Go Back   IceInSpace > Equipment > Astrophotography and Imaging Equipment and Discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #1  
Old 20-02-2009, 04:56 PM
troypiggo's Avatar
troypiggo (Troy)
Bust Duster

troypiggo is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 4,846
anyone use modded DSLR for normal photography also?

I have a Canon 30D. It's my baby and the only DSLR I have ever owned. Been reading about modding them, and I understand that you can get a filter that can still be used for normal photography. Consequence is that there's a slight red shift (correct term?) in the white balance? Curious how bad it is, if it affects image quality of normal photos, and how you handle white balance.

While I plan to do a lot of astrophotography whenever I can, I do much more "normal" photography like landscapes, macro, and travel type stuff.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 20-02-2009, 05:35 PM
peter_4059's Avatar
peter_4059 (Peter)
Big Scopes are Cool

peter_4059 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SE Tasmania
Posts: 4,532
Ahhh - the astrophotography bug has bitten....I think Eric (EzyStyles) is the man to ask.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 20-02-2009, 06:02 PM
troypiggo's Avatar
troypiggo (Troy)
Bust Duster

troypiggo is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 4,846
You know it...
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 20-02-2009, 07:30 PM
33South's Avatar
33South (Chris)
Registered User

33South is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Wentworth Falls NSW
Posts: 1,112
some info in this thread

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...ad.php?t=38480
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 20-02-2009, 08:11 PM
leon's Avatar
leon
Registered User

leon is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Warrnambool
Posts: 12,430
Troy once you have changed the filter in front of the sensor you will definitly get at very pinkish to red image.

However if you use the custom white balance of a shot of a white page in the normal, sunlite daytime, and tell your camera about it, you can take normal pics anytime.

Then to do astro pics again, just put the white balance back to auto, it is that easy.

Leon
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 21-02-2009, 01:06 AM
Octane's Avatar
Octane (Humayun)
IIS Member #671

Octane is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 11,159
Troy,

My modified 40D is my backup camera for weddings, etc. I've used it successfully now. I do all my white balance in post; I shoot a little something that I bought for white balance in the lighting of my subject (before or after the main shot) and then use that as my custom white balance in post.

Regards,
Humayun
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 21-02-2009, 01:26 AM
Harpspitfire
Registered User

Harpspitfire is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: pittsburgh pa
Posts: 268
i have a modded 10d, i dont use it for daytime but tested it with a CWB- you wouldnt think its any different from a normal camera- however close inspection with my non modded 350d shows the color hues slightly change- i doubt you would notice it unless you did a comparison like i did though
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 21-02-2009, 09:05 AM
troypiggo's Avatar
troypiggo (Troy)
Bust Duster

troypiggo is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 4,846
Thanks guys. I'll sleep on this some more.

Humayun - image quality no different? Just the WB affected?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 23-02-2009, 11:14 AM
troypiggo's Avatar
troypiggo (Troy)
Bust Duster

troypiggo is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 4,846
From this site http://ghonis2.ho8.com/rebelmod.html I noticed some before and after photos that are a little dis-heartening. The before shots look as you'd expect, obviously the after has a red shift, but the after with custom WB still doesn't look right. The sky is still blown out, the shadows don't look right, and the whole WB still is off to my eyes.

Does anyone have better examples? Not sure if this is typical results across the board or if the person who posted that didn't quite spend enough time with WB and maybe the sky had more clouds in the second and third shots making the sky lighter.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 25-02-2009, 08:07 AM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 17,877
Hi Troy,

I have used several modded DSLRs and use to mod Canon's myself like Ezy Styles does. It is a bit tricky but can be done with patience and care and being methodical.

Firstly you'll find the predominant brand are the Canon EOS models starting originally with the 10D and now up to the 5DH and the 50D. A popular one is the 350D and probably the absolute best is the 20Da which was a special model put out by Canon as one of the Canon execs was into astrophotography.

I could be wrong and others more up to date could correct me but judging from posted images I don't know that Canon DSLRs for astroimaging are that massively diffferent from the 350D. More subtle improvements and things like live preview which makes focusing a lot easier and a larger display screen.

From the 20D onwards noise levels have been consistently low. There were problems with some 20D and 30D cameras with banding noise. Especially the first run 30Ds which were defective. I believe that was corrected by Canon but if you come across a 30D make sure it is a later serial number and not from the initial batch.

More megapixels does not necessarily mean a better image so be careful of falling into that marketing trap. 6 or 8 megapixels are fine for that size of chip. If it were a cooled dedicated astro camera of that size chip it would be 6.3 megapixels and the images from that size can be astounding. Pixel size has to be matched to your optics and local seeing conditions to have meaning. If you have lousy seeing then smaller pixels aren't going to help you. Canon has been making the pixels smaller and smaller to cram more pixels in the same sized chip for a long while now and somehow manage the increased noise that smaller pixels generally cause. I imagine they must be near some limit there.

I also have a 40D and that seems to be better than the 20D for terrestial and I think also for astrowork but again how much better is better required for you?

I think the main progress from Canon has been the improved processor and live view and larger display screens. Things you can live without really if it comes down to it.

My 20D has the clear optical glass in front of the sensor. The advantage of this is flexibility. To take a normal terrestial photo I screw an Xnite CC1 (I think that is its name) filter in front. This has the same properties as the original Canon filter. It takes images just like normal. No need for white balance changes etc and the autofocus works as normal as the optical glass is the same thickness as the original Canon filter (it has to be the same thickness for the autofocus to work).

Now to use it for astro work you will need a Baader UV/IR filter screwed on in front of the camera or one of those Hutech filters that pop in the opening of the camera behind the lens.

I can also use the camera for terrestial infrared work which is why I wanted the clear glass.

I screw in front of the lens a Hoya R72 infrared filter and I can take infrared terrestial images.

I developed my own unique formula for infrared images that I am happy with. Not suited for all objects but the right object is intriguing.

Hutech have a range of modded DSLR products and Ezy Styles mods your camera. So plenty of choice.

You should be able to pick up a modded 350D quite cheaply as they are the most popular model as they were originally inexpensive and they are light and small.

As I say Canon DSLRs haven't progressed that massively since the 350D for astrowork and if you wanted to upgrade from a 350D you would be better off going with a dedicated astrocamera where there is more choice now than there was a few years ago in the more inexpensive end with QHY making some very nice "inexpensive" astro cameras.

I hope this helps as I have followed DSLR work for several years now as it was my entry point into astrophotography and DSLRs are a lot of fun and get great results and are relatively "easy" to use with less fuss and less cables/expensive complicated gear required.

Greg.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 25-02-2009, 08:49 AM
troypiggo's Avatar
troypiggo (Troy)
Bust Duster

troypiggo is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 4,846
Thanks for the detailed post, Greg. Totally understood all of it. I should point out that I have a 30D, not a 350D, but that doesn't really change much of what you're saying.

My current thoughts of modding my everyday DSLR are these...

If I get the clear glass:
- I'll need to always have a filter on for normal photography and for astro. I'll find that a pain. I do use CPL and ND filters a bit, but stacking them is undesirable and I figure the more glass between subject and sensor degrades image quality, even if only marginally.
- I'm not a fan of IR photographs of terrestrial subjects. Don't know why. I know I've seen some cool shots, very vivid skies/clouds and unusual looking trees/leaves. But it's just not my taste and can't see myself taking it up other than some test/novelty type shots.

If I get the Baader filter on the chip, for normal photography:
- I end up with reddish tones and will need to custom WB shots. This is not a huge problem and I do tweak WB for most shots anyway.
- Same amount of glass between subject and sensor as normal photography anyway, so I can't blame glass for sucky IQ.

Considering the above, I am thinking of waiting a little longer and getting a used 450D or something around there. By the time I get it they'll be reasonable price, they're light-weight and have the live-view. I'll get it modded with the Baader filter on the sensor, and that way I'll primarily use it for astro, but can use as backup if needed.

I do have a DSI II Pro now. I bought it for better/easier guiding capability with a view to future CCD imaging when I get more comfortable with things. I like the field of view of DSLR better than the CCD for now, and am thinking I'll always want a DSLR in the kit.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 25-02-2009, 10:13 AM
Octane's Avatar
Octane (Humayun)
IIS Member #671

Octane is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 11,159
Troy,

I find that my modified 40D still retains sharpness (refer to my wedding shot in the terrestrial imaging section). In fact, I had to dial down the sharpness as all the hairs on the brides face were being picked up. And, that was with a 200mm lens at f/2.8.

Every shot I take gets rectified with custom white balance, regardless of whether I'm using the 350D, modified 40D or the 5D Mark II. I'm getting pretty good at dialing in the appropriate white balance for shots taken with the 40D, but, as mentioned before, I'm using a specialised white balancing tool which takes the pain out of it all.

If you'd like me to perform some more definitive tests for you, just let me know what you'd like done and I'll see what I can do.

Regards,
Humayun
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 25-02-2009, 10:23 AM
troypiggo's Avatar
troypiggo (Troy)
Bust Duster

troypiggo is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 4,846
No, that's fine thanks Humayun. Think I've got a good understanding of what's involved now.
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 01:28 AM.

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