DSLR vs CCD comparison : Flame and Horsehead Nebula

[Catanonia]

A return to my old favorite pair of nebula in the winter sky.

The Flame and Horsehead nebula in Orion.

I imaged this last year with my modded 1000D and was very interested to see how the CCD QHY9 mono with 2 inch filters would perform and compare under very similar conditions.

Well the other night was perfect for the test and comparison.

So here is 3.5 hours on the area with the QHY9 and 2 inch filters via a Skywatcher ED120 FL900mm F7.5 with OAG -30degrees cooling on the CCD. Darks, Flats and Bias applied.

Guided with OAG with QHY5, PHD and EQ6 pro mount.

Processed with DSS, MaximDL 5 and CS5 64bit.

LRGB at 45:35:35:35 in 5 min subs with 60min of 10min subs of Ha added to give the structure.

It took ages to get the blending right, but I think I have achieved it.

Compare this to last year comparable exposure with a 1000D with Darks and Flats applied.

Hopefully it is an improvement, I think so.

[Black Knight]

Um, do I have to choose one? I can't! They're both great

[themos]

There's some tracking error on the DSLR shot so it's not quite like-for-like. You HAVE improved :-)

[Catanonia]

There's some tracking error on the DSLR shot so it's not quite like-for-like. You HAVE improved :-)

Indeed, obviously some improvements on my part, so not really a direct comparison, more of a self satisfication exercise

[themos]

entirely earned!

[peter shah]

there is a significant improvement in signal...much smoother in the outer regions of the flame and you have controlled Alnitak very well

[Starblazer]

Looking at both images, I'd say there's actually little in it other than better guiding and better processing, which is more to do with time served than a new cam.

If you actually redone the test with like for like exposures and such over the period of a few nites so conditions were relatively the same, then processed them as similar as possible.....that would be a better indicator.

Cracking Image though

[ollypenrice]

Tracking errors aside there is also a big internal reflection on the DSLR image and, as Peter says, the CCD has pulled out more faint stuff around the flame.

I'd be inclined to give the CCD image a dose of Ha to bring out the 'curtains.'

I do like the new image very much.

Olly

[Catanonia]

Olly the 1st image, the CCD has 60mins of Ha in it with 10 min subs

Come to think of it, not really a like for like comparison.

Might actually do one on a spare night.

Thanks for all the comments

[ollypenrice]

Right, I see. I reckon 60 mins will only scratch the Ha surface at f7.5 though. I am still going after 6 hours, though some of that in bright moonlight. Slow going, Ha.

Olly

[glennbech]

Even with the slight trackin errror from last year it is easy to see the enhanced contrast and enhanced detail. Just look at the area right above Altinak :-)

[Catanonia]

Yup can see the extra detail in the clouds and flame areas. Next up is Orion to see if I can improve on that.

[narrowbandpaul]

so you prefer CCD then Catanonia?

Its a different ball game dontcha think?

paul

[Catanonia]

so you prefer CCD then Catanonia?

Its a different ball game dontcha think?

paul

Totally different and more involved. Nice to be able to plug in a Ha filter as well to get structure.

[SlipperySquid]

Love both images mate, tracking error's aside, I think the dslr image show's a fine of example of what can be achieved without spending daft amounts of cash on a ccd! Well done

[Sparrow]

Overall I would say the CCD image has the edge, but actually, the DSLR image looks like it has caught more detail below the horsehead. If anything, I would say that it's your processing that has probably made the biggest difference. If tracking was spot on on the DSLR version, I suspect there would be nothing between them. Encouraging for me as a DSLR imager (albeit unmodded). Either way, two very nice images.