#1  
Old 05-11-2008, 02:43 PM
FOOTPRINT
Registered User

FOOTPRINT is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hervey Bay, Qld.
Posts: 339
DSLR Cameras for Astronomy-which is best

Hi All,
As new DSLR Cameras seem to come on the market at regular intervals, with more and more pixels, (but smaller) and I believe closer together, decreasing the sensitivity in direct proportion, making the old EOS300D Camera with the largest Pixels ( 6.3 Mp at 7.4 microns in size) better ,than say the EOS450D (the latest model) with twice as many pixels (12.2 Mp) but only 5.2 microns in size, any ideas out there ??.

Also seeing CCD image sensors (some Nikon Cameras) are better than CMOS sensors-(Canon Cameras) would not the Nikon D70 having a CCD array be better than the Canon DSLRs (pixel size being equal)`for Astronomy work, of course modification of the UV/IR filters would be required, wonder has anyone out there had experience with using both types of Camera.

regards.......Jim
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-11-2008, 08:24 PM
Ian Robinson
Registered User

Ian Robinson is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Gateshead
Posts: 2,205
Best camera depends on how much money you have.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-11-2008, 08:43 PM
Sharnbrook (Mike)
Registered User

Sharnbrook is offline
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Toowoomba
Posts: 359
If what Footprint has to say is correct, then a 300D at say $300, (second-hand) would be better than a 40D at some $1200. I have both a 300D and a 40D, but have not used the 40D very much for Astro work, but the weight of the 40D makes a considerable difference to the balance on my GEM mount. Something to bear in mind.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-11-2008, 08:54 PM
Bassnut's Avatar
Bassnut (Fred)
Narrowfield rules!

Bassnut is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 4,772
Well, re 300D vs a 40D?, no brainer, woefull USB1 on the 300D, really frustrating. Live focus on the 40D (and USB2) is a killer. Weight problem?, really?, dont think so, and $300 vs $1200?, well worth it IMO.

Having said that, the megapixel diff is mute for astro, if money is a prob, the 300D would do at a pinch.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-11-2008, 09:25 PM
Terry B's Avatar
Terry B
Country living & viewing

Terry B is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Armidale
Posts: 2,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassnut View Post
Well, re 300D vs a 40D?, no brainer, woefull USB1 on the 300D, really frustrating. Live focus on the 40D (and USB2) is a killer. Weight problem?, really?, dont think so, and $300 vs $1200?, well worth it IMO.

Having said that, the megapixel diff is mute for astro, if money is a prob, the 300D would do at a pinch.
The other important difference with the 40D is that it doesn't have any amp glow compared to the earlier cameras.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-11-2008, 09:36 PM
Bassnut's Avatar
Bassnut (Fred)
Narrowfield rules!

Bassnut is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 4,772
Terry, true, good (extra) bonus.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-11-2008, 09:46 PM
Terry B's Avatar
Terry B
Country living & viewing

Terry B is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Armidale
Posts: 2,766
Christian Buil has compared the 40D with to 50D at
http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/50d/test.htm
This gives some idea about the effect of the smaller pixels on overall performance.
Another review comparing canon to Nikon cameras is at
http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/nikon_test/test.htm
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-11-2008, 10:18 PM
Tandum's Avatar
Tandum (Robin)
Registered User

Tandum is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Carindale, Brisbane.
Posts: 4,117
Don't buy a DLSR, spend the extra and buy a cooled camera.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-11-2008, 06:26 AM
h0ughy's Avatar
h0ughy (David)
DOGHOUSE REBORN

h0ughy is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NEWCASTLE NSW Australia
Posts: 30,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tandum View Post
Don't buy a DLSR, spend the extra and buy a cooled camera.
or a cooled DSLR
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-11-2008, 06:07 PM
Shawn
Mostly Harmless

Shawn is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ravenshoe
Posts: 1,275
What wrong with the 1000D option, It has live view with a zoom doesnt it, ?
That would make focussing a breeze... I considered one myself ...
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-11-2008, 09:34 AM
RB's Avatar
RB (Andrew)
Moderator

RB is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 22,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by FOOTPRINT View Post
Hi All,
As new DSLR Cameras seem to come on the market at regular intervals, with more and more pixels, (but smaller) and I believe closer together, decreasing the sensitivity in direct proportion, making the old EOS300D Camera with the largest Pixels ( 6.3 Mp at 7.4 microns in size) better ,than say the EOS450D (the latest model) with twice as many pixels (12.2 Mp) but only 5.2 microns in size, any ideas out there ??.
The 300D in comparison to the latest models fairs up ok but as has been mentioned, amp glow is a real issue, being early generation technology.
The best performing Canon APS-C model for astro atm is the 40D which utilises a 14-bit processor.
IMO weight should not be an issue.
If the mount can't handle the slight increase in weight then it's already close to it's limit anyway.

Quote:
Also seeing CCD image sensors (some Nikon Cameras) are better than CMOS sensors-(Canon Cameras) would not the Nikon D70 having a CCD array be better than the Canon DSLRs (pixel size being equal)`for Astronomy work, of course modification of the UV/IR filters would be required, wonder has anyone out there had experience with using both types of Camera.

regards.......Jim
I have not been overly impressed with astro images from the Nikon D70 although I do suspect that the new Nikon D300 will perform well for astro.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-11-2008, 09:59 AM
allan gould's Avatar
allan gould
Registered User

allan gould is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 4,483
My avice is to purchase a modded 20D from Eric Styles. Low noise, clean mod, geat price and easy to use with good enough resolution. If something then comes along later it will hold its price better.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-11-2008, 10:22 AM
TrevorW
Registered User

TrevorW is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,995
Personally it depends what you intend to do with the camera and your budget. If purely for astrophotography then buy a dedicated cooled CCD camera such as a DS III or SBIG if you can afford it.

However if you want a camera you can use every day and for astrophotography definately go with a Canon (unmodified).
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 13-11-2008, 05:41 PM
FOOTPRINT
Registered User

FOOTPRINT is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hervey Bay, Qld.
Posts: 339
DSLR Cameras vs. cooled Cameras

Hi All,
Interesting to see all the comments on this subject, and I suppose all in all the EOS300D-modified, IS a cheap Astro Camera, and a very good one at that, with matched dark frame removal one can acheive very good results, if of course the Camera is used on a Scope which will give the right arc/sec. per pixel.

Someone mentioned that the best way to go is to get a cooled CCD Camera, such as the QHY-8 or ST-4000 Etc. Etc., I agree as CCD pixels are closer together (CMOS have wider spacing due to amplifiers Etc. sitting alongside them, the micro lens used now does help matters a bit, and auto dark frame (get rid of Amp. glow) helps also (later Canon Cameras), but with all this still not as good as a modern CCD chip, However to be able to use the nice cooled Camera for nice long exposures you need a dark sky, I think most of us live near or in a city where Sky Fog is a fact of life and long exposures are not on, if you get 5-10 Min. you are doing well, but with stacking great results can be had so all in all the CMOS chip Canons do have a place in Astrophotography, comments are most welcome on this subject, come-on, have a say.

regards.............Jim
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 14-11-2008, 08:29 AM
Tilt's Avatar
Tilt (Michael)
Registered User

Tilt is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canberra
Posts: 548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry B View Post
Christian Buil has compared the 40D with to 50D at
http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/50d/test.htm
This gives some idea about the effect of the smaller pixels on overall performance.
Oh dear, smaller, tightly crammed pixels = increased noise. I was reading the 20+ page review of the Canon 50D on http://www.dpreview.com and they also agree the noise levels are lower on the 40D.

Michael
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 10:20 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Astromechanics
Advertisement
Star Adventurer
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement
Lunatico Astronomical
Advertisement
EQ8-R
Advertisement
Celestron RASA
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement