Which entry level CCD imaging for planetary photo?

[EricB (Eric)]

No, that's alright, the more explanations the better.

Talking about explanations, I have just found the following website that reviews the DMK and DSK cameras. It's well over my head, but it could be useful to some of you.

http://www.astro-imaging.de/astro/Im...04.AS_p01.html

Cheers,

Eric

[EricB (Eric)]

Hi there. I have done further investigations re CCD cameras (thanks Poita for your help!). The one I am now leaning towards is the Imaging Source DBK 21AU04.AS. It's an entry level CCD, however, it has positive reviews and seems easy enough to use.

I have contacted a dealer who told me that that with my Sky Watcher dobsonian collapsible I could have a focussing issue with the DBK21. Apparently, there may not be enough 'rack in' in the Sky Watcher focusser to achieve focus through the CCD camera. According to the dealer, one way to get around this would be not to extend the top cage fully.

Has any SW collapsible dobs owner had any focussing issue with CCDs an in particular with the Imaging Source DBK 21AU04.AS?

Thanks!

Eric

[Screwdriverone (Chris)]

Hi Eric,

No, I dont think you will have a problem, I never had an issue with my toucam in my 12" or my 8" Skywatcher in the 1.25" focuser. Or even the DSLR (which is an issue with an MPCC fitted) when its directly into the 2" focuser.

As the 21AU04.AS is basically the same CCD chip size and dimension as the toucam, you shouldnt have any issues with it.

Obviously I cant confirm this, until I buy my own (its first thing on my list).

Cheers

Chris

[Poita (Peter)]

I'm happy to lend anyone a DMK21 or DBK21 if they want to find out what they need to make it work. I believe the need to move the mirror is only with larger chipped cameras, I reckon you will be right with the DBK/DMK21, but I can send you a cam to try if you want to be sure before outlaying cash.

[Poita (Peter)]

Originally Posted by EricB

Hi everyone!

I have recently got myself a SkyWatcher 10" GOT dobs. While I need to familiarise myself with the scope first, I am thinking that in a few months, I would like to have a go at lunar and planetary photography (as I understand that dobs can't really do DSO photography).

I have been considering various CCD imaging cameras at the cheaper end of the scale:

- Andrews comm. planetary and lunar camera ($119 - Andrews)
- ProStar - Planet-Cam ($129 - My Astroshop)
- Meade Lunar and planetary imaging ($? only seen on a US site for $99)
- Celestron nextimage ($299 - Ozscopes)
- Imaging Source DBK 21AU04.AS ($379 - Bintel)

Has anyone have used any of these?

Andrews claim that their camera is as good as Nextstar (and is made at the same factory). They they told me that it has a compatibility problem with vista and windows 7.

I have read good reviews about the Meade LPI but again there seems to be a compability issue with windows 7 (has it been resolved?). I haven't been able to find it on Australian websites. Is it available and at what price?

The Imaging Source one has good reviews as well, but is more expensive.

Thanks in advance for your advice.

Cheers,

Eric

Just to go back to basics again for anyone reading this thread, all of the cameras on that list, other than the DBK21 are effectively webcams in another housing, and all perform about the same. The DBK21 is in a different league and gives much better results.
Cameras such as the Flea can give better results again, but cost considerably more, and the results aren't stunningly better than the DBK21, but they are better.

[asimov (John)]

If you're thinking about a DBK then you will be by far, way better off going the new model with the 618 chip.

The DBK 21AU04.AS can't do 60 FPS without producing a certain artifact, plus the new chip is leagues ahead in sensitivity. I own both models BTW.

[Poita (Peter)]

I've used both, and find the new one a bit oversensitive in Red, but haven't seen any side by side compares in the same seeing that make the new camera look far better. I've rarely been able to have enough light to capture at 60fps so it is hard for me to say, if you have a bigger scope it may be worthwhile. The new model certainly is more sensitive, but the old one is no slouch, the images at the link below show what it can do.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jasmel9...in/photostream

Got any pictures comparing the two cams in similar seeing?

It is a fair saving getting the older model, especially as they go 2nd hand for around $250 or so, for someone starting out I thing the older model is the way to go unless you are flush enough with cash that it doesn't matter, in which case you could always get a flea or something more upmarket.
The money saved will buy you a powermate if you are strapped for cash that is a consideration.

Also, the artefact problem only appears to occur if you run certain gamma settings over 100, see here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jasmel9...n/photostream/

[EricB (Eric)]

Thanks everyone for your feedback. It's a hard decision to make... but I will get an Imagining Source camera for sure. I will let you know.

Cheers,

Eric

[DJ N]

Originally Posted by EricB

Hi there. I have done further investigations re CCD cameras (thanks Poita for your help!). The one I am now leaning towards is the Imaging Source DBK 21AU04.AS. It's an entry level CCD, however, it has positive reviews and seems easy enough to use.

I have contacted a dealer who told me that that with my Sky Watcher dobsonian collapsible I could have a focussing issue with the DBK21. Apparently, there may not be enough 'rack in' in the Sky Watcher focusser to achieve focus through the CCD camera. According to the dealer, one way to get around this would be not to extend the top cage fully.

Has any SW collapsible dobs owner had any focussing issue with CCDs an in particular with the Imaging Source DBK 21AU04.AS?

Thanks!

Eric

Hi Eric,

I recently had a Skywatcher 12 inch collapsible dob. I could not reach focus with the DMK21 AU04.AS when inserting it straight into the 1.25" adaptor in the focuser. I was literally only a very small distance off, so I think if I had adjusted the primary mirror so that it was "closer" to the secondary, it probably could have come to focus, but I never tried. However, I did do some imaging with a 2.5x and 5x powermate (not at the same time ) with the DMK21 and I had no issue coming to focus.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,

Daniel

[EricB (Eric)]

Thanks very much Daniel, that's very interesting and confirms the focussing issue with SW focussers. The good thing is that there are solutions.

Cheers,

Eric

[Poita (Peter)]

In a lot of cases you will be wanting to use a barlow or power mate, so that is a good point.

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

My SW is collapsible and I inserted 3 PVC standoffs to reduce the struts evenly. Worked OK but I ended up adjusting the primary mirror up by a short distance and it was enough.

[asimov (John)]

Originally Posted by Poita

I've used both, and find the new one a bit oversensitive in Red, but haven't seen any side by side compares in the same seeing that make the new camera look far better. I've rarely been able to have enough light to capture at 60fps so it is hard for me to say, if you have a bigger scope it may be worthwhile. The new model certainly is more sensitive, but the old one is no slouch, the images at the link below show what it can do.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jasmel9...in/photostream

Got any pictures comparing the two cams in similar seeing?

It is a fair saving getting the older model, especially as they go 2nd hand for around $250 or so, for someone starting out I thing the older model is the way to go unless you are flush enough with cash that it doesn't matter, in which case you could always get a flea or something more upmarket.
The money saved will buy you a powermate if you are strapped for cash that is a consideration.

Also, the artefact problem only appears to occur if you run certain gamma settings over 100, see here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jasmel9...n/photostream/

Hi Peter. Don't have any side by sides right now but I can find a few when I get time. For now though, suffice to say I used the DBK 21AU04.AS for nearly 4 years before I recently purchased the DBK 618 & I can safely say without a doubt my imaging took a big leap towards the better quality end.

It is more sensitive towards the red but that means nothing, you can still balance any live feed data you're about to send up the pipe easily enough.

60 FPS comes in REAL handy for Mars & Jupiter. The link you posted is about onion ringing which you'll get with any cam with an insufficiency filled histogram/not enough gain & not linked with the artifact I'm talking about. Even The Imaging Source have announced that that model cam is indeed out of specs./Won't run correctly @ 60FPS.

Have a search in CN & check out some of Freddy's images, reckon he has some side by sides somewhere with both models.

Yes the 618 is dearer, but if one is serious about planet imaging I think it's the one to snavel. & yes the old model is quite a fine camera as well; it's biggest downfall is the 60FPS problem.

[EricB (Eric)]

Hi everyone!

I have saved hard in the past few months and I am now in a position to buy an Imaging Source DBK camera.

I have been thinking about getting the DBK 21AU618.AS (the one with the new chip at $499 -Bintel). The camera has a resolution of 640 x 480 and can process 60 frame per minute.

However, my budget could strech to $599, and I am wondering whether it would be better then to get either:

- the DBK 31AU03.AS with a resolution of 1024 x 768 and 30 frames maximum per minute
or even
- the DBK 41AU02.AS with a resolution of 1280 x 960 and only 15 frames maximum per minute

At this stage, I am only interested in lunar and planetary AP. I have a 10" SW GOTO.

Is the difference in resolution noticeble? Is it worth the extra $100? Would a lower frame rate be detrimental to lunar and planetary photography? Would any of these camera be suitable to DSO photography when I upgrade my telescope down the track?

Your advice would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers,

Eric

[Poita (Peter)]

The difference in resolution is only applicable to Lunar work, and even then, you don't get any more detail, you just fit more of the moon in each shot.

The chip is larger from memory in the DBK31 so the image for planets takes up less space on the chip, so you don't get any extra resolution anyway.
The slower frame rate and lower sensitivity will really make your planetary images suffer though.

I'd get the new 618, and save up for a DBK41 or DMK41 for the moon in the future, and shoot mosaics of the moon with the DBK21AU618 in the meantime.You will get the same level of detail.

-Peter

Originally Posted by EricB

Hi everyone!

I have saved hard in the past few months and I am now in a position to buy an Imaging Source DBK camera.

I have been thinking about getting the DBK 21AU618.AS (the one with the new chip at $499 -Bintel). The camera has a resolution of 640 x 480 and can process 60 frame per minute.

However, my budget could strech to $599, and I am wondering whether it would be better then to get either:

- the DBK 31AU03.AS with a resolution of 1024 x 768 and 30 frames maximum per minute
or even
- the DBK 41AU02.AS with a resolution of 1280 x 960 and only 15 frames maximum per minute

At this stage, I am only interested in lunar and planetary AP. I have a 10" SW GOTO.

Is the difference in resolution noticeble? Is it worth the extra $100? Would a lower frame rate be detrimental to lunar and planetary photography? Would any of these camera be suitable to DSO photography when I upgrade my telescope down the track?

Your advice would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers,

Eric

[Poita (Peter)]

For DSO work, neither is really much chop. It is possible, but you would be happier with the results from a $200 2nd hand DSLR.

[EricB (Eric)]

Thank you Peter for you explaination. I must say, I am currently really interested in the Moon, which, at least for a while, would be my primary target. So perhos I should forget the DBK and get straight to the DMK 41, then get a DSL. Hum... DecisionS, decisions!