CCD or DSLR?

[nightvision]

If this imaging bug really bites thought I should at least pick a camera path now.

DSLR or dedicated astro CCD?

Are there fundamental reasons for choosing one over the other? For example the Atik 314-L-plus costs more than a modified EOS550D. The Atik is cooled and has an impressive Sony CCD but far fewer pixels. Which is likely to be the most user friendly and produce good results?

Thanks, Tony.

[swag72]

Mmm, interesting question - Here is my personal experience.

I use the Canon system for photography and so have a couple of DSLR's for everyday use. Initially I started off using my normal DSLR's then decided that I wanted an modded DSLR as that would get better data. So bought a 1000D and had it modded and got a clip in filter for it. Looking at other peoples pictures (the fatal problem) I decided that I wanted to be able to get in much closer to DSO's. So, have decided that I really want an Atik 314L.

I think some of it is a personality thing, in that I always want bigger and better, I just can't help it! I really should have avoided the modded cam and gone straight for a CCD, I would have wasted less money! I just thought I had a little more self contol these days than I clearly have!!

Which would produce good results? They both will, there's some great DSLR pics around. Again I think it's a personal preference. Have you looked on the fov calculator so see the difference between what you could capture size wise with a CCD and a DSLR? That site made up my mind if I am honest - Clicky here

Regarding user friendly, I anticipate that the DSLR route for me will be more user friendly as I already use them. I think that a CCD - Atik 314L mono - for me will be quite a steep learning curve, especially with regards to getting the best out of the LRGB filters. Of course, there's a different processing path to learn as well with a mono and filters.

So, I wish I'd missed out the modded DSLR step and jumped in with a CCD, but that's just me.

[nightvision]

Hi Sara, some really interesting points and so relevant, I also think I am far more considered these days but I keep making impulse decisions/purchases!

I decided to slow down and do some planning; your response hit the mark.

The FOV simulator is impressive, more to think about. The difference between the images with the EOS1000D and Atik314L make sense based on sensor size. I will now go play with focal reducers on my F9 scope.

Thanks, Tony.

[Rossco72]

For dedicated astro you wont beat a CCD. The DSLR is colour for a start and therefore only one pixel in 4 is picking up blue and red with 2 picking up green. Most of the nebulas have high Ha output which is red so for a start your DSLR is only a quarter as sensative.

The CCD will be cooled and may even have set point cooling making marching darks and flats a breeze.

On the other hand, the DSLR is easier and probably cheaper as a starting point and can always be used on non-astro stuff.

[Psychobilly]

1000D with filter removed... great place to start... Then again I am biased

I had the cash for a mono cooled CCD a few weeks ago but decide to buy a few L series lenses instead...

Also "confirmed" the weekend that Canon L series lenses will come to focus on filter removed DSLR's due to the extra focus travel beyond infinity - which is nice

Billy...

[joselin]

Hi

I've started with a un-modded canon 450 partly because i wanted a good camera for everyday stuff and also if i found out astrophotography wasn’t for me then it wont be a total finical loss.

Hopefully once I’ve got the hang of want im doing i will then look to invest in a modded cam or CCD. (Though i think CCD will win out long term)

J

[ollypenrice]

I'm going to say CCD. I actually think they are easier rather than harder for astronopmy, otherwise I agree with Stuart.

With DSLRs you have to waste imaging time getting darks at the right temperature and this temperature changes during a run so you never really know where you are. With a setpoint CCD you make a library of darks and that's that.

When you get a clear moonlit night go and get an Ha layer to stand alone or contribute to a colour pic later.

You are using a CCD in the environment for which it was designed. Not so a DSLR.

I know the chip is small on the 314L but what a chip it is! You can take literally world class pictures with it. For my money a shorter FL on a small, high end CCD chip beats a longer FL on a larger, uncooled chip.

I'd love an APS sized chip, of course, but I could not reliquish my CCD advantages in order to get that.

Peter and I are both biased but in opposite directions, fortunately in a most amiable way!

Olly

[malc-c]

OK, I would like to throw something into the mix here as having wasted a opportunity at the weekend at SGL6 I too am looking at something a lot better than my Olympus dSLR. But I don't have deep pockets and even second hand Atik 314L mono cameras seem to be around the £700 - £900 mark, which is three to five times the price of used Canon 350D body. What would you guys suggest as being the cheapest entry astro CCD camera for dso's like M51, M42, M81, M31 etc

[swag72]

I can't help thinking that there is no cheap entry astro CCD's.

I guess to get cheaper you'd be looking at a OSC, as you don't then have to add on the price of filters and a filter wheel. You're still looking at some hefty ££'s. I kept looking at the QHY8 to start with and new it's just under £900, so second hand you should get a bit cheaper. I think I saw one go on here for £600 or so.

But ................ Having already tried the budget route - with a modded 1000D - I discover that it's not always best to get the cheapest you can afford and sometimes it's better to wait and get something that will last you longer - It's cheaper in the long run.

[shaunster]

You can get cheap CCD's like the atik 16ic, they are very good for learning the ccd route but the chips are very small

I took what I considered to be pretty good images with the 16ic before I moved onto the 314l+

DSLR is good, but performs much better under dark skies than polluted ones, whereas mono really shines under polluted skies with its ability for narrowband

[Whippy]

What would you guys suggest as being the cheapest entry astro CCD camera for dso's like M51, M42, M81, M31 etc

Having seen one in action at SGL6 at the weekend, the Atik Titan looks to be a cracking little camera for not a huge amount of cash. See this: http://stargazerslounge.com/imaging-deep-sky/137004-m51-sgl6.html . Also the Atik16hr, which is the 314L's predecessor can be found secondhand for about five to six hundred quid.

Tony..

[Trull]

Just to chuck in another thought, imaging on the tiny little chips which only support 800x600 (approx), you need to make sure everything else is absolutely bang on to get your image right. The slightest misalignment and you have to go again, and if you want to get colour, you have to have 4 times the time to get the subs in. Unless you go down the one shot colour route. Then, looking at the costs for a 10Mega pixel sensor, and you are looking at serious money. To go back to the original question, a DSLR will produce better results for a beginner, as its so much more forgiving. Worst case scenario you can stick it on a tripod and take wide view shots with the kit lens!

[Grandad]

I started with an Olympus dslr just last December and was quite impressed with my first efforts but soon realized that the way forward was to change to a mono ccd.

I have seen some excellent images taken with DSLR's but the real gems all come from ccds (imho).

That said cost is a big factor (and an understanding wife).

[malc-c]

Thanks everyone for the reply. I've had an offer from a fellow member in Stevenage to see how a 350d performs with my scope before I look at shelling out as much on a camera as I did on the scope !

[Whippy]

Just to chuck in another thought, imaging on the tiny little chips which only support 800x600 (approx), you need to make sure everything else is absolutely bang on to get your image right. The slightest misalignment and you have to go again, and if you want to get colour, you have to have 4 times the time to get the subs in. Unless you go down the one shot colour route. Then, looking at the costs for a 10Mega pixel sensor, and you are looking at serious money. To go back to the original question, a DSLR will produce better results for a beginner, as its so much more forgiving. Worst case scenario you can stick it on a tripod and take wide view shots with the kit lens!

Well, FOV is determined by focal length as well as chip size so unless the object you're imaging fills out the FOV then framing isn't a huge bugbear over several sessions, stacking software will deal with the rest.

It's been proved by several people that mono+RGB takes as much time as OSC, even quicker if you bin the colour.

Would a DSLR produce better results for a beginner? Probably if you're already used to a DSLR as a photographer but IMO, the learning curve is likely to be the same whatever camera you use if not. There's pros and cons to both.

Tony..