Considering a dedicated AP Camera over DSLR

[Atmos (Colin)]

There are four narrow bands if you go with the 3nm versions. NII and Ha both fall into the 5nm Ha filter but a 3nm Ha separates the NII signal out.

[LostInSp_ce]

Haha Merlin, I think that I'm a long way away from doing any real science but thanks for the info. Now I just have to consider if I get it now or wait until after the winter.

[LostInSp_ce]

Originally Posted by Atmos

There are four narrow bands if you go with the 3nm versions. NII and Ha both fall into the 5nm Ha filter but a 3nm Ha separates the NII signal out.

Interesting, do you know if the Astrodon 1.25in or 36mm filters would be compatible with the ZWO EFWs and ASI1600MMC camera? I'm thinking about purchasing the Astrodon's LRGB set but I don't want to risk buying these expensive filters if there's going to be compatibility issues.

[uwahl (Ulrich)]

Modern cmos cameras such as Nikon, Canon etc are OK for astrophotography. Where dedicated CCD ccd cameras and filters excel is for scientific work such as photometry. If you want to get into this sort of work dedicated cameras are worth it. Agree with others that 8 position filter wheels are the way to go. I have a QSI camera with an 8 position wheel. With Ha, O, S and Luminescence filters and photometric filters, it leaves no room for the more traditional RGB. Would love a 12 position filter wheel !!!

[LostInSp_ce]

Well I'd like to do some narrowband imaging down the line. My main reason for considering a dedicated AP camera is that I jut feel like I have outgrown my DSLR. Perhaps modifying it could be an option, but then wouldn't it just be better to get a dedicated AP camera? I understand the extra work involved in capturing and processing individual wavelengths but I am in this for the long haul or at least until the CFO decommissions the funds.

[JA]

I suppose it's a question of; how close is close enough? How close to a dedicated camera does a DSLR have to be, in terms of image quality, to stick with the DSLR, rather than use the dedicated AP camera?

In using the DSLR there are many advantages: portability, use without computer if desired, use with computer if desired, built in monitor, ease of focus/live view 10x.., histogram, one shot colour simplicity, less time processing VS say R+G+B, large high resolution sensors, in camera storage/backup, flexibility, use of photographic lenses, typically lower cost even for same sensor, etc.

There is also loads of untapped potential in the equipment for anyone willing to modify their DSLRs to add cooling & temperature regulation to increase the signal to noise ratio and/or delete/replace the UV/IR filter for greater bandwidth. To me that's also part of the challenge of this endeavour.

Of course the downfall of the DSLR some will say is the Bayer filter array, but with Full frame and high resolution sensors the margin closes with often lower resolution FF sensors in dedicated AP cameras, although the AP cameras usually have an advantage with Quantum Efficiency and sometimes (not always) large well depths/Saturation and often 16bit vs 14 bit A/D conversion. Once pixel shift technologies in DSLRs / Cameras are perfected further we may see the full colour info at every pixel. We have that now, but movement between pixel shift is something of an issue and requires tripod only shots, for now. Of course if you want monochrome for narrowband, then a dedicated AP cam is really the only option, except for an overpriced Leica M.

Everything's a compromise, but I feel that location, seeing conditions, optimum equipment settings & techniques , optical quality & aperture will do far more to get you a better image than simply dedicated AP cam versus DSLR.

Food for thought - Should I put my flame suit on?

Best
JA

[LostInSp_ce]

Originally Posted by JA

Everything's a compromise, but I feel that location, seeing conditions, optimum equipment settings & techniques , optical quality & aperture will do far more to get you a better image than simply dedicated AP cam versus DSLR.

Thanks JA. I understand that these factors are far more important than the camera when it comes to producing good results and I have made some minor upgrades to my humble setup to help improve within these areas. I feel like I'm at the crossroads with the imaging technology. I see it a bit like going from a compact camera to DSLR. You can take amazing pictures using both but one does allow you more control over what you are doing. For some maybe the cost or extra work involved in switching to DSLR from a compact wasn't what they hoped it would be and as a result to them not worth it.

I'm sure that many in here have at some point in time been in this exact situation where I am now, thinking the same thing I am. I really appreciate all of the advice that has been given but another thing I would really like to know for those who did it. Did going from DSLR to a dedicated AP camera take your imaging to another level or was it just a different way to image?

I don't wan't this to turn into a flame thread either.

[raymo]

This question is a little difficult to answer. People with perseverance, great
talent, and dark skies, have produced superb images with DSLRs.[Try and find some of Sarah Wager's DSLR images of some years ago]. For the rest of us,
there should be a distinct step up in quality.[ I'm not saying that you are one of the rest of us, who knows, you may be the next imaging maestro.]
raymo

[LostInSp_ce]

Originally Posted by raymo

who knows, you may be the next imaging maestro.

This made me chuckle.

I'm no imaging maestro, very far from it but I do enjoy imaging and viewing. Thanks for the Sarah Wager reference I visited her site. Her work is amazing along with some great info on the progression of her setup over the years.