Best DSLR for astro modification?

[david_taurus83]

38 minutes ago, Nikodemuzz said:

Thanks for sharing. I can certainly see what you mean about being able to pick up faint stuff! How dark is your sky, and did you use filters?

Bortle 6, shot directly over 2 streetlights. I have an IDAS D2 filter but with this scope its causing the halos and reflections on the brighter stars. Something I'll have to live with I'm afraid unless I go to a dark site.

[AbsolutelyN]

31 minutes ago, Nikodemuzz said:

Looking quickly it seems that there is less color noise in the latter, "darkless" image, which is interesting. Hot pixels are still there in both images, should they not have been removed during the stacking/calibration? Well, I am by no means an expert here, I'm sure the more experienced users will be able to help.

It's very possible not getting it quite right yet ... 

[michael8554]

1 hour ago, AbsolutelyN said:

Thanks Michael .... just ran it through BPP with bias as darks and have to say I can't tell any different to the one with matching darks

Less large scale noise pattern I'd say. 

Think of the imaging time you've gained by not having to take Darks! 

Michael 

[Alien 13]

13 hours ago, Nikodemuzz said:

Which models in particular? No need for modification would be a welcome prospect. Actually, my Fuji X-T3 should be a pretty good performer in that regard. Unfortunately the thorough lack of support from any astro utilities makes any attempts at proper deep sky photography a very laborious process.  Which is why I am now looking at an additional camera to do that job.

As a general guide the latest models do seem to have slightly better Ha response, I would never mod my 80D for instance and I think the 6D is fine as well although modding will always increase sensitivity....My personal view is that Canon try and match the maximum bandwidth to there lenses as if you go too far then you will get star bloat etc.

Alan

[Nikodemuzz]

18 hours ago, david_taurus83 said:

Bortle 6, shot directly over 2 streetlights. I have an IDAS D2 filter but with this scope its causing the halos and reflections on the brighter stars. Something I'll have to live with I'm afraid unless I go to a dark site.

I think your results are great considering the environment! I have been living in the central urban area for a few years now, which has made sure that my astro hobby has stayed more or less on the back burner. In April we will be moving to the outskirts, and will have our own backyard. The possibilities! It's not exactly a dark site, but I'm hopeful seeing results such as yours.

[Nikodemuzz]

10 hours ago, Alien 13 said:

As a general guide the latest models do seem to have slightly better Ha response, I would never mod my 80D for instance and I think the 6D is fine as well although modding will always increase sensitivity....My personal view is that Canon try and match the maximum bandwidth to there lenses as if you go too far then you will get star bloat etc.

Alan

I see what you mean. I think I might get my feet wet with an unmodded camera that has a decent Ha response, and perform the mod if it seems necessary down the line.

Canon 7D Mk2 was not on my list, but became a contender when I read the Roger Clark article about it (https://clarkvision.com/reviews/evaluation-canon-7dii/). I must say I find his images somewhat overdone, but I get the point that the unmodded cameras shouldn't be underestimated. Then again, his images are mainly with fast camera lenses and presumably from dark locations, one might have a distinctly different experience with a f6 scope under the urban skyfog.

I can obtain a used 7D Mk2, and a 6D with essentially the same price. Full frame certainly has its appeal, but I think the FOV might get even a tad too wide with 250mm focal length. An APS-C sensor would frame many of the targets on my list just so. Hmm.

[happy-kat]

Don't get too influenced by Roger Clark.

Your fuji if like other fuji images I've seen on here may already have a pretty good ha response. I'll see if I can later find the post I've seen in the past on converting the fuji files into something useable for imaging programs like DSS.

Edited February 20, 2020 by happy-kat

[happy-kat]

Here is a link which related to fuji and DSS

https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/308943-stacking/?do=findComment&comment=3379888

[Nikodemuzz]

1 hour ago, happy-kat said:

Don't get too influenced by Roger Clark.

Your fuji if like other fuji images I've seen on here may already have a pretty good ha response. I'll see if I can later find the post I've seen in the past on converting the fuji files into something useable for imaging programs like DSS.

Thanks for the input happy-kat!

I would be more than happy to just use my Fuji, and I think it might do just as well or better than some of the cameras I am now considering. This is, when image quality and Ha response is considered.

However, I have yet to find solutions that would make the imaging and processing workflow with the Fuji acceptable, compared to the Canons or dedicated astro cameras. The X-T3 has an in-built intervalometer which works fine, but that is more or less where the good news stop. Imaging solutions, such as APT, SGPro, Nebulosity, BackyardEOS (obviously), Ekos/Kstars, ASIAir, none of these communicate with the X-T3. Which means I have no access to polar alignment aids (unless I purchase a Polemaster), focusing aids, plate solving, dithering. One might be able to do these manually and accomplish the same result, but it gets pretty labor intensive. Take dithering for example. To dither I would have to stop imaging, stop guiding, move the mount manually a minuscule amount, restart imaging and restart guiding. If someone has a solution I would love to hear it. I would also be willing to pay for such solutions, because it would save me a purchase of an extra camera.

Then there is the processing. I'm under the impression that PixInsigth accepts Fuji raw files, so that might be the way to go. I haven't yet tried. DSS does not understand Fuji raw files, so I would have to make tiffs from each frame to enable DSS to process them. I did that for my first attempt. It works, but those tiff files are about 130MB a pop, which means that things will get pretty intense for larger projects. 😃

Edited February 20, 2020 by Nikodemuzz
Typo

[Alien 13]

8 minutes ago, Nikodemuzz said:

Then there is the processing. I'm under the impression that PixInsigth accepts Fuji raw files, so that might be the way to go. I haven't yet tried. DSS does not understand Fuji raw files, so I would have to make tiffs from each frame to enable DSS to process them. I did that for my first attempt. It works, both those tiff files are about 130MB a pop, which means that things will get pretty intense for larger projects. 😃

The free adobe DNG converter will convert any RAWS into the "digital negative" format that any post processing package can use, it also does batch processing so is quite efficient. DNG converter is something I use as my Photoshop version cant handle my Canon RAWs.

Alan

[Nikodemuzz]

2 minutes ago, Alien 13 said:

The free adobe DNG converter will convert any RAWS into the "digital negative" format that any post processing package can use, it also does batch processing so is quite efficient. DNG converter is something I use as my Photoshop version cant handle my Canon RAWs.

Alan

Thanks Alan! This was mentioned also in the link that happy-kat provided. Could be a big part of the solution for the processing side of things, I will give it a go! That would be a big step forward. What remains are the hoops one must jump to get the data in the first place.

[Spaced Out]

3 hours ago, Nikodemuzz said:

I can obtain a used 7D Mk2, and a 6D with essentially the same price. Full frame certainly has its appeal, but I think the FOV might get even a tad too wide with 250mm focal length. An APS-C sensor would frame many of the targets on my list just so. Hmm.

6D all day long for me ! Purely on image quality and low light performance......  

I also own a 7d MK2 that I use for wildlife and have occasionally thrown it on a telescope, it performed OK but it's a lot noisier than the 6D at higher ISOs. I'm guessing this will be less of an issue if you are stacking lots of images tho ? If you are only working at 250mm then as you say FOV is a consideration and a crop sensor may be the better choice for your particular targets.

I think 7D Mk2 is widely considered one of the best canon crop sensors. Is it worth looking at the 80D too ? My mate just got one for wildlife and tbh the image quality seems better than my 7D Mk2, I think it might be slightly better at higher ISOs than the 7D too ? 

[Spaced Out]

2 hours ago, Alien 13 said:

 DNG converter is something I use as my Photoshop version cant handle my Canon RAWs.

Alan

Me too ! 👍

[Nikodemuzz]

1 hour ago, Spaced Out said:

6D all day long for me ! Purely on image quality and low light performance......  

I also own a 7d MK2 that I use for wildlife and have occasionally thrown it on a telescope, it performed OK but it's a lot noisier than the 6D at higher ISOs. I'm guessing this will be less of an issue if you are stacking lots of images tho ? If you are only working at 250mm then as you say FOV is a consideration and a crop sensor may be the better choice for your particular targets.

I think 7D Mk2 is widely considered one of the best canon crop sensors. Is it worth looking at the 80D too ? My mate just got one for wildlife and tbh the image quality seems better than my 7D Mk2, I think it might be slightly better at higher ISOs than the 7D too ? 

Yeah, those large pixels would surely do an impressive job... 

The idea is to start imaging at 250mm, not necessarily use it as the only focal length. For the moment, the next step would be the C11+reducer at 1680mm which would probably be a bit much at this point. I'm sure I will give it a go, too, just to see how hard it is. 😃 But I'm currently selling the C11, and the plan is to replace it with a refractor. In that case I could of course choose one that would fit the full frame particularly well and achieve the FOV I want. I don't think I will be chasing the smallest targets anytime soon, anyway. In the best case I could forgo buying a CCD altogether, or at least postpone it quite a bit.

80D, you say? I guess why not if the performance would be there. There would be one available at the moment around here, similar price to the 6D. Gary Honis did report high noise from it, but it was not clear (at least to me) if his findings were representative of the model or just an odd specimen. (https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/585737-test-of-canon-80d/)

[The Admiral]

On 19/02/2020 at 08:38, Nikodemuzz said:

Which models in particular? No need for modification would be a welcome prospect. Actually, my Fuji X-T3 should be a pretty good performer in that regard. Unfortunately the thorough lack of support from any astro utilities makes any attempts at proper deep sky photography a very laborious process.  Which is why I am now looking at an additional camera to do that job.

I agree in a way. You won't find the equivalent of BYEOS for example, if that sort of thing is important to you. I used my X-T1 because that's what I had and was pleasantly surprised by it's Ha response and sharpness (given it doesn't have a low pass filter in front of the sensor). OK, not as good as an astro cam, but usable. For example, see here. Note that I've only done Alt-Az imaging, and as such the exposures have been no more than 30s. But quite a few of them! And that really is where the problem has arisen, because that's an awful lot of files to post process and store. Originally I used DSS but it didn't work with the Fuji X-Trans sensor, so I ended up converting them all to DNG using the free (and speedy) Adobe DNG converter and stacking those. May be the later versions of DSS will work with the Fuji RAF files. I turned to Astroart in the end and is seemed to cope with all the stacking and calibration files. I'm not 100% convinced it isn't using a fudge to calibrate, not being a Bayer sensor.

I've also kept an eye on Astro Pixel Processor as initially it didn't work with the Fuji but there were requests for the camera to be included. However it seemed to be a long way down the list of the developer's 'must do's'. At that point Mabula had constructed his own algorithms for calibration and stacking, rather than relying on DCRaw. However, it seems that this has only been done for CR2 and NEFF raw files, all the others will use LibRaw. But as stated here

"APP currently does not yet support FUJI X-TRANS camera's, even when converted to DNG, it will not work yet. The goal is to have this supported from APP 1.077."

This has been a work in progress since its introduction 2½ years ago, so one can but hope.

I think the problem is that the Fuji really isn't seen as an astro camera, and the market for astro is too small to see any developments along the lines of Canon and Nikon. Pity!

Ian

[Nikodemuzz]

3 hours ago, The Admiral said:

I agree in a way. You won't find the equivalent of BYEOS for example, if that sort of thing is important to you. I used my X-T1 because that's what I had and was pleasantly surprised by it's Ha response and sharpness (given it doesn't have a low pass filter in front of the sensor). OK, not as good as an astro cam, but usable. For example, see here. Note that I've only done Alt-Az imaging, and as such the exposures have been no more than 30s. But quite a few of them! And that really is where the problem has arisen, because that's an awful lot of files to post process and store. Originally I used DSS but it didn't work with the Fuji X-Trans sensor, so I ended up converting them all to DNG using the free (and speedy) Adobe DNG converter and stacking those. May be the later versions of DSS will work with the Fuji RAF files. I turned to Astroart in the end and is seemed to cope with all the stacking and calibration files. I'm not 100% convinced it isn't using a fudge to calibrate, not being a Bayer sensor.

I've also kept an eye on Astro Pixel Processor as initially it didn't work with the Fuji but there were requests for the camera to be included. However it seemed to be a long way down the list of the developer's 'must do's'. At that point Mabula had constructed his own algorithms for calibration and stacking, rather than relying on DCRaw. However, it seems that this has only been done for CR2 and NEFF raw files, all the others will use LibRaw. But as stated here

"APP currently does not yet support FUJI X-TRANS camera's, even when converted to DNG, it will not work yet. The goal is to have this supported from APP 1.077."

This has been a work in progress since its introduction 2½ years ago, so one can but hope.

I think the problem is that the Fuji really isn't seen as an astro camera, and the market for astro is too small to see any developments along the lines of Canon and Nikon. Pity!

Ian

Thanks for chiming in, Ian! Very nice to hear from someone who is actually using a Fuji camera for AP. You have certainly done a great job with yours!

I would like to use the X-T3 for the same basic reason, I already have it. I didn't get it for this purpose, but if it could perform these duties as well, even better. However, I have been looking forward to starting imaging for a long time (I bought my first book about astrophotography some 15 years ago), and it just hasn't been possible for various reasons until now. Or soon, I should say. 😃 Instead of the city center, from April onwards we will be living in a house with a backyard for the first time since early 2000's, and it is away from the worst urban area as well. My determination and excitement level is rather high. Also, I am a bit of a nerd.  What I'm trying to say is that the lack of utilities will become a problem for me. Not necessarily right away, but soon. I don't need to be able to do all the fancy tricks right away, but I want it to be possible to grow into them. Even so, I will certainly try the Fuji to see what kind of images it can produce.

I think you are right about the lack of support being due to small user base and the fact that the potential of Fuji is not recognized. I asked from ZWO if they are planning to add support for Fuji to their ASIAir, and their response was a simple "we don't have any such plans". Pity! Couldn't have said it better myself. 😃 

[Nikodemuzz]

I have come to a conclusion in this matter. I decided that the arguably strongest contenders (6D, 7D Mk2, 80D etc) are large enough investments that the gap to a cooled astro camera isn't very big anymore. In which case it would make more sense to me to go for one of those. Instead, I acquired a used 1200D. The camera was unmodded, but I can perform the mod myself if I think it is necessary. The 1200D was 1/5 of the price of a used 6D, so even if I completely botch the mod it won't sting quite as bad.

It will be interesting to compare how the X-T3 and 1200D perform unmodded. I will shoot some images and make a thread about it.

[Nikodemuzz]

By the way, would you happen to have any suggestions for suitable targets for camera comparison? I was thinking that I will try to get 1-2 hours integration time with each camera, stack the photos and do a basic stretching so that the differences would become visible, not much else. A preferable target would be quite high in the northern sky at the moment, contain some Ha regions but maybe not only those, fairly large target (imaging area is roughly 5x3 degrees).

I was thinking Heart & Soul. Then again, it is mainly Ha, so doesn't give much information besides Ha response. 

[bottletopburly]

On 19/02/2020 at 13:42, david_taurus83 said:

Bortle 6, shot directly over 2 streetlights. I have an IDAS D2 filter but with this scope its causing the halos and reflections on the brighter stars. Something I'll have to live with I'm afraid unless I go to a dark site.

Are you using DSS by any chance 

[david_taurus83]

4 hours ago, bottletopburly said:

Are you using DSS by any chance 

DSS stack as it's easy and also Pixinsight to see if theres any difference. Why?

[bottletopburly]

4 minutes ago, david_taurus83 said:

DSS stack as it's easy and also Pixinsight to see if theres any difference. Why?

There’s a setting in DSS cosmetic tab that causes halos with the D2 if ticked think it’s hot pixel will check later 

[david_taurus83]

48 minutes ago, bottletopburly said:

There’s a setting in DSS cosmetic tab that causes halos with the D2 if ticked think it’s hot pixel will check later 

Not with my case. It's the quad scope/filter combo. Halo is in the subs. See below, example with filter and example with no filter.

[Nikodemuzz]

I took delivery of the 1200D today, and the forecast looks promising for the rest of the week. Hopefully I'll be able to make some comparison between it and the X-T3. Meanwhile I did some shooting with the Fuji as the clouds parted. I managed 57 minutes of the M42 area, I posted the image in a separate thread. I'm new to this, so I can't really judge the HA response, but at least there is something! 😃