Do I step up from a DSLR ?

[ollypenrice]

I think a lot will depend on what you want to do with the final image. If you want to be able to print the image to say 16x12 or larger then I would stay with the dSLR, which is why I've stay with dSLR cameras. However if you want to be able to dig out the last bit of detail then a CCD is the way to go. The output from the more expensive, higher resolution CCDs would fine for web or magazine media but you would be limited on the maximum print size to around 10 x 8 using a good dpi of 300.

Sensitive issue. If you just count the numbers then you think the DSLR image has better 'resolution' but what has the image really resolved? It just spends a lot of pixels not resolving very much, if you are not careful! Last year one of the best imagers on this forum (and on any other forum) produced an image of the Cocoon which was utterly exquisite, the best I have ever seen anywhere. But it was on a small chip. Someone on the production side of a magazine looks at that and says, 'low resolution.' And chooses, to be brutally honest, a load of large-scale mush to take pride of place. Astro imaging is not like daylight photography. What you need to do when you look at a picture is not count the pixels but see what, in the rendition before you, you have never seen before. This is the test that singles out the CCD camera in many cases, but not, of course in all.

Olly

[Photosbykev]

I agree, if the detail is not there then it doesn't matter how big you can print it, but unless you are looking at a CCD for £1k plus then you would be lucky to get a postcard print out of some of them

[Starblazer]

Surely this is only a time thing though? If a DSLR can produce a larger image, could it not be that with more subs that the detail would surpass that of CCD's in the mid-lower price range making it less economic if your looking to produce printed images?

[ollypenrice]

Kev is right, decent sized chip CCDs are pretty expensive. Starblazer, no not really, I don't think. After all one can take more subs with a CCD too. DSLRs are limited by not being cooled and, for some reason, don't seem to get much star colour, though I don't know why. On some targets the best DSLR imagers come close to top quality CCD results but it is the exception. I'm certainly not saying they are not good though, but when push comes to shove... One key factor is that some targets depend on a strong Ha layer and there a mono CCD wins hands down.

Olly