|
Signal to noise is paramount, and is the main reason DSLR's do not work well at all in light polluted environments. Cooled CCD's generally have higher QE, dynamic range and lower noise.
CCD's also work significantly better than DSLR's with narrow band (eg H-Alpha) filters as all of the pixels are used to capture signal.
If you ever want to do some real science with a camera, (eg photometry) you'd simply not be able to do so with a DSLR.
By the way, while taking an image of M20 a couple of nights back, using 10 minute subs, I checked the data for minor planets...and was delighted to find a mag 20 interloper....try that with a DSLR from the burbs !
Resolution is also higher with RGB filters and a mono CCD...infact if you were to use the same rationale as CMOS manufacturers an RGB image taken with a KAF11002 mono sensor would be around 33 megapixels...and a KAF16803 weighs in at 48 megapixels..but I digress.
IMHO CCD's are still the gold standard for deep sky imaging, but require quite a bit more work (darks, lights, flats for each filter etc.).
DSLR's are however excellent under dark skies with wide field/bright subjects....and are very handy when the sun comes up!
Last edited by Peter Ward; 16-07-2009 at 03:44 PM.
Reason: typo
|