Is CCD imaging obsolete?

[lukebl]

I’ve been out of DSO imaging for a couple of years, and have noticed that most folk nowadays seem to be imaging with OSC CMOS cameras. I assume that’s because CMOS sensors (even OSC ones) are now as good as the old mono CCDs.

Does this mean that mono CCD is now obsolete and that my current vintage mono cameras (Atik 383L+ and Atik428ex) should be consigned to a museum?

Edited April 20 by lukebl

[carastro]

I’m still using CCD.  I have more than one and they still work well for me so l see no reason to change.  
 

Carole

[david_taurus83]

Yes. The latest CMOS chips don't suffer amp glow anymore and their QE is typically higher and noise lower. They are also cheaper than CCD cameras. I swapped from an Atik 460 to an ASI 533MM and it is far easier to work with. Don't need such long exposures with it. That said, with any camera I have used, I still believe overall integration time needs to be over 5 or 6 hours for a somewhat decent image, regardless of whether it's CCD or CMOS. From a typical bortle 5/6 location anyway.

Edit: I should clarify, if you were looking to buy a camera now I believe CMOS would be the obvious choice. If you have a CCD and are happy with the longer exposures then there really isn't a need to change. They still produce great results with comparable integration times.

Edited April 20 by david_taurus83

[Stuart1971]

I don’t think it is yet obsolete, certainly not in some parts of the world, but here in the U.K. when you would need at least 5-10 min subs with CCD to match a 2-3 min sub in CMOS, I would say it is, or at least CMOS is far better and you can get much more data in a much smaller amount of imaging time.

I was a long time user and supporter of CCD and was stubborn and did not want to change, but in the end I did, and never looked back, one of the best decisions I ever made, albeit late to the CMOS game…

[saac]

I've only ever used CMOS, and OSC at that. I can't see with their market dominance now that I would purposely chose a CCD whenever I come to upgrade my main camera. 

Jim 

[Craney]

My three CCD's  work fine and keep me happy.   The problem is justification.

Can I justify the expense of a new colour and mono CMOS cameras when at the moment I'm averaging about 2 clear nights a month and  that old chestnut...the cost of living???

Will migrate eventually, probably when there is a new  'MOS on the block.

Edited April 20 by Craney

[ollypenrice]

All those great images made with CCD remain great images and many are still the best ever taken of certain objects. I'd say the cameras will only become obsolete when these images are obsolete and that won't be happening in the next ten minutes.

What I would now regard as obsolete is the advice to start with a DSLR because used CCD cameras are incredibly cheap on the used market.  I think they must be the best buy on the market, though some would-be vendors have yet to accept just how little they can expect to get for them.

I do think that OSC CMOS is much better than OSC CCD but I wouldn't consider mono obsolete. The dual and tri-band fiters, however, have had a great impact on OSC flexibility and the small CMOS pixels play really well with short focal lengths. Very long focal lengths haven't become obsolete but you can now do great galaxy images with FLs of under a metre.

Olly

[Bivanus]

A newbie take on this: what's killing me is not the camera but the methodology - all the Dark/Bias/Flats addition substraction wavelets and so on and so forth - so if you already have a receipe working for you with the CCD it makes sens to stick to it as long as it delivers the beautiful outcome. 

The one thing that other have already pointed out is time - CMOS get's those pesky photons in less time than CCD , and that means either shorter time to have a peak between the clouds or , in those rare moments of clear sky , more data and / or targets. 

 

[ollypenrice]

3 minutes ago, Bivanus said:

A newbie take on this: what's killing me is not the camera but the methodology - all the Dark/Bias/Flats addition substraction wavelets and so on and so forth - so if you already have a receipe working for you with the CCD it makes sens to stick to it as long as it delivers the beautiful outcome. 

The one thing that other have already pointed out is time - CMOS get's those pesky photons in less time than CCD , and that means either shorter time to have a peak between the clouds or , in those rare moments of clear sky , more data and / or targets. 

 

There's little difference in pre- and post-processing methods between CMOS and CCD.  I'd have thought that the only significant one involves calibration of flats. With CCD you could just use a master bias as a dark-for-flats whereas, with CMOS, you'll want a matched dark-for-flats.  CMOS can also be fussy over flat exposure duration so there may be a bit of experimenting.  As for post-processing, it's easier in general with CMOS because the data are cleaner. I find that my workflow is far more consistent with CMOS than it was with CCD, where there was more variation between one image's needs and the next.

Olly

[tomato]

My Moravian 8300 CCD doesn’t get any telescope time now, but seeing that it won’t even fetch a third of what I paid for it on the used Astro camera market, I’m keeping it as an imaging camera back up, in case I fry a CMOS camera (which I have done once already).

They are obviously still capable of capturing quality data, but for the reasons already outlined, it requires a bit more effort.

[carastro]

Absolutely, I was thinking of selling one of my 4 CCD cameras as I only need 3.  (dual rig) and (Samyang set up which I don' like taking apart). 

But when I saw what others were having to sell their CCD cameras for, I thought I'd rather keep it as a spare than sell for a pittance.  

So hopefully they will "see me out".  Am already running out of targets I can do from home.  

Edited April 20 by carastro

[lukebl]

So the general consensus seems to be that CMOS sensors are more sensitive than CCDs and involve less faffing about. And, at my age, I could certainly do with less faffing about. The faffing has been what’s put me off imaging recently.

So, I think it’s time to move on to CMOS! But which one? Hopefully I can get a couple of quid for my current CCD cameras.

[Earl]

If its what you have and works its valid.

[Ags]

I am waiting for my grandson to fly over with an 8300 mono, so looking forward to finding out for myself if CMOS is really better. In my case the comparison is between and uncooled OSC CMOS with amp glow and a cooled CCD with three times the surface area.  It will be strange to have a camera with a physical shutter!

[ollypenrice]

11 hours ago, Ags said:

I am waiting for my grandson to fly over with an 8300 mono, so looking forward to finding out for myself if CMOS is really better. In my case the comparison is between and uncooled OSC CMOS with amp glow and a cooled CCD with three times the surface area.  It will be strange to have a camera with a physical shutter!

The only time you'll notice the shutter is in taking flats: you need to make them long enough in exp. time to avoid 'shutter wipe.' From memory, 3 seconds is about right.

Olly

Edited April 21 by ollypenrice

[ollypenrice]

14 hours ago, lukebl said:

So the general consensus seems to be that CMOS sensors are more sensitive than CCDs and involve less faffing about. And, at my age, I could certainly do with less faffing about. The faffing has been what’s put me off imaging recently.

So, I think it’s time to move on to CMOS! But which one? Hopefully I can get a couple of quid for my current CCD cameras.

The 2600 chip is making everyone involved down here very happy! We have it in ZWO and Telescope Service variants.

Olly

[Stuart1971]

You won’t go far wrong with buying any of the available CMOS IMX571 based cameras, which is what the ASI2600 is along with the QHY268, which I have both mono and colour models.

It’s a perfect APS-C size sensor and a good pixel size, hight sensitivity and low noise, no amp glow, I think these cameras will be around for a very long time… if you want al, the same spec in a smaller sensor, depending on your set up, then the IMX533 seems to fit that bill, known as the 2600’s little brother and 1” square sensor, yes a square sensor so no need to worry about framing or rotating as much…