View Single Post
  #5  
Old 19-05-2012, 11:05 PM
whzzz28's Avatar
whzzz28 (Nathan)
Registered User

whzzz28 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larryp View Post
Thanks for the advice Brendan and Pat.
I do not have a DSLR and would prefer an astro ccd camera.
Unfortunately my budget for a camera extends to $1500.00 at the most, which rules out most of the recommended ones.
Do you have any suggestions in the cheaper range. I would appreciate advice on pixel size as well.

Many thanks
Laurie
Hi Laurie,

You will be limiting yourself a bit with a $1500 budget and i expect that a mono setup will be out of the question.

The three camera's that come to mind that are close to your budget are:
Pixel size is interesting, and a bit of a pain to calculate.
Some light reading:

http://www.stanmooreastro.com/pixel_size.htm
http://www.astro-imaging.com/Tutorial/MatchingCCD.html



Given your scope is relatively fast, smaller pixels may be the go for you.
The Atik 320e has 4.4µm pixels.
Atik 314L+ has 6.45 µm pixels
The QHY has 5.4µm pixels.

The Atik 320e has a resolution of 1620 x 1220 pixels
The Atik 314L+ has a resolution of 1392 x 1040 pixels
The QHY has a resolution of3326 x 2504 pixels.
(resolution isn't everything in astrophotography).

Ill leave the maths of calculating the best pixel size up to someone else more knowledgeable, but i think the Atik 320e or QHY will give you the best pixel sizes.

When i first started (6months ago) i too was thinking of going down the road of a CCD. Then i saw the costs and decided to start with a $400 Canon 1100d; which has given me some surprisingly good results!
I then ended up modding the canon and get some decent images. A CCD is better, but if your on a limited budget, you can't go past a modded DSLR.
Reply With Quote