|
I totally agree with the comments being made on this thread and have been following the thread closely.
One of the major issues facing a lot of us as well is portable vs permanent setup in my mind and if we live in a dark sky site.
For a portable set up where you have to drive several hours and set up and pack up for several hours at a time and be at the mercy of variable weather, nothing can beat the time vs returns vs cost of a DSLR. Sure, not as good as monochrome CCD, but you sure will get lots of images coming close (maybe) to the quality of a CCD.
If you have an observatory at a dark sky site, and even better, if you can operate this remotely, then monochrome CCD is the way to go - even if you live at a dark sky site and can set up quickly every night with a semi-permanent set up this works.
BUT, if you have to pack the car, drive to your dark sky site, set up and then polar align every time, you may only be able to get images of a handful of objects per year with a monochrome CCD.
I am still in awe at what my 9 y.o. Canon 400D can produce after 2 hours under a dark sky. I can shoot at least 2-3 objects per night and walk away with images whilst my monochrome friends are still "gathering data" with CCD cameras worth more than my entire set up.
BUT, if I had a permanent observatory set up at a dark sky site, sure, monochrome CCD is the way to go and mono DSLR is a great low cost evolution especially if it can be cooled.
Also, as has been said, the cost of CCD monochrome cameras can be astronomical - way too expensive and do not appear to have come down at the same rate as the cost of DSLR's.
Always an issues the old time vs cost vs return I guess.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Clear skies.
John K.
|