I can get a good deal on a couple dslr's The 550 and 1100d . While I realise they are pretty near entry level they are better than my point and shoot. I hear the new canon cameras are very good for low noise etc. regardless of price. Coupled with bulb setting and large iso to low noise ratio they seem to be the go. I reckon I should take the plunge and get into a bit of proper astro. Anyone else use so called "entry level dslr's" and consider themselves satisfied?
Any input greatly appreciated. Also, can an unmodified camera do the job ok? I presume that just means a filter has been removed. Is it easily done? Cheers.
Anyone else use so called "entry level dslr's" and consider themselves satisfied?
Satisfied? No one is ever satisfied.
Entry level DSLR cameras are not the best for astro imaging, but they are cheap and will get you started. They are a big step up from a point and shoot.
Unmodified entry level DSLR's have trouble with Ha nebula. The inbuilt filter really kills nebula shots, although using a nebula filter in the optical path helps, with an extended exposure time to compensate.
Modded versions with the standard filter removed makes them much more suitable for Ha astrophotography. The procedure is fiddly, personally I wouldn't do it.
Depends what you want to shoot to how suitable each version is.
Hi John, both canon 20d and 40d are good entry to mid level DSLRs.
20d can be had for $200-300 for body alone depending on shutter count etc. 40ds can be had for $400-500.
As a first mod, you can remove the IR filter, which will allow better Ha response as suggested below, but I'd personally learn first.
Bo
Hi John, I have 2 1100D's 1 modded and 1 unmodded. I started out with afocal with a point and shoot camera held up to the eyepiece and then upgraded to the DSLR when they were on special at Harvey Norman.
Ive added some images i've taken with the modded 1100D and M42 orion was taken with unmodded 1100D
I use a modded 20D and an unmodded 550D for my imaging.
The 20d can be used all year round but the 550D works best when the outside temp drops below 10C. Oh , you can still use it for Solar and Moon imaging all year round.
The 550D having movie mode, means you can do Planetary imaging as well.
Hi John, both canon 20d and 40d are good entry to mid level DSLRs.
20d can be had for $200-300 for body alone depending on shutter count etc. 40ds can be had for $400-500.
As a first mod, you can remove the IR filter, which will allow better Ha response as suggested below, but I'd personally learn first.
Bo
From what I understand neither the 20D or 40D have LiveView which seems to be a feature from I think the 450D upwards ( although the 20Da supposedly has it ) Am I correct because I want to get a Caonon body but I need\want the LiveView feature for focussing and control during imaging. Trouble is the 450D over here second hand goes for $700-$800. Even the 20 D will fetch at least $400 +
I already had a 400D as a daytime camera, and so decided earlier in the year that i'd buy a second one for astro work. Picked up that second 400D together with a 18-55 IS zoom for $180 on ebay.
I removed the internal IR filter, and then fitted an Astronomik L EOS-clip filter. It doesn't have liveview, but I have found that with the Backyard EOS (BYE) software I dont really need it, as BYE provides a 'defacto' liveview on the laptop screen.
All up im pretty happy with this older entry level DSLR - a bit of image noise at warmer temps but thats to be expected for a non-cooled camera. A dedicated and cooled CCD would be great, but for a fraction of the price this still provides great performance. (All the shots on my astrobin page were taken with the modded 400D)
ps lots of ebay sellers will ship internationally. plenty of bargains out there
Brent, 40D has live view http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos40d
it also has 14bit conversion as opposed to 12 bit in 20D, bigger pixel count and a larger LCD screen.
They come up a fair bit now on ebay as 60D starts to grow their market, hopefully their prices will come down a bit in NZ, but it's always risky buying things second hand of course.
Bo
All my imaging up till now has been done with an unmodded 400D (check my posts). I have recently got my hands on a modded 30D. Even with very early testing, while the 400d looks to have less "thermal" noise (taken care of using dark files), the 30d has less high ISO noise. The removal of the Ha blocking filter makes a hhhhuuuggggeeee difference! For example, see the attached picture of Eta Carinae. It's only a combination of 10x1min subs. So much detail that I could not get with my 400D.
As I mentioned to Brent in another thread, the 40D is the bare minimum you'd want nowadays.
1. It was the first Canon DSLR with a 14-bit sensor; and,
2. It has Live View (press the set button).
I used to use a modified one as a second body for weddings. I would use Click White Balance in DPP, and, simply convert the images to monochrome if the colour didn't look right.
As I mentioned to Brent in another thread, the 40D is the bare minimum you'd want nowadays.
1. It was the first Canon DSLR with a 14-bit sensor; and,
2. It has Live View (press the set button).
I wouldn't necessarily say the part in bold . There are loads of great images out there taken from earlier models. Heck, I see some images from 300Ds that would give newer models a run for their money. But this is probably more to do with processing.
Yes a 14-bit sensor is a bonus but I also wouldn't say live view is a critical determining factor. I guess I am a bit biased as my 400D doesn't have live view so I don't know what I'm missing. I simply focus with a bahtinov mask which only takes a few minutes.
A lot of good points and info. zero alluded to the ridiculous second hand prices we have to pay over here and he's dead right.The 1100D goes for 1100 bucks new but you pay 600 for an older 1000D . The 550D is 1400 new. Crazy stuff. As I can get the 550 for 1000 I think that is my preference at this stage. Iv'e seen the pics the 1100D can do and theyr'e not too shabby . So the 550D with the larger pixel count should be better. I think I read somewhere The 550D is the entry-level version of the prosumer 7D model, from a couple years back, while the 1100D is the new entry level. Thanks again. By the by, This live view that suddenly seems the new thing. isn't it the same as looking at the lcd screen? A little puzzled. cheers.
Live view is like a video of what you are looking at. It is useful when you want to focus in real time. You can also zoom in which also helps when focusing. Question: How sensitive is live view? Can you only use it to focus when bright stars are in the FOV?
First of all, realize that Live View is not that sensitive. It's really made for bright scenes encountered in normal daytime photography. You're not ever going to be able to see a nebula or galaxy on Live view, but it definitely can be used for astrophotography by focusing on stars. How faint of a star that you will be able to focus on will depend on the aperture and focal ratio of the lens, and the camera settings.
Others who use it will let you know how really useful it is.
After having imaged with a 300D, 350D and then a 40D over the last 7 years, I would reiterate, that at a minimum, if you want a good quality piece of hardware, something that will withstand the elements a little more than the xxxD and xxxxD systems, the 40D will give you a great start.
If you've never used Live View, you really don't know what you're missing. Constantly having to take an image, and then zoom in on it on the LCD or on your laptop, making an adjustment, and then doing the whole process again, was a right royal pain in the arse.
With Live View, a bright star, a Bahtinov Mask and the Bahtinov Grabber software, you can reach focus in as little as 20 seconds.
If a Bahtinov Mask is not available, then Live View on a laptop using EOS Utility's Remote Shooting feature, zoomed in at 200% on a bright star, auto focus enabled on the camera, using the fine/course grained focus controls through the software, you could reach focus within a matter of minutes by erring on the right side of chromatic aberration on a star.
I don't know about you, but, my imaging time was limited by work, weather and the fact that I don't have a backyard to set my gear up in; as a result, Live View was a godsend.
In the end, each to their own, as you said.
H
Quote:
Originally Posted by swannies1983
I wouldn't necessarily say the part in bold . There are loads of great images out there taken from earlier models. Heck, I see some images from 300Ds that would give newer models a run for their money. But this is probably more to do with processing.
Yes a 14-bit sensor is a bonus but I also wouldn't say live view is a critical determining factor. I guess I am a bit biased as my 400D doesn't have live view so I don't know what I'm missing. I simply focus with a bahtinov mask which only takes a few minutes.
Thanks for clearing the Live View question up. How bright does a star need to be to be able to see it using Live View? Have there been any times that there hasn't been a bright enough star for you to focus on?
Cheers
Dan
P.S. I don't have a permanent setup, have a 2 year old and a newborn so my imaging time is also limited. But I don't consider the 2 mins it takes to focus without using Live View to be a problem....but that's just me.
A bright star is never too far away.
In all the time I've been using the 550D, only twice have I not had a bright enough star to focus on. So all I did was find one in my finder scope, slew to it, focus, then go back to my target.
On longer focal lengths I imagine it would be more of an issue.
. There are loads of great images out there taken from earlier models. Heck, I see some images from 300Ds that would give newer models a run for their money. But this is probably more to do with processing. 
I think I read somewhere The 550D is the entry-level version of the prosumer 7D model, from a couple years back, while the 1100D is the new entry level. Thanks again. By the by, This live view that suddenly seems the new thing. isn't it the same as looking at the lcd screen? A little puzzled. cheers.
