who needs a CCD camera?

[raymo]

I am tired of experienced imagers pushing newbies into buying expensive
CCD cameras, and all the necessary accessories that go along with them;
telling them that DSLRs don't really cut the mustard, if you are serious, you'll get a CCD camera, a filter wheel, a set of LRGB filters, and lots of
software. Well, try telling that to the lady who took the stunning photo of the month in April's issue of Sky at Night magazine.
I don't have a CCD camera, and don't want one. I'm quite happy to do
my feeble best to take my DSLR to it's limits.[fat chance of that, although
I will be able to take it to my limits].
raymo

[Steffen]

Or, indeed, why be a trophy hunter (imager) when you can be a naturalist (observer)? If you ever feel the need to look at a CCD image of a celestial object you'll always find it at APOD, Hubblesite, IIS or hundreds of other sites out there.

So yes, "who needs?" is a slippery slope :)

Cheers
Steffen.

[Shiraz]

I think that advice in favour of CCDs is generally given in good faith. Mono CCDs definitely make the best possible use of precious imaging time - they do not necessarily produce better images, but they are more efficient due to the unavoidably low quantum efficiency of DSLRs.

Against that is the extra complexity of CCD imaging and a newbie will definitely find that daunting.

DSLRs have obvious benefits and can produce stunning results in the right hands, but I think that the best introductory camera is a cooled OSC, which allows the user to start out with a relatively simple approach (eg no flats or darks) and develop increasingly sophisticated processing methods as experience grows. A good OSC will still be less sensitive than a mono camera, but the user will be able to produce good quality images and will be developing skills that can be applied to a mono CCD if the bug bites deeply in future.

[raymo]

Thanks for the responses; I am looking at this from an oldie's
perspective, it's much more difficult for me to climb the learning
curve than it would be for a young tech savvy person. Having said
that, I still think that many newbies come to this forum for help at
an introductory level, and get urged to buy all sorts of expensive
gear,[ astro imaging is a hole in the sky that you pour money into,
much like yachting is a hole in the ocean that you do the same with],
instead of being encouraged to start simple, and raise the level of their
equipment in step with their improving skills. It is easy to get sucked
into this trap in the first flush of enthusiasm. I used to teach an
introductory Astronomy course for adults, and during the first lecture
I used to warn students not to go out and buy large expensive scopes,
sometimes to no avail. One man bought a Meade DS 16, and another
bought a Coulter 17.5" Dob; you can imagine how much use those
two scopes got, a grand total of 5 observing sessions between the
two of them. Both were quickly sold at a considerable financial
loss.
raymo

[orion69]

The problem is that people often do not know what they really want and that is normal when starting a new hobby.
Nobody can help with that, only person who is asking for advice.

So advice quality (when you suggest someone to buy CCD camera) depends of that fact.

If someone continues with this hobby and wants to improve, suggesting DSLR would be mistake because he/she will most likely eventually sold DSLR and buy CCD and lose money in the process.

CCD camera is the right tool for AP these days, that does not mean that you can't make beautiful pictures with DSLR, of course you can. But with adequate CCD camera it will be easier and results will be better.

[Poita]

I actually found imaging with a cooled colour CCD camera easier than with a DSLR.
If you are already tracking etc. using a computer, a CCD isn't much extra work. So for me personally, the advice to go CCD was welcome.

However I agree that pushing people towards a mono camera early adds a lot to the complexity, and probably isn't a good first step for a noobie.

My advice these days to people is not to dive into imaging with a scope, but to get a Polarie or similar, and a f1.4 lens on their DSLR. It is a cheap setup, fast to setup and pack down, portable, lots of fun, gets fast and beautiful results whislt you learn all about alignment, processing images, exposure times, flats, bias etc. etc.
It is a low cost, low risk (i.e. easy to re-sell if you don't like it) way of getting into imaging and getting great photos.

Once you get that stuff sorted, moving onto imaging through a scope and with a CCD is a lot easier.

[Poita]

In that case, why observe through the scope at all when you can go look at the images on APOD etc. and get a much clearer view of them?

I think the argument is the same whether you are a visual person, an imager or both. It is the thrill of mastering the gear and getting to see things for yourself. That is the same whether you are taking images or looking through the eyepiece.

[glend]

Raymo I feel your pain. I am going through trying to develop some imaging expertise and at 65 it is a steep learning curve and damn expensive. What the heck is an OSC anyway? The jargon curve is steeper than the tech curve.

I am using my son's Canon 450d DSLR, and struggling to get decent exposures from even my AR102 f6 widefield scope on an NEQ6. Frankly, by comparison, my 16" Pushto Dob is just so easy to use for visual observation, that astrophotography seems to be completely different world where much time gets wasted with setup, power systems, software, etc.

Last week at the Bretti dark site, I was messing around for hours with polar alignment, tuning error out of the mount, getting the camera in focus, setting up the intervalometer, etc while the visual guys were touring the wonderful objects on offer and I had to listen to the Oh wows! coming across the field. Where is the joy? Poor Jakob (much more experienced in imaging) had his ED80/HEQ5/PHD/Nikon DSLR system setup and running exposures on the Leo Triplet and then he realised that he had his camera set on auto, and not bulb, so all his time had been wasted up to that point. Jakob was running the Orion Guidescope and Starshoot guide camera and was achieving amazing precision in tracking but nothing to show for it. Now as a result of his tutorial on PHD and guiding I am diving into that as well = argh.

What I would like to see is an "Easy Guide to Imaging" but I expect it doesn't exist. There are as many opinions as people attempting it.

There have been some helpful people on ISS that have responded to my uninformed questions re DSLR use and I thank them for that but it very hard to start from a zero base if you have been a visual astronomer for many years, and I suspect it is dulling my astronomy experience - to what gain?

And I haven't even stepped into the complex world of image processing yet.

[Larryp]

Glen, there is a book written by Michael Covington called "Digital SLR Astrophotography", and it is a well-written, easy to follow guide. I think this book is as close to an easy guide for imaging as is possible.
I used to image back in the old days of film, and had it pretty well mastered, but digital imaging is a whole new ball game.
Covington's book has helped me a lot.

[lacad01]

Just to add my 2 cents for what it's worth.
I think you have to stop and ask what it is that you actually want to acheive from this "hobby". There are valid points with respect to just looking at APOD, this site Image section, Hubble, etc however there's something in the human makeup which likes to explore, which likes to do stuff for ourselves. You can apply this argument for a number of things: why spend $$$ travelling to different countries when I can just as well pick up a travel book or even a DVD and see it from the comfort of my lounge room withouth having to worry about various threats, the language barriers, beurocracy, etc, etc - because I want to experience it for myself, I want to taste, smell, touch, etc :)
So with astrophotography - sure there's lots of frustrations but it's a learning curve; I'm getting to tweak with the equipment, muck around with the processing and what a great sense of satisfaction when those pixels start to materialize into something recognizable :)
I'd be surprized if anyone here would actually push or strongly recomend someone into buying this that and the other when starting out on this journey, especially if it means forking out thousands of $$$ and involves a huge amount of technical nouse. From what I've read in various threads, the usual mantra is:
- start small, attend or join an astro club, get to a star party, ask lots of questions, etc
I know myself it can very tempting to go out and get all the you-beaut equipment involved in getting APOD style photos but the fact of the matter is I'd be faced with a divorce or worse :lol:

[raymo]

I'm so pleased with all the responses; this thread has
produced some interesting reading. Incidentally, nobody so far has
referred to the photo that I mentioned[ Sky at Night April].
Admittedly the lady that took it is an expert, but if you could get results
like that with a DSLR, why would you even want a CCD camera.
The well known imager Stefan Seip says in his digital imaging book words to the effect that DSLRS are closing the gap, and can now, in the right hands, produce results that are almost indistinguishable from CCD images, [howls of derision].After looking at that photo I can believe it.
I've, probably stirred up a hornet's nest, but at least I can look forward
to some animated discussion, [I hope ].
happy snapping
raymo

[cometcatcher]

Is the photo available online or is it print only? I don't sub to that magazine. In any case I have seen some mighty work from DSLR's. However...

Ray, there are circumstances where DSLR's work well, but there are circumstances where DSLR's totally die at the job. Case in point - me, or anyone that lives north of the tropic of Capricorn. Night time temps soar into the 30's for 9+ months of the year. DSLR's don't like the heat and don't work well in it. An image taken at high temps will never be deep, it's limited by noise.

Most DSLR's are handicapped in Ha response. They can be modified at a risk, but stock standard (except for the 20Da and 60Da) are Ha poor.

Light pollution. LP filters can help a DSLR, a bit, but nothing cuts through LP like narrow band. A modified DSLR can do it, but nowhere near as well as a mono CCD.

For the person that has everything against them, LP, heat, Ha poor, I would have no hesitation recommending a good cooled CCD camera.

I have a good friend that started on an Sbig ST11000, or something like that. It only cost him $11,000 for the camera. :help: Within weeks he was taking better deep sky than I ever could with a DSLR. So far he has never used a DSLR ever for astrophotography. He wouldn't know what to do with one. Okay if one has the $ I suppose.

Plus for DSLR. 1: cost, 2: Convenient. Another possible plus is that they can be modified down the track (at risk) removing or replacing the filter and Orion make a cooler box for Canon's (though bulky and potentially awkward to use).
Minus for DSLR. Everything else. :P

[Amaranthus]

Because it is a lot easier to get the same quality image on a CCD, there is potential for even better images, and there are a host of other options that a mono CCD with various filters opens up.

I see a role for both DSLRs and CCDs, and the ultimate choice for how technical you want to get is up to the user. But I agree that there is little difference in complexity between a OSC colour CCD and a DSLR, unless you use the DSLR without computer control (but then, polar alignment, focusing etc. is tougher without computer support). There is no free lunch.

[Renato1]

I'll just add my take as to why I'm not that enthused with lots of imaging - I like the detail, but I don't like the colours!

The fact is that if you had a magical space ship that flew you up to any nebula or galaxy or any other DSO so that you could have a good close look at it, all those amazing colours that you see in images and in movies and in documentaries, just aren't there. They would instead look the same as they do on earth when viewed through a telescope.

It's as if I went on vacation to the Great Barrier Reef or central Australia and greatly over exposed all the photos to get more colour out of them.

Certainly a DSLR with its in-built filters doesn't pick up all the colours of a well done job with CCD cameras. But it doesn't matter, as it's still picking up more colours than the eye would naturally see in the first place.
Regards,
Renato

[Shiraz]

actually the colours are there Renato. Its just that our eyes are not sensitive enough to see them and even what you see in the scope is a very poor subset of the real colours (whatever that means). DSLRs, CCDs etc just give us extended senses and allow us to see more of what is there - they don't make stuff up. For example, nebulae have predominantly pure saturated red emission from Hydrogen and/or pure saturated blue/green from Oxygen. Galaxies may have brown dust, areas of old stars that are yellow/orange, pockets of new hot stars that are bright blue and a smattering of saturated red hydrogen and teal oxygen nebulae - and maybe some sky blue reflection nebulae. Our eyes see most of this as shades of grey, but that definitely does not reflect what is there - you need a camera to see that. Even just pointing a DSLR at the milky way for a modest exposure should convince you that that there is a lot more colour out there than we can see.

In any event, digital imaging in colour can produce some startling images that we can relate to and enjoy - that has to be good.

[madwayne]

A very interesting thread this one and some awesome responses, my two bobs worth.

I recently went on a 9 night star party at the Mudgee Observatory arranged through our society. On night 1 I fried my laptop. On morning 2 I packed all my photography gear up and drove back home, 4.5 hour drive each way. I then returned on morning 3 with my 12" dob. I have never had such a good time as viewing through my dob and getting to bed around midnight, no all nighters like I would have if I had been imaging. Viewing 40 or 50 DSOs each night as opposed to imaging say 3 if you are doing it properly.

The moral of the story is I actually had a holiday that I wouldn't have had if I was taking photos. I came home rested and relaxed not thinking where am I now going to find the hours to put in to processing everything.

At the end of the day, each to his/her own as long as we are all looking up. Enjoy what we see or capture.

Clear skies!

Wayne

[raymo]

Hi Kevin, the photo is viewable at skyatnightmagazine.com. Open astrophotography tab, hotshots gallery, page 22 centre pic in bottom
row, click on greyed out image first, click on image when it appears, to get a high res version. I clicked on the high res pic and clicked on the magnifier icon at bottom right, and then adjusted my screen mag up and down. Wonderful pic. It stands high mags superbly. I'll be interested to
see if you are as impressed as I am. Of course, my eyes are getting on a bit. I suggest that other DSLR users take a look, and see what they too can produce if they try hard enough, and long enough, and of course,
have some talent.
raymo

[OzStarGazer]

More photos by the lady:
http://www.eprisephoto.com/astrophotography
:thumbsup:

[pluto]

The Orion Nebula? This one: http://www.eprisephoto.com/nebula/h42f1922#h42f1922

Looks great, very nice image :D

Interesting that an answer to the question posed in the subject of this thread would be that the person who took that image also needs a CCD as all of her other nebula images are taken with an Atik 314L+ mono.

Anyway each to their own, I see the hobby about acheiving the best you can, and always striving to do better, with what you've got whether that's a webcam, DSLR, or CCD.

I always relate astrophotography to fishing. I get great enjoyment and satisfaction from catching a fish even if it's not as nice as one I could buy from the fish markets ;)

[cometcatcher]

Okay found it and the image acquisition details. 8.1 hours with a Nikon D7000 at a cool, elevated, dark sky site. Yes it is very impressive.

Now let's level the playing field. Let's take her to the hot tropics, put her at sea level in the midst of light pollution and monsoon weather. The picture isn't possible anymore with a DSLR.

[astro744]

See also Review of D7000 pdf at http://www.eprisephoto.com/other (below picture of power box).

See also step by step processing guide for M42 image at http://www.eprisephoto.com/nebula/h42f1922#h42f1922 (below details of image).

[raymo]

Whilst I realise that DSLRs have limitations, [as outlined by Kevin],
Stefan Seip in his book Digital Astrophotography used words to the effect that DSLRs are closing the gap, and are now often producing results that
rival those of CCDs. My 1100D is worlds apart from my 350D, as far as noise goes. Incidentally, I would have thought that most people who
are prepared to spend often very large sums of money on equipment,
would happily spend a little more to go to a more astro friendly site when
acquiring these exquisite very deep images. As has been said though, in the end, it's horses for courses. I've enjoyed this thread though.
raymo

[Bassnut]

Your approach is a bit scatter brain Raymo. "I'm quite happy to do
my feeble best to take my DSLR to it's limits". And yet "it's much more difficult for me to climb the learning curve".

From hard experience, for a given result, DSLR "to the limits" imaging requires a FAR steeper learning curve and expertise than a OSC or mono astro cam.

Even with a mono astro cam with filters, the difference in basic processing before PS between OSC, DSLR and mono astro cam is trivial. Even free software automates these steps with little difference in learning curve.

To my mind how much you spend on astrophogtograhpy gets down to two factors:

1/ Expectations
2/ How much you value your time in producing a given result.

If you have no money, low expectations, or take pride in getting the max out of the min with infinite effort, expertise and available time then anything goes. That all takes a rare mind set most dont possess. Advice to beginners to incrementally upgrade with skill is a very, very expensive con.

Assuming they will actually persevere with Astrophotograhpy that is, granted.

For the rest of us, its a balance. Its a direct inverse correlation, less money, means vastly more time and learning curve for a given result, fine if you are retired and willing to learn, potentially fatal if not, nothing worse than crap output to destroy incentive.

So, excellent DSLR imaging requires serious imaging time, learning curves (eg processing) and skill, far more than with astrocams for an equivalent result.

[raymo]

Hi Fred, I'm approaching 80, and finding the learning curve difficult;
hence I described my best as feeble. In my statement about trying to
take my DSLR to it's limit I said that there was a fat chance of that happening, but that I would certainly take the camera to my limit. In other words I'll do my best with what I've got.
In my case it's all academic anyway, because even if I wanted an OSC or CCD camera, I couldn't afford one, but I've thoroughly enjoyed this thread.
raymo

[alistairsam]

Hi Ray,

Interesting thread but there needs to be context with who needs a dslr.

As many have pointed, there are limitations with a dslr but with the right knowledge in post processing, you can get good results like the Orion you've pointed out.

The camera itself is only 50%of the equation. Remaining is post processing.
If you look at the sub lengths she used, considerable skill is required to blend them.

Same with a ccd. A colour ccd is extremely easy to use and if you can understand processing to a reasonable degree, you can tease the most out of it without significant struggle.

Astro photography can be as simple or complex as you want it.
I haven't come across anyone pushing one to get a mono ccd, it all depends on ones budget and what they want out of it.

ccd or dslr, each has its limits and intricacies.
The dynamic range with ccd's is hard to achieve with dslr's, the sensitivity to faint targets with a dslr is also limited with the qe being half of a ccd.

I started with a dslr, moved to a one shot colour ccd, and now a mono ccd and would never go back. There are scores of images taken with ccd's that would be extremely hard with a dslr, but again there are some good results.
People Just need to go with what they are comfortable with.
Just my 2c.

Cheers
Alistair

[tilbrook@rbe.ne]

Geez fella's!!:rolleyes:

Just have fun with what ever you choose or what's the point!

I know I do. :)

Cheers,

A happy little DSLR imager.

[doppler]

At least the dslr is multifunctional, you can take pics of anything and everything and you don't have to plug it into a laptop to use it. I love my canon 1100d, I can now get astro images in a 60 second exposure that would have taken a 60 minute exposure with a film camera like when I started out. I have an old cave 8"f6 eq newt. scope with a declination drive only. Beginers (amateurs) start out with the basics and now it is cheap and easy for us, I'll leave the hubble type shots to the keen and dedicated pro astrophotographers.

[LightningNZ]

To me it comes down to three things:
1) Money
2) Money
3) Money

Okay, I'm being facetious, BUT... I can afford a DSLR and I can get results from it that I'm proud of (certainly will be once I'm computer controlled and auto-guiding).

You get a very large field from a DSLR and I find this pleasing but it also makes it dead easy to use - I don't have to spend ages lining up my field "just so". I can crop later. Field drifted a bit? No problem, crop it away.

For me, the marginal gain in going mono CCD probably isn't worth the cost. I'd sooner just get another scope and a mono'd DSLR.

The downside - long exposures in hot weather suck with a DSLR. Ce la vie, I should move back to NZ. ;)

[raymo]

I'm enjoying this thread more and more.
raymo

[tones-]

this almost looks like a thread seeking re-assurance that a dslr is just as capable and much easier to use than a ccd

the truth is that to get a high quality image out of a dslr is going to take a lot more effort than with a ccd

any aspiring imager that is serious about the hobby will pretty soon out grow a dslr and want more, its that drive to get better quality images that leads down the slippery slope to mono ccd's and expensive astrographs

the only 'need' when it comes to imaging is to get to a point where you are happy with the images you are producing, for some thats a dslr and ed80.
for me its a tak fs-102 and qhy8 (one shot colour ccd)
and for others its $20,000+

im not going to poo-poo people that spend huge amounts of time/effort and money on their imaging setups because i can understand the drive for the highest quality but obviously its not for everyone.

[doppler]

I like to piggyback my dslr on my scope to get nice widefield pics, can you get adaptors to put a lens on a ccd astro camera for wide field? I think this thread is about the fact that a dslr is a beginers astro photo tool, an allrounder wheareas the astro ccd camera is dedicated to a single purpose and a bit more expensive even at entry level.

[pluto]

I'm not sure about other manufacturers but SBIG do an EOS or Nikon adapter for some of their cameras, I would love to get one :D

[cometcatcher]

Apart from the cost, astro CCD's need a computer for image acquisition and really need an observatory to be fully utilised. My main interest in astronomy is imaging comets where I may need to take the scope where I would not want to take a CCD. Bog standard DSLR's are somewhat comet friendly also. If exposures are kept short and fast optical systems used, the noise can be somewhat avoided. For that reason I will be staying with using DSLR's, though I will pine for a CCD for other deep sky lol.

[ThunderStorm]

I am very sorry what is APOD?

[pluto]

Astronomy Picture Of the Day
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

[Poita]

One thing nearly always forgotten in these discussions is video astronomy.

To me it gives the joy and immediacy of visual astronomy, with the vibrant colour and detail of CCD astrophotography.

You get an astro-video camera, and a small viewing screen, you put the camera where the eyepiece would normally go, slew to the object of choice, and seconds later see the object in great detail and often full colour.

It is also great because more than one person can enjoy it at once, and glasses and exit pupil size and eye-relief etc. become non-issues.

It is wonderful to point towards orion and see the purpley goodness rather than a hazy grey through the eyepiece.

It has little of the time consuming, delayed gratification of imaging, and most of the immediate, shared response of visual, without the letdown of hazy, faint images (except for you 24" owners) and you can do it all with an ED80, a video camera and a cheap screen.
It is loads of fun.

[Poita]

Absolutely, usually just a standard adapter will work just fine. I have used my Nikon lenses on everything from a QHY8L, to a Grasshopper Express.

[Poita]

Why not ask the lady herself :)
She uses both DSLR and dedicated CCDs.

Some targets are not really achievable with a standard colour DSLR as most of the image is in a wavelength that will not be picked up by the camera.

So it is (as always) horses for courses. Some targets will look nearly as good through a DSLR as with a dedicated CCD, some will look quite poor.

Both require good tracking, and a lot of work to get great results.

[alistairsam]

Hi Ray,

Not sure what the real objective of this thread is.
Are you saying CCD's are not really required because dslr's can achieve results like the one published, therefore stop recommending CCD's to newbies?

One shot colour CCD's (OSC) is what newbies who have the inclination to experiment and push their processing skills would look at, those that have the funds and patience to do mono will seriously consider a mono CCD, mainly for narrowband and the added details of the L channel.

so a general statement that who needs CCD's is unfounded and inaccurate.

no real need to compare CCD's and dslr's, each have their merits and it all depends on one's inclination apart from several other factors as others have pointed out.

A one shot colour CCD like the QHY8 or QHY8L is extremely easy to use, has excellent cooling and produces amazing results. there is hardly a learning curve, and they don't cost the world, relatively speaking.
A second hand qhy8 sells for $800 or so which could be a lot for some or affordable for some.
yep they are more expensive than dslr's, but so are so many things.

Not sure why this has gone on for so long.

If you are able to point out a thread recommending mono to a newbie and is totally unfounded, this would have context.
Most here give advise in earnest, all depends on ones circumstances and what they can and can't get.
Which is why they generally state that their budget is X, can you please recommend Y as I want to image Z.

Sorry, just being honest.

Cheers
Alistair

[raymo]

Hi Alistair, don't be sorry, your comments are most welcome. My point
is that some newbies in the first flush of enthusiasm buy NEQ6s or similar, with 8" or 10" scopes mounted on them; some of them know
nothing much about the sky, let alone anything about the things that are in it. They then proceed to ask on IIS what they need to start taking
pictures, and often get pointed toward expensive CCD cameras, which
means they then also have to have a laptop handy, and either an OAG
or a guidescope, plus an autoguider.[I don't think many newbies today
would want to guide manually.] DSLRs seem to often get rated as the poor man's way of imaging.
These newbies have often bought a mount they have no idea how to
set up, align, or use, so the learning curve is immediately massively
steepened by having to learn how to set up and use an autoguider, and
take darks, flats, etc: and then learn image processing.
What is wrong with learning to walk before learning to run?
My point in a nutshell, is that there is a whole world of simpler
imaging out there to be enjoyed, whilst learning to use one's
equipment competently, before moving on to more complex imaging.
raymo

[alistairsam]

hi Ray,

yep, nothing wrong with learning to walk before running, learning one's equipment before going mono imaging and so on, but have you come across instances here were someone was advised to go mono or use expensive cameras?

I completely agree that dslr's are very capable cameras, you can take very good images and if someone starting already has a dslr, it makes the journey a lot easier before going CCD and most progress this way, myself included.

I'm just a bit surprised that as you mention, experienced imagers would offer advise to beginners to start with complex gear. I haven't come across such threads, did you mean in this forum or generally in all forums?

My point is that majority of the advice given by imagers for beginners is more than reasonable and practical.
Dslr's have their limits and maybe that's what gives the impression that its a poor man's camera, but we all know it isn't.
In the end, its worth knowing the pro's and con's of all options out there before investing.
Many encourage beginners to visit astro clubs to get a hand with mounts and alignment and so on.

Cheers
Alistair

[cometcatcher]

I can see where you're coming from where newbie has a couple of grand to spend and wants the biggest bang for their buck, so they get recommended an EQ6 or HEQ5 and 10 inch or 8 in imaging newt. In capable hands yeah they are powerful but definitely hard to master. The best starter pack for newbies might be an EQ5 with an ED80. The problem is, the ED80 costs the same as the 10 inch newt. If I was starting out in astronomy and someone told me I could either have this itty bitty refractor or this big powerful reflector for the same price, well I think you see the problem.

[LightningNZ]

In Raymo's defense I've also seen seen someone repeatedly pushing mono CCDs to beginners as the only way to go. I could name the person but won't. Personally I think this is a lousy thing to do as it encourages people to pour a lot of money into something that they might not stick to. Given that you can get good images from a DSLR for a relatively minimal outlay and decent resale value (not to mention other uses) I think it's irresponsible of them to push the mono CCD as the only way to go.

[alistairsam]

That is surprising and unfortunate indeed.

My suggestion would be to ask questions and try and understand if the solution fits you before deciding.

Cheers
Alistair

[blink138]

well actually raymo i am prepared to explore my dslr and build up my field and processing skills over a three to five year period and then i would like to move to an OSC
i think the best thing is to have a three year plan where in that time you do not buy anything "exorbitant" and enjoy what you have and what you are learning............ i love it ha ha!
yours truly
contented

[raymo]

Hear Hear Pat. This thread generated a lot of views didn't it.
raymo

[cometcatcher]

Well, I've been exploring my DSLR for two years now and I'm ready to buy another more betterer one, in spite of understanding the advantage of astro CCD. My present DSLR cameras are 5 and 9 years old and specs have improved much with consumer DSLR's in that time.

[raymo]

Well said Kevin. I see no reason why DSLRs shouldn't continue
to improve.
raymo

[Camelopardalis]

My take on it is that, there are so many amazing images posted in IIS and many from very dedicated and talented individuals with clearly outstanding kit. I find these really inspiring, and a never-ending source of interesting targets to peek at :)

But what actually pushed me over the edge to get a DSLR was raymo's results with his 1100D. Already owning an equatorial mount and a couple of scopes, what an excellent low-cost entry into this imaging world I thought. I almost couldn't believe it was possible without spending heaps on more fancy kit but the evidence was presented to us right there, with his blood, sweat and tears.

And with the help of a couple of patient chaps at star parties (eternally thankful, they know who they are ;) ), who have given me lessons on photography basics and paying attention to my mount setup, I've started getting results...not so much that I'm brave enough to post them on IIS, but it's given me the confidence to get out there snapping!

I appreciate the physics of a cooled CCD...and accept that my little 1100D is not going to give me that kind of results in a Sydney summer. But it has given me a lot of enjoyment so far and I'm keen for more dark skies to capture some more data :D I'm not after Hubble like images, or the real professional-level images we are fortunate to see every day here on IIS...but something I can readily do myself, exploring the sky, capturing memories, and just having fun with the wonders above. Maybe one day I'll graduate to a OSC CCD too...there's always more better, but it's interesting to see what the "old tech" can do :D

I guess what I'm getting at, in a roundabout way, is that there's a lot of enjoyment to be had from this at any and all levels, of budget, skill, experience...at least, that's my point of view :screwy:

[Rob_K]

I think a lot of you guys equate/confuse astrophotography with technical perfection. The same way many visual observers equate/confuse observing with aperture. Astrophotography, like visual observing, can be as simple or as complex as you want it to be. Don't follow the herd and especially don't rely on advice - think for yourselves and find your own level of enjoyment and reward.

Cheers -

[glend]

Get inventive, there is no reason that the DSLR can't be cooled. Have a look at what this guy did with his dry ice cooler. Summer temps won't mean much with one of these babies:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAq6Zb-MoSQ

Now where the heck do you get dry ice?

Or there is this very neat looking IceCube for DSLRs:

http://www.jtwastronomy.com/products/icecube.html

[Amaranthus]

Pre-peltier days, they used to use dry ice to cool CCDs in professional astronomy. I know, I used to play with the leftovers as a kid!

[raymo]

Hi Dunk, I'm glad that I've inspired somebody to do something; it's not
something that I often do. Don't be shy, let us see how you are going.
I'm trying to find an economical way to cool my camera, so can you.
cheers raymo

[cometcatcher]

Lol, I can be a bit stupid sometimes. I once put my camera in the freezer to cool it before a photo session, only when I took it out it immediately fogged up in the heat.

[LightningNZ]

While in university I'd stay on yahoo chat during the night while my friend at Mt John would pour fresh liquid nitrogen into the CCD cooling system there. :P

[Amaranthus]

Yep Cam. They still regularly use liquid N for cooling instrumentation - hard to beat on the cooling/cost trade-off curve.

Ever tried dropping an insect into a beaker of it? I have... :einstein::cold:

[Camelopardalis]

Very...erm...cool :lol: :lol:

[OzStarGazer]

For a sec I was impressed when I found these two cameras (the title says they are CCD cameras):

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1046801-REG/celestron_95518_neximage_burst_came ra.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1046802-REG/celestron_95519_neximage_burst_came ra.html

But then when you read the full description you see they are not CCD cameras, but normal CMOS cameras. I think they are just an upgrade of the Neximage 5.

Always read the full description!

[Camelopardalis]

What makes you think CMOS puts them at a disadvantage? There's a lot of popular planetary cameras that are based around CMOS sensors...

[OzStarGazer]

Of course (mine will also have a CMOS sensor), but the page says
Celestron NexImage Burst Color CCD Eyepiece Camera (1.25")
(copied and pasted for the colour one) and it might be a bit misleading at first sight... They just shouldn't mention CCD if it has a CMOS sensor.

[mathewb]

I think the vast majority of people now have a DSLR floating around somewhere. I for one when I got my scope spent an extra $30 on the adapters rather than spending a lot of extra money on a dedicated Asto Imaging camera.

The DSLR also allows you to tek photos of things when your not looking through the 'scope.

Personally, I think they make a better introduction to astronomical imaging. so long as you already have the camera that is :)

Cheers,
Matt.