Sony Alpha a6000, is it worth it for astrophotography?

[Quetzalcoatl72]

I accidentally bought the wrong wide angle lens for my canon, now I own a Sony lens. Feel like I should just buy a new camera, one that's mirrorless because I heard they're essential now for some reason. I heard Sony Alpha a6000 is the best budget camera. Any other recommendations would be great, budget £500 new or used. I paid 160 for this Samyang 14mm ED AS IF UMC f2.8 as new, I don't feel like selling it 😕 .

Will it be better than my current canon 600Da?

Will I need to mod this one?

Can I use it for both the Milkyway, landscapes and deep sky astro?
Thanks

[Gfamily]

Ian Morison (ex Gresham Professor of Astronomy and Jodrell Bank) has an Astronomy Digest post about the similar A5000.

The A6000 is better as it's easier to disable automatic Noise Reduction, which you don't want to use on Astro photography.

I have the A5000, which works very well on my smaller scopes (its body is ⅓ the weight of my dSLR) 

http://www.ianmorison.com/the-sony-a5000-apsc-mirrorless-camera-an-astrophotography-bargain/

[Quetzalcoatl72]

6 hours ago, Gfamily said:

Ian Morison (ex Gresham Professor of Astronomy and Jodrell Bank) has an Astronomy Digest post about the similar A5000.

The A6000 is better as it's easier to disable automatic Noise Reduction, which you don't want to use on Astro photography.

I have the A5000, which works very well on my smaller scopes (its body is ⅓ the weight of my dSLR) 

http://www.ianmorison.com/the-sony-a5000-apsc-mirrorless-camera-an-astrophotography-bargain/

Thanks, but what about when used through a telescope using imaging software?

[Gfamily]

4 hours ago, Quetzalcoatl72 said:

Thanks, but what about when used through a telescope using imaging software?

I'm afraid I don't know whether the A6000 can send its image stream directly to a PC, which you might want to do for planetary imaging.

Certainly, for deep sky or skyscapes you could use an intervalometer to capture multiple images to be downloaded and stacked separately.

[Quetzalcoatl72]

On 12/06/2021 at 22:19, Gfamily said:

I'm afraid I don't know whether the A6000 can send its image stream directly to a PC, which you might want to do for planetary imaging.

Certainly, for deep sky or skyscapes you could use an intervalometer to capture multiple images to be downloaded and stacked separately.

I bought a small scope for more wider field of imaging so now this camera will be exclusively for milkyways and normal photography. are you sure these cameras don't need to be modded?

[Gfamily]

5 hours ago, Quetzalcoatl72 said:

I bought a small scope for more wider field of imaging so now this camera will be exclusively for milkyways and normal photography. are you sure these cameras don't need to be modded?

What sort of mod are you thinking about?

I would  say the only thing to check is whether the Sony lens you bought has the right mount for the A6000.

[Quetzalcoatl72]

On 22/06/2021 at 00:24, Gfamily said:

What sort of mod are you thinking about?

I would  say the only thing to check is whether the Sony lens you bought has the right mount for the A6000.

i'm not sure, what do people usually go for?

[Andrew_B]

I looked at getting a Sony mirrorless camera (NEX-5N) when I decided to try and get back into astrophotography and in stock form their red sensitivity isn't as good as you might want, especially in comparison to your 600Da. I ended up getting a secondhand Fuji X-A3 which even in stock form has reasonably good deep red sensitivity that's good enough to get nice bright images of nebulae and is even usable with narrowband filters. The Fuji was also easier to use with a cheap wired intervalometer, and while the Sony can be modified to do the same, it apparently involves some soldering.

I then managed to break the X-A3 and replaced it with an X-T100 which has the same (or very similar) 24MP sensor that may be the same as the one in the A6000, and which has similarly good out of the box red sensitivity as well as a few extra features that made it better for normal photography. I was considering repairing the X-A3 and doing an astro conversion when I found a secondhand X-A3 that had already been full spectrum converted that cost no more than I would have spent on parts to repair and convert my existing camera. The conversion that had been done was to remove the hot mirror covering the sensor and replace it with a fused quartz window which has a very wide bandpass from UV through to well into infrared (something like 200-2000nm). It works brilliantly and I've been blown away by how much it records with an H-alpha filter even with integrations of only 60-90 minutes

The Sony looks good but I've read that it is one of a number of Sony models affected by the 'Star Eater' bug where overly aggressive noise reduction that can't be switch off ends up removing fainter stars because it thinks they're noise or hot pixels. This problem kicks in when bulb mode is used and is obviously a problem for astro although 30s and shorter exposures aren't affected. Apparently the NEX-3 / NEX-3N and NEX-5 / NEX-5N models don't have this problem so they could be worth a look.

 

Hope this info is useful and hasn't come too late!

[Quetzalcoatl72]

11 hours ago, Andrew_B said:

I looked at getting a Sony mirrorless camera (NEX-5N) when I decided to try and get back into astrophotography and in stock form their red sensitivity isn't as good as you might want, especially in comparison to your 600Da. I ended up getting a secondhand Fuji X-A3 which even in stock form has reasonably good deep red sensitivity that's good enough to get nice bright images of nebulae and is even usable with narrowband filters. The Fuji was also easier to use with a cheap wired intervalometer, and while the Sony can be modified to do the same, it apparently involves some soldering.

I then managed to break the X-A3 and replaced it with an X-T100 which has the same (or very similar) 24MP sensor that may be the same as the one in the A6000, and which has similarly good out of the box red sensitivity as well as a few extra features that made it better for normal photography. I was considering repairing the X-A3 and doing an astro conversion when I found a secondhand X-A3 that had already been full spectrum converted that cost no more than I would have spent on parts to repair and convert my existing camera. The conversion that had been done was to remove the hot mirror covering the sensor and replace it with a fused quartz window which has a very wide bandpass from UV through to well into infrared (something like 200-2000nm). It works brilliantly and I've been blown away by how much it records with an H-alpha filter even with integrations of only 60-90 minutes

The Sony looks good but I've read that it is one of a number of Sony models affected by the 'Star Eater' bug where overly aggressive noise reduction that can't be switch off ends up removing fainter stars because it thinks they're noise or hot pixels. This problem kicks in when bulb mode is used and is obviously a problem for astro although 30s and shorter exposures aren't affected. Apparently the NEX-3 / NEX-3N and NEX-5 / NEX-5N models don't have this problem so they could be worth a look.

 

Hope this info is useful and hasn't come too late!

I have an NEX 3k, but it's super old, surely I'd want something less than 5 years old to keep up with the competition. Only used it for daytime stuff, looks very noisy now. I still want a camera for everything, there's a site that does mods and you can clip on a filter for normal astro. I have a a7r on my watch list but reading what you said I'm less sure, because I still have this sony E mount f14 lens sitting doing nothing.

[The Lazy Astronomer]

On 23/06/2021 at 14:58, Quetzalcoatl72 said:

i'm not sure, what do people usually go for?

Apologies if I've misunderstood your question, but when people talk about modding DSLRs, they usually mean removing the internal filters to allow more of the red end of the light spectrum (especially the hydrogen alpha emission line (656nm)) through to the sensor. Depending on how restrictive the internal filter was, it can greatly increase the number of photons detected from emission type nebula. The only downside is it will mess up your white balance for any normal photography. 

[Andrew_B]

12 hours ago, Quetzalcoatl72 said:

I have an NEX 3k, but it's super old, surely I'd want something less than 5 years old to keep up with the competition. Only used it for daytime stuff, looks very noisy now. I still want a camera for everything, there's a site that does mods and you can clip on a filter for normal astro. I have a a7r on my watch list but reading what you said I'm less sure, because I still have this sony E mount f14 lens sitting doing nothing.

An A6000 should do a fine job and avoid any star eater problems provided you stick to exposures of no more than 30 seconds and avoid using the bulb setting entirely. It's older than 5 years, but those 24MP Sony sensors are very good and can still hold hold their own, and I suspect my X-A3 (released in 2017) may use the same or a slightly upgraded version of that sensor.

As for clip filters, they are very useful but I'm not sure if anyone makes them for the APS-C Sony cameras or whether they're limited to being made for the full-frame ones. It's a nuisance to have the lens and be restricted to which camera you can use, but if you got your as-new 14mm lens for just £160 then that's a terrific price and I would have thought you could easily sell it on and make a few quid if you wanted options other than Sony.

The best out of the box cameras are probably the lower end Fujis due to their greater red sensitivity and lack of annoying 'features' like noise reduction that can't be turned off. Pretty much any make will work a lot better once it's modded, although I'd advise looking for a camera that has already been converted rather than buying something and paying for a conversion. I paid just £180 for my modded camera which is less than the cost of the modding services I'd seen and only a little more than I'd have to pay for a secondhand un-modded model.

Mirrorless cameras are great due to their small size and the short distance from mount to sensor which allows a lot more flexibility when using adapters and lenses from other systems - I've got a screw-mount Leitz 5cm Elmar that I use which wouldn't work on an SLR. It also gives greater room for adjustment when setting back focus on telescopes if you're trying to fit in filter changers and the like. The best supported cameras though are still Nikon and Canon which makes them the only choice if you want to use them tethered to a computer for remote control.

[Quetzalcoatl72]

1 hour ago, Andrew_B said:

An A6000 should do a fine job and avoid any star eater problems provided you stick to exposures of no more than 30 seconds and avoid using the bulb setting entirely. It's older than 5 years, but those 24MP Sony sensors are very good and can still hold hold their own, and I suspect my X-A3 (released in 2017) may use the same or a slightly upgraded version of that sensor.

As for clip filters, they are very useful but I'm not sure if anyone makes them for the APS-C Sony cameras or whether they're limited to being made for the full-frame ones. It's a nuisance to have the lens and be restricted to which camera you can use, but if you got your as-new 14mm lens for just £160 then that's a terrific price and I would have thought you could easily sell it on and make a few quid if you wanted options other than Sony.

The best out of the box cameras are probably the lower end Fujis due to their greater red sensitivity and lack of annoying 'features' like noise reduction that can't be turned off. Pretty much any make will work a lot better once it's modded, although I'd advise looking for a camera that has already been converted rather than buying something and paying for a conversion. I paid just £180 for my modded camera which is less than the cost of the modding services I'd seen and only a little more than I'd have to pay for a secondhand un-modded model.

Mirrorless cameras are great due to their small size and the short distance from mount to sensor which allows a lot more flexibility when using adapters and lenses from other systems - I've got a screw-mount Leitz 5cm Elmar that I use which wouldn't work on an SLR. It also gives greater room for adjustment when setting back focus on telescopes if you're trying to fit in filter changers and the like. The best supported cameras though are still Nikon and Canon which makes them the only choice if you want to use them tethered to a computer for remote control.

I could always un-mod my canon and use that for normal photography, and get either a better Canon or Nikon. I have a £3 maximum seller fee on ebay I can use which tempts me to sell the lens, shouldn't have any problems as it's perfect condition. I've noticed the modding for sony a7 cameras can be £200. I paid £450 for my modded 600d, I have the original parts that were taken out, just need to figure out how to put them back without ruining the sensor or anything else. I would really like a mirrorless camera now, as the [click click] movement of the mirror feel like they vibrate the camera making the focus off.

[Quetzalcoatl72]

10 hours ago, The Lazy Astronomer said:

Apologies if I've misunderstood your question, but when people talk about modding DSLRs, they usually mean removing the internal filters to allow more of the red end of the light spectrum (especially the hydrogen alpha emission line (656nm)) through to the sensor. Depending on how restrictive the internal filter was, it can greatly increase the number of photons detected from emission type nebula. The only downside is it will mess up your white balance for any normal photography. 

I have the filter that was removed from my 600d, could I not put that into a separate filter holder? I've seen that you can buy square filters with nothing attached. Here's a stacked image from that camera, I can tell they take a lot of red in but it also could be from my optlong ccd lp filter

[MonicaA]

An ASCOM driver for Sony cameras is available, see

https://retro.kiwi/ascom-driver-for-sony-cameras/

The driver itself and a list of supported cameras (see right menu) are at GitHub, follow the link on the page above. A6000 is on the list, but without LiveView.

Might be worth a try, if your preferred imaging software supports ASCOM.

 

[Andrew_B]

15 hours ago, Quetzalcoatl72 said:

I could always un-mod my canon and use that for normal photography, and get either a better Canon or Nikon. I have a £3 maximum seller fee on ebay I can use which tempts me to sell the lens, shouldn't have any problems as it's perfect condition. I've noticed the modding for sony a7 cameras can be £200. I paid £450 for my modded 600d, I have the original parts that were taken out, just need to figure out how to put them back without ruining the sensor or anything else. I would really like a mirrorless camera now, as the [click click] movement of the mirror feel like they vibrate the camera making the focus off.

There's a good choice of clip-in filters for Canon DSLRs for either astronomical use (light pollution reduction, narrowband) or a UV-IR block to give a normal spectral response for regular photography, so you don't have to un-mod it.

There are some fantastic mirrorless cameras and the small size, light weight, and short flange focal distance makes them a good fit for astro. Canon and Nikon didn't introduce their own mirrorless cameras until relatively recently so you'll pay more than a similar camera from Sony or Fuji (especially if you want a modded one), but it may give the option of using them tethered (you'd have to check). If it wasn't for the star eating behaviour of Sony cameras then I'd say they were the ideal choice for the sheer range of mirrorless models available and the low prices you can pick them up for.

My Fuji can't do tethered shooting but it was so cheap it doesn't matter. If I want to hook a camera up to my computer then I'll get a dedicated astro camera and for me the usefulness of a DSLR or mirrorless camera is the fact that it's entirely self-contained and doesn't need me to lug a computer and battery pack out into the field, so tethered shooting kind of defeats the purpose of using it in the first place.

[Quetzalcoatl72]

27 minutes ago, Andrew_B said:

There are some fantastic mirrorless cameras and the small size, light weight, and short flange focal distance makes them a good fit for astro. Canon and Nikon didn't introduce their own mirrorless cameras until relatively recently so you'll pay more than a similar camera from Sony or Fuji (especially if you want a modded one)

I'm sure there's a technical term or (syndrome) for this behaviour but when I google a camera with 'astro' next to it and see amazing pictures like in this link below it just makes me want to buy that camera, no second thoughts

https://www.infraredcameraconversions.co.uk/home/4593495983

scroll down a bit and you'll see what I mean, i have that exact camera in my watch list on ebay. "If he can get that shot with that camera then so can i" I'm not even sure the star eating effected this image

[Andrew_B]

3 hours ago, Quetzalcoatl72 said:

I'm sure there's a technical term or (syndrome) for this behaviour but when I google a camera with 'astro' next to it and see amazing pictures like in this link below it just makes me want to buy that camera, no second thoughts

https://www.infraredcameraconversions.co.uk/home/4593495983

scroll down a bit and you'll see what I mean, i have that exact camera in my watch list on ebay. "If he can get that shot with that camera then so can i" I'm not even sure the star eating effected this image

That's an impressive picture, especially for such a short integration time and I think there's a lot to be said for seeing images you like and using that to guide your purchase. The only thing I wondered about was whether the lack of small stars in some of those images from the A7R were the result of how the images were processed, or whether it was the star eating behaviour of the in-camera noise reduction.

This is a shot I took with my X-A3 together with H-alpha and Oxygen-III filters and even with the disadvantages of an APS-C rather than full frame sensor, I think it did a decent job of picking up the deep red nebulosity in the Deneb and Sadr region and shows the effectiveness of a full spectrum mod.

Edit - forgot to add exposure details. 85mm lens at f2.0

H-alpha - 1h 19' 30" / Oxygen-III - 2h 0' 0"

 

Edited June 27, 2021 by Andrew_B

[Quetzalcoatl72]

4 hours ago, Andrew_B said:

That's an impressive picture, especially for such a short integration time and I think there's a lot to be said for seeing images you like and using that to guide your purchase. The only thing I wondered about was whether the lack of small stars in some of those images from the A7R were the result of how the images were processed, or whether it was the star eating behaviour of the in-camera noise reduction.

This is a shot I took with my X-A3 together with H-alpha and Oxygen-III filters and even with the disadvantages of an APS-C rather than full frame sensor, I think it did a decent job of picking up the deep red nebulosity in the Deneb and Sadr region and shows the effectiveness of a full spectrum mod.

Edit - forgot to add exposure details. 85mm lens at f2.0

H-alpha - 1h 19' 30" / Oxygen-III - 2h 0' 0"

 

I would have assumed this is an image from the hubble telescope, that's incredible. Thing is, I live at bortle 8 zone, where was this taken? also i think my optlong lp filter was designed for aps-c cameras

[Andrew_B]

22 hours ago, Quetzalcoatl72 said:

I would have assumed this is an image from the hubble telescope, that's incredible. Thing is, I live at bortle 8 zone, where was this taken? also i think my optlong lp filter was designed for aps-c cameras

Thanks, that's quite the accolade! It was taken in rural Wales at a dark sky site but it was on the morning of 30 May and while the session began with a fairly dark sky, the Moon rose half way through and there was twilight to contend with as well so conditions weren't quite as favourable as the location would suggest. Oxygen-III frames taken towards the end of the session as sunrise approached were pretty washed out but after stacking and cleaning up in Astro Pixel Processor the data wasn't bad. I ended up doing an SHO image, adding 1h 50' (73x90s subs) worth of S-II data shot in my garden in a Bottle 6 zone and again, towards the end of the session the subs were almost completely washed out by the approaching dawn. Despite that I still got a decent S-II integration in the end.

I took this shot last night from my garden as well so there was light pollution plus a near-full Moon and the challenge of short summer nights. It's a wider field shot of the same region of sky taken with a 50mm lens at f2.0 with the H-a filter. It would have benefitted from stopping the lens down to reduce the very obvious coma and it took quite a lot of work in APP using the light pollution reduction tool to take out the skyglow and vignetting that probably wouldn't have been anything like as bad shooting at a dark site, but it illustrates what can be done by a fairly inexperienced amateur in unfavourable conditions. I'd taken 116 subs but only used the first 100 for the image below due to increasing sky brightness towards the end of the session.

A cheap second-hand modded camera is capable of taking some very impressive images (much better than anything I've ever taken) and if I was going to spend money on something better, I think I'd be leaning towards a dedicated astro-camera with a mono sensor rather than upgrading to a higher spec DSLR or mirrorless camera body

To illustrate what the conditions were like, this is the 100th and final raw file from the subs used for the above image. The 16 subs after this were almost completely washed out by the brightness of the sky.

Edited June 28, 2021 by Andrew_B
Changed to better version of image