Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexN
Both cameras have their merits... The cooled DSLR's offer fantastic results and the ease of use that keeps most people imaging with a DSLR. As robin mentioned, the CCD's are 16bit.. thats just for starters... cooling in a CCD is far more serious than the cooling in the cooled DSLRs.. Couple that with the price factor... why buy a DSLR that has been heavily modified, and had its warranty voided so that its capable of reasonable quality astro images, when for a lower price you can buy a dedicated astro imaging camera that is designed and built with astro imaging in mind... It amazes me that Central DS sell cameras to be honest.. Especially due to the fact that now you can get an 8.3mp SBIG colour or monochrome ccd for about $400 USD less, the QHY8 is cheaper, the Orion Starshoot Pro is cheaper... You'd be flippin mad to pay 2K USD for a cooled DSLR in my opinion... The only reason you would ever consider it is if all your imaging (or most of your imaging) was done through Canon EF series lenses. Then you would simply for convenience... I have a EOS Lens adapter here to connect EF lenses to my SBIG... it takes more time to set it up, but again, 8.3mp mono ccd, much more sensitive, lighter, designed for the task and cooled much more efficiently with much less noise, at less cost..
Perhaps we are the ones missing the CCD v DSLR joke?
|
Must admit Alex, I'm slowly coming round to your way of thinking.
The 40D was originally purchased with an equal mix of terrestrial and astro work in mind. In reality, the DSLR has stayed fixed to the mount pretty much permanently! So this fact in conjunction with the market shift toward more affordable high quality CCDs becoming available presents an (almost predictable in astrophotography!) dilema.