#1  
Old 12-08-2013, 02:42 AM
hotspur's Avatar
hotspur (Chris)
Registered User

hotspur is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: south east QLD,Australia
Posts: 2,868
Modded Canon DSLR's for astro use.

Looking to get some sort of permanent astro camera,that can stay attached to scope all the time,I have a permanent observatory,all set up.But have to use my current regular 50D if I want to do any photography.

So what is the cheapest way to have an astro camera?? I am thinking a modded DSLR,is there any of the less inexpensive Canons that are better??-I see 350D's 400D's,20,30,40D's modded and for sale at times-that's about my budget-cannot afford 5d options.

Also will all of the above be able to be operated by back yard EOS software?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-08-2013, 05:36 AM
skysurfer's Avatar
skysurfer
Dark sky rules !

skysurfer is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: 52N 6E (EU)
Posts: 1,152
Using a modded Canon SLR for non-astro photography results in pinkish hue of *all* pictures.

Unless you:

- use Custom WB and calibrate it to the existing light
- use a Baader or Astronomik clip-in filter which has the same function as the original filter which is replaced by a blank one during modding. For EF-S bodies only NOT using original Canon EF-S lenses (Canon EF lenses and all 3rd party lenses do fit).
- use WB shift and setting to +9 green/cyan.

I know this from theory, I have never used a modded camera.

But with proper exposure and post processing most red nebulas do show very well with an unmodded camera if you do not want to compromize regular photography and buy a dedicated Canon for AP.
Example : the attached photo of red nebulas in Cygnus is taken with an unmodded EOS 7.
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (deneb-stacked-enhanced.jpg)
211.3 KB82 views
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-08-2013, 05:36 AM
leon's Avatar
leon
Registered User

leon is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Warrnambool
Posts: 12,430
Hi Chris, I reckon The DSLR is the way to go, it was my choice for Imaging, however many others do it differently.

EOS software will work with all the cameras you mentioned.

Leon
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-08-2013, 06:06 AM
Merlin66's Avatar
Merlin66 (Ken)
Registered User

Merlin66 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Junortoun Vic
Posts: 8,904
The 350D isn't well supported by win7
I'd go for a 450 or even a 1000D.
I use both. The 1000D has been FULL full spectrum modded (both internal filters removed)
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-08-2013, 07:57 AM
rmuhlack's Avatar
rmuhlack (Richard)
Professional Nerd

rmuhlack is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Strathalbyn, SA
Posts: 916
I use both a 400D and a 1000D for my astro imaging, controlled with BYE. Both have been DIY modded - the 400D has a full spectrum mod (i use an astronomik L clip in filter for imaging) while the 1000D has an Astrodon Inside luminance filter. Of the two, I find the 1000D is definitely easier to use as a) it doesn't require a Shoestring DSUSB cable for bulb exposures, and b) it has Live View which I find very helpful. The 1000D is also Digic III which means that it can be controlled by Sequence Generator Pro as well.

So of these two I would probably suggest a 1000D. Depends a bit on your telescope though, as if you're using a short focal length, a newer EOS with smaller pixels might be a better option.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-08-2013, 12:09 PM
rcheshire's Avatar
rcheshire (Rowland)
Registered User

rcheshire is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Geelong
Posts: 2,617
The 1100D is a 14bit camera and is coming down in price. This is what JTW have to say about it.

Greysonline - 350 to self mod.
Quote:
We also chose the 1100D because of the pixel size, the main reason for a CMOS based camera's low QE is due to the industry's relentless pursuit of smaller pixels. Great for regular photography, but not for astrophotography. The 1100D has pixels of 5.2µm (surface area of 27µm²) , much bigger than the 600D or 650D (4.3µm, surface area of just 18.5µm²). The 1100D is more sensitive because of this. You may say that the max ISO is much higher on the 650/600D but this is just an off-chip amplification, ISO makes almost no difference to the sensitivity or signal to noise ratio. Taking an average European night with seeing of 1.5 arc seconds, and a fast widefield telescope (600mm) the camera is sampling almost 1:1, meaning the sensitivity is maximised and there is no data loss. If the seeing is worse or the telescope focal length is longer, you will be oversampling. The 1100D really is the best tool for the job
.
http://www.jtwastronomy.com/products/ultimate.php

You don't need a 5D mark anything. If the camera is going to spend all its time on the scope and autofocus is not an issue, the least expensive mod is to remove both filters and use an external or clip-in UV/IR filter. You could just remove the IR cut filter and reinstall the front UV/IR filter, but it is also an anti-aliasing filter and images will be less sharp.

Full mods are OK for reflective optics if not using filters. Anything with a lens requires a UV/IR filter.

Last edited by rcheshire; 12-08-2013 at 12:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-08-2013, 03:17 PM
LAW (Murphy)
Registered User

LAW is offline
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 204
Just keep in mind that the 450D was the first canon with Live View. And IMO the 1000D doesn't have any important advantages over the 450D that justify the price.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-08-2013, 03:24 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 17,877
Actually 40D was the first.

Greg.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-08-2013, 03:34 PM
Merlin66's Avatar
Merlin66 (Ken)
Registered User

Merlin66 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Junortoun Vic
Posts: 8,904
the 450D has 5.2micron pixels and is 14bit.....the 1000D is cheaper (!) and has 5.7micron pixels and is 12bit.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-08-2013, 11:07 PM
LAW (Murphy)
Registered User

LAW is offline
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregbradley View Post
Actually 40D was the first.

Greg.
Yes, sorry. I was thinking pricewise from the bottom up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merlin66 View Post
the 450D has 5.2micron pixels and is 14bit.....the 1000D is cheaper (!) and has 5.7micron pixels and is 12bit.
Wow, I have my wires crossed today, I was just talking with a mate about the 450D vs 1100D. Don't mind me
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 06:46 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement