Quote:
Originally Posted by raymo
Incidentally, nobody so far has
referred to the photo that I mentioned[ Sky at Night April].
|
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.
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.
