Camera recommendations for moving from 450D on SW Explorer 150P & EQ6

[Penguin]

My unmodified 450D has recently died (camera is fine but the USB socket seems dead as the laptop can't see it. checked with multiple laptops and cables so its the port on the camera that's at fault).

So I am looking for a new camera with a stingy budget of below £400. Fortunately, I'm quite happy with 2nd hand! I'm not sure if I should go for a dedicated Astro or another DSLR.

I have no filter wheels so would prefer one-shot colour. I tend to image deep-sky, though I'm not very good at it and don't really want to specialise, which probably makes decisions harder!

I have seen a used Altair 183c for £300 and a Canon 2000D also for £300.

What would you knowledgeable people recommend? Is there such a thing as a reasonable jack-of-all-trades device in that price range?

[Elp]

Although I've still got dslr, once I bought astro cam I didn't really go back to it. The noise levels are much finer even with uncooled and calibration is easier. The 183s are good, but the small pixels do take some saturation especially at longer focal lengths but I guess you could always bin, it's got the total image resolution to support such a process. The 585 or 533 are the newer good ones at a decent price and benefit from no amp glow, I've got a 485 which is similar spec to the 585 but does have amp glow which calibrates out, using it for DSO as an uncooled camera works well. If you can afford cooled it's the better option but don't discredit uncooled as they work very well, your milage will be the environment temperatures you use them in.

Edited May 17, 2023 by Elp

[Steve Ward]

Try WEX or MPB for a replacement DSLR if you go down that route ... 😉

https://www.wexphotovideo.com/used-dslrs/?p=categoryPath%3A"used>used-cameras>used-dslrs"&filter=brand_uFilter%3A"Canon"&sort=sellingPrice asc&rows=12&start=0

https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/category/used-cameras/dslr-cameras?filterQuery[modelBrand]=Canon&sort[productPrice]=ASC

[Penguin]

Thanks. I've skimmed a couple of review pages and I saw mention that the 183c is designed for refractors.

Quote

With a pixel size of 2.4um, and a sensor size of 16.5 x 12.61mm, this camera will perform best on F/7 refractors or faster.

 I have a Skywatcher Explorer 150P, which I believe is F5, so is the 183c suitable? 

[Elp]

You can always bin2 which effectively doubles the micron size of the pixel and halves the imaging resolution both horizontal and vertical as I touched upon above.

[Penguin]

Thanks guys, I've now had another look on AstroBuySell and I see three OSC CCD cameras in my price range:

• ZWO ASI 178MC
• Altair Hypercam 183C Pro
• ZWO ASI385MC

Which of these do you think would be a best match for my Skywatcher Explorer 150P? I'm most tempted by the Hypercam but to be honest I haven't even Googled the others!.

I'm most interested in deep-sky: clusters/nebulae/galaxies though I know that even those three have different characteristics an one camera will probably not be great at everything!

[Penguin]

I gather that the ASIair doesn't talk to Altair cameras, and as that's likely to be my next purchace, maybe I should be looking at the ZWO options.

[Elp]

You can only use the asiairs with zwo cameras and some Canon, Nikon and now Sony dslr/mirrorless.

[Budgie1]

What do you want it image with the new camera?

The ASI178MC & ASI385MC have very small sensors when compared to your Canon EOS 450D and attached to the Explorer 150P. This is fine if you only want to do planetary or Moon imaging, but makes it tricky for deep sky objects.

There's a Field of View (FOV) calculator as part of Astronomy Tools which will let you play around with different camera/scope combinations to give you an idea of what you'll see. Here's one of M31 with the three cameras you've listed above, plus your Canon. The Altair 183C wasn't in the list so I used the ZWO version with the same sensor.

[Penguin]

20 hours ago, Budgie1 said:

What do you want it image with the new camera?

The ASI178MC & ASI385MC have very small sensors when compared to your Canon EOS 450D and attached to the Explorer 150P. This is fine if you only want to do planetary or Moon imaging, but makes it tricky for deep sky objects.

There's a Field of View (FOV) calculator as part of Astronomy Tools which will let you play around with different camera/scope combinations to give you an idea of what you'll see. Here's one of M31 with the three cameras you've listed above, plus your Canon. The Altair 183C wasn't in the list so I used the ZWO version with the same sensor.

This is brilliant, thank you so much. I knew there were tools for this sort of thing but hadn't got to grips with them.

So I think something from ZWO with a similar FOV to my 450D is what I want. I have a couple of barlows for smaller targets (assuming they'll still get focus), and now . I'll keep looking on AstroBuySell etc.

[ollypenrice]

22 hours ago, Penguin said:

This is brilliant, thank you so much. I knew there were tools for this sort of thing but hadn't got to grips with them.

So I think something from ZWO with a similar FOV to my 450D is what I want. I have a couple of barlows for smaller targets (assuming they'll still get focus), and now . I'll keep looking on AstroBuySell etc.

There may be no point in going for barlows. When it comes to 'getting up close' to a target the significant number is 'arcseconds per pixel.'  This is, even for millionaires, limited by the seeing. Living in SW England you are very unlikely to beat about 1.5 arcsecs per pixel whatever setup you use. Exceptionally, you might but even a sensible optimist will go no better than 1.2 or so.  You can go below that, sure, and get a bigger image of your target but it will contain no more detail than a smaller image. You could get the same result by resampling your smaller image upwards.  The term 'empty resolution' defines larger images containing no new information.

Olly

[Penguin]

On 30/05/2023 at 19:31, ollypenrice said:

There may be no point in going for barlows. When it comes to 'getting up close' to a target the significant number is 'arcseconds per pixel.'  This is, even for millionaires, limited by the seeing. Living in SW England you are very unlikely to beat about 1.5 arcsecs per pixel whatever setup you use. Exceptionally, you might but even a sensible optimist will go no better than 1.2 or so.  You can go below that, sure, and get a bigger image of your target but it will contain no more detail than a smaller image. You could get the same result by resampling your smaller image upwards.  The term 'empty resolution' defines larger images containing no new information.

Olly

Yes, I take your point there. All I'm finding in my price range of up to £300 second-hand is planetary cameras, with a very small field of view. I'm not having much luck here! I may have to phone a retailer for suggestions, which I don't want to do since I'm after second hand.

[Budgie1]

1 hour ago, Penguin said:

Yes, I take your point there. All I'm finding in my price range of up to £300 second-hand is planetary cameras, with a very small field of view. I'm not having much luck here! I may have to phone a retailer for suggestions, which I don't want to do since I'm after second hand.

Probably you best bang for your buck in your current price range would be to go for an astro modified DSLR. You get a nice large sensor which is more sensitive to the Ha in nebula at a fraction of the cost.

I have a modified Canon EOS 1300D and these are two images I took with it:

[ollypenrice]

11 hours ago, Penguin said:

Yes, I take your point there. All I'm finding in my price range of up to £300 second-hand is planetary cameras, with a very small field of view. I'm not having much luck here! I may have to phone a retailer for suggestions, which I don't want to do since I'm after second hand.

CCD cameras have plunged in value on the second hand market and remain no less good than they were before the CMOS arrival.

Olly

[Penguin]

Now I've been offered a QHY163C for £300. I am very tempted by this, to my limited knowledge it seems like a bargain. Any thoughts?