Kat! *applauds loudly*

Found this video from one of our fellow SG loungers Wolfie6020 .  

And I will definitely check out your book recommendation as well. Might as well put my downtime to good use. 

[Bloom]

Don't know if anybody has already mentioned it:

Being an owner of both a dSLR and an OSC CCD camera, I know from experience that in general dSLR cameras cannot compete with cooled dedicated astro cameras. Still, dSLR cameras do keep a couple of advantages. First, they have big chips in a very attractive price - CCD cameras cannot compete in this. Second, there is a multitude of brilliant photographic lenses suitable for wide field imaging, and dSLR cameras are the best solution for these lenses. Third, and I think nobody has mentioned it, is that (unmodified) dSLR cameras are much better in white balancing. They almost always get the colour balance correct and beautiful right from the first stack. This is often not the case with dedicated astro cameras, either OSC or Mono.

These are a few details which imho keep the dSLR cameras still in the game. So, should a beginner start with a dSLR?Well, I am not sure! Given modern technology, one can start with dedicated astro cameras and I guess it is not that difficult to find one's way around with using telephoto and wide angle lenses with all sorts of weird adaptors. I myself started imaging  with a Canon 400d. If I were to start the hobby all over again, I would buy a midrange dSLR, not any sort of CCD. But I am also an amateur photographer (among my many hobbies), so maybe my opinion shouldn't count.

 

P.S.: I think we all mean APS-C sized dSLRs. Full frame cameras are much better in all aspects than their APS-C counterparts, but they are too expensive, and for the benefit of less noise and extra sensitivity, they reach a price which compares with the best of dedicated cameras - comparing to them, they are inferior. In the past couple of years, I did consider getting a used full frame camera, but I shied away because of another two reasons: the 35mm format reveals even the slightest inaccuracies of even the best optics, and these cameras also put a heavy burden on the focusers, since they are not the lightest piece of equipment.

Edited January 15, 2019 by Bloom

[dannybgoode]

On 07/01/2019 at 18:14, George Gearless said:

me thinking that a camera that was produced with one purpose in mind, ought to be cheaper than a camera that is designed to perform multiple tasks. Extrapolating on that premise, it was logical to assume that you would get a much better single-purpose camera with the same budget.

The issue is twofold. First, manufacturing what is essentially a scientific instrument and in particular the cooling (just look at the price jump when you start having proper active cooling) is an expensive endeavour. 

Secondly precisely because you are making an instrument with one very specific purpose means you are by default selling to a very limited audience and low volume, high precision kit always costs money. 

Canon probably sell more of even just say the 5D mkIV than Starlight Xpress sell of their entire camera range. 

As to the OP. In my mind the best value comes from buying a good secondhand Astro camera. Right tool for the job and not totally horribly expensive. 

[rickwayne]

Y'know, sensor size is not in itself an advantage. You want to match your desired FOV to the sensor size, yes, but angular pixel size is also in play. I deliberately chose a smaller sensor for my first dedicated astro camera precisely so that smaller objects would more nearly fill the frame, while the smaller pixels helped address the undersampling that my DSLR rig gives me. Smaller-pixel sensors are often noisier than bigger-pixel ones, true, but between today's sensors and stacking, that's a lot less of a problem than it used to be.

[The Admiral]

On 07/01/2019 at 02:16, George Gearless said:

I guess what I'm asking: Is there an advantage to DSLR's that I am overlooking?

Just to add my thoughts to this old thread. I think all the points raised above are valid. I started using a mirrorless system camera simply because when I first got my telescope I hadn't even thought about imaging, and the camera is what I already had and I thought I'd give it a go. For me though, the over-riding consideration is that it is self contained and stand-alone. Like others here I would need to set up and strip down the kit every time I carted it all into the garden, so simplicity was the key. No need for a separate processing capability to be wired up. I have a few potential upgrade paths available to me in terms of mount and camera, but to be frank, I found I could not justify the expense given the infrequency with which I am able to image. Even so, the time spent imaging with such a camera has been a very valuable learning opportunity without spending money. It's time not wasted.

So, do you buy a dedicated astro camera or a DSLR? If you are starting imaging and have a DSLR to hand, I'd say wring the most you can out of that and pick up some experience along the way. If you haven't a camera of any sort, then I guess it'll come down to what you can afford, but be aware that astro imaging can be a big hill to climb and you might want to keep things as simple as possible to begin with. But I'd certainly not decry anyone going for a cheap DSLR to start off, even if the imaging purists would say otherwise. Within it's limitations and advantages you can make some really nice images, so don't be put off. If you are buying a new high performance DSLR, then just be wary of some of the gotchas that these cameras can throw at you, like the star-eating noise subtraction that some of the Sony's have, and (?) some of the Nikons.

Whatever you choose, have fun while you're doing it!

Ian

Edited January 26, 2019 by The Admiral

[LeeRich]

Wow, what a great thread, thanks. Almost wished i looked a bit harder when i asked almost the same questions in my own thread. I will be following this some more