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 (Ray)]

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 (Knez)]

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 (Peter)]

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 (Peter)]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 (Glen)]

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 (Laurie)]

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 (Adam)]

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

[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 (Kevin)]

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.

[Amaranthus (Barry)]

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

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 (Renato)]

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 (Ray)]

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 (Wayne)]

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

[pluto (Hugh)]

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

Looks great, very nice image

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 (Kevin)]

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.