who needs a CCD camera?

[astro744]

See also Review of D7000 pdf at http://www.eprisephoto.com/other (below picture of power box).

See also step by step processing guide for M42 image at http://www.eprisephoto.com/nebula/h42f1922#h42f1922 (below details of image).

[raymo]

Whilst I realise that DSLRs have limitations, [as outlined by Kevin],
Stefan Seip in his book Digital Astrophotography used words to the effect that DSLRs are closing the gap, and are now often producing results that
rival those of CCDs. My 1100D is worlds apart from my 350D, as far as noise goes. Incidentally, I would have thought that most people who
are prepared to spend often very large sums of money on equipment,
would happily spend a little more to go to a more astro friendly site when
acquiring these exquisite very deep images. As has been said though, in the end, it's horses for courses. I've enjoyed this thread though.
raymo

[Bassnut (Fred)]

Your approach is a bit scatter brain Raymo. "I'm quite happy to do
my feeble best to take my DSLR to it's limits". And yet "it's much more difficult for me to climb the learning curve".

From hard experience, for a given result, DSLR "to the limits" imaging requires a FAR steeper learning curve and expertise than a OSC or mono astro cam.

Even with a mono astro cam with filters, the difference in basic processing before PS between OSC, DSLR and mono astro cam is trivial. Even free software automates these steps with little difference in learning curve.

To my mind how much you spend on astrophogtograhpy gets down to two factors:

1/ Expectations
2/ How much you value your time in producing a given result.

If you have no money, low expectations, or take pride in getting the max out of the min with infinite effort, expertise and available time then anything goes. That all takes a rare mind set most dont possess. Advice to beginners to incrementally upgrade with skill is a very, very expensive con.

Assuming they will actually persevere with Astrophotograhpy that is, granted.

For the rest of us, its a balance. Its a direct inverse correlation, less money, means vastly more time and learning curve for a given result, fine if you are retired and willing to learn, potentially fatal if not, nothing worse than crap output to destroy incentive.

So, excellent DSLR imaging requires serious imaging time, learning curves (eg processing) and skill, far more than with astrocams for an equivalent result.

[raymo]

Hi Fred, I'm approaching 80, and finding the learning curve difficult;
hence I described my best as feeble. In my statement about trying to
take my DSLR to it's limit I said that there was a fat chance of that happening, but that I would certainly take the camera to my limit. In other words I'll do my best with what I've got.
In my case it's all academic anyway, because even if I wanted an OSC or CCD camera, I couldn't afford one, but I've thoroughly enjoyed this thread.
raymo

[alistairsam]

Hi Ray,

Interesting thread but there needs to be context with who needs a dslr.

As many have pointed, there are limitations with a dslr but with the right knowledge in post processing, you can get good results like the Orion you've pointed out.

The camera itself is only 50%of the equation. Remaining is post processing.
If you look at the sub lengths she used, considerable skill is required to blend them.

Same with a ccd. A colour ccd is extremely easy to use and if you can understand processing to a reasonable degree, you can tease the most out of it without significant struggle.

Astro photography can be as simple or complex as you want it.
I haven't come across anyone pushing one to get a mono ccd, it all depends on ones budget and what they want out of it.

ccd or dslr, each has its limits and intricacies.
The dynamic range with ccd's is hard to achieve with dslr's, the sensitivity to faint targets with a dslr is also limited with the qe being half of a ccd.

I started with a dslr, moved to a one shot colour ccd, and now a mono ccd and would never go back. There are scores of images taken with ccd's that would be extremely hard with a dslr, but again there are some good results.
People Just need to go with what they are comfortable with.
Just my 2c.

Cheers
Alistair

[tilbrook@rbe.ne (Justin Tilbrook)]

Geez fella's!!

Just have fun with what ever you choose or what's the point!

I know I do.

Cheers,

A happy little DSLR imager.

[doppler (Rick)]

At least the dslr is multifunctional, you can take pics of anything and everything and you don't have to plug it into a laptop to use it. I love my canon 1100d, I can now get astro images in a 60 second exposure that would have taken a 60 minute exposure with a film camera like when I started out. I have an old cave 8"f6 eq newt. scope with a declination drive only. Beginers (amateurs) start out with the basics and now it is cheap and easy for us, I'll leave the hubble type shots to the keen and dedicated pro astrophotographers.

[LightningNZ (Cam)]

To me it comes down to three things:
1) Money
2) Money
3) Money

Okay, I'm being facetious, BUT... I can afford a DSLR and I can get results from it that I'm proud of (certainly will be once I'm computer controlled and auto-guiding).

You get a very large field from a DSLR and I find this pleasing but it also makes it dead easy to use - I don't have to spend ages lining up my field "just so". I can crop later. Field drifted a bit? No problem, crop it away.

For me, the marginal gain in going mono CCD probably isn't worth the cost. I'd sooner just get another scope and a mono'd DSLR.

The downside - long exposures in hot weather suck with a DSLR. Ce la vie, I should move back to NZ.

[raymo]

I'm enjoying this thread more and more.
raymo

[tones-]

this almost looks like a thread seeking re-assurance that a dslr is just as capable and much easier to use than a ccd

the truth is that to get a high quality image out of a dslr is going to take a lot more effort than with a ccd

any aspiring imager that is serious about the hobby will pretty soon out grow a dslr and want more, its that drive to get better quality images that leads down the slippery slope to mono ccd's and expensive astrographs

the only 'need' when it comes to imaging is to get to a point where you are happy with the images you are producing, for some thats a dslr and ed80.
for me its a tak fs-102 and qhy8 (one shot colour ccd)
and for others its $20,000+

im not going to poo-poo people that spend huge amounts of time/effort and money on their imaging setups because i can understand the drive for the highest quality but obviously its not for everyone.

[doppler (Rick)]

I like to piggyback my dslr on my scope to get nice widefield pics, can you get adaptors to put a lens on a ccd astro camera for wide field? I think this thread is about the fact that a dslr is a beginers astro photo tool, an allrounder wheareas the astro ccd camera is dedicated to a single purpose and a bit more expensive even at entry level.

[pluto (Hugh)]

Originally Posted by doppler

I like to piggyback my dslr on my scope to get nice widefield pics, can you get adaptors to put a lens on a ccd astro camera for wide field? I think this thread is about the fact that a dslr is a beginers astro photo tool, an allrounder wheareas the astro ccd camera is dedicated to a single purpose and a bit more expensive even at entry level.

I'm not sure about other manufacturers but SBIG do an EOS or Nikon adapter for some of their cameras, I would love to get one

[cometcatcher (Kevin)]

Apart from the cost, astro CCD's need a computer for image acquisition and really need an observatory to be fully utilised. My main interest in astronomy is imaging comets where I may need to take the scope where I would not want to take a CCD. Bog standard DSLR's are somewhat comet friendly also. If exposures are kept short and fast optical systems used, the noise can be somewhat avoided. For that reason I will be staying with using DSLR's, though I will pine for a CCD for other deep sky lol.

[ThunderStorm (Alan)]

I am very sorry what is APOD?

[pluto (Hugh)]

Originally Posted by ThunderStorm

I am very sorry what is APOD?

Astronomy Picture Of the Day
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

[Poita (Peter)]

One thing nearly always forgotten in these discussions is video astronomy.

To me it gives the joy and immediacy of visual astronomy, with the vibrant colour and detail of CCD astrophotography.

You get an astro-video camera, and a small viewing screen, you put the camera where the eyepiece would normally go, slew to the object of choice, and seconds later see the object in great detail and often full colour.

It is also great because more than one person can enjoy it at once, and glasses and exit pupil size and eye-relief etc. become non-issues.

It is wonderful to point towards orion and see the purpley goodness rather than a hazy grey through the eyepiece.

It has little of the time consuming, delayed gratification of imaging, and most of the immediate, shared response of visual, without the letdown of hazy, faint images (except for you 24" owners) and you can do it all with an ED80, a video camera and a cheap screen.
It is loads of fun.

[Poita (Peter)]

Originally Posted by doppler

I like to piggyback my dslr on my scope to get nice widefield pics, can you get adaptors to put a lens on a ccd astro camera for wide field? I think this thread is about the fact that a dslr is a beginers astro photo tool, an allrounder wheareas the astro ccd camera is dedicated to a single purpose and a bit more expensive even at entry level.

Absolutely, usually just a standard adapter will work just fine. I have used my Nikon lenses on everything from a QHY8L, to a Grasshopper Express.

[Poita (Peter)]

Why not ask the lady herself
She uses both DSLR and dedicated CCDs.

Some targets are not really achievable with a standard colour DSLR as most of the image is in a wavelength that will not be picked up by the camera.

So it is (as always) horses for courses. Some targets will look nearly as good through a DSLR as with a dedicated CCD, some will look quite poor.

Both require good tracking, and a lot of work to get great results.

[alistairsam]

Originally Posted by 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

Hi Ray,

Not sure what the real objective of this thread is.
Are you saying CCD's are not really required because dslr's can achieve results like the one published, therefore stop recommending CCD's to newbies?

One shot colour CCD's (OSC) is what newbies who have the inclination to experiment and push their processing skills would look at, those that have the funds and patience to do mono will seriously consider a mono CCD, mainly for narrowband and the added details of the L channel.

so a general statement that who needs CCD's is unfounded and inaccurate.

no real need to compare CCD's and dslr's, each have their merits and it all depends on one's inclination apart from several other factors as others have pointed out.

A one shot colour CCD like the QHY8 or QHY8L is extremely easy to use, has excellent cooling and produces amazing results. there is hardly a learning curve, and they don't cost the world, relatively speaking.
A second hand qhy8 sells for $800 or so which could be a lot for some or affordable for some.
yep they are more expensive than dslr's, but so are so many things.

Not sure why this has gone on for so long.

If you are able to point out a thread recommending mono to a newbie and is totally unfounded, this would have context.
Most here give advise in earnest, all depends on ones circumstances and what they can and can't get.
Which is why they generally state that their budget is X, can you please recommend Y as I want to image Z.

Sorry, just being honest.

Cheers
Alistair

[raymo]

Hi Alistair, don't be sorry, your comments are most welcome. My point
is that some newbies in the first flush of enthusiasm buy NEQ6s or similar, with 8" or 10" scopes mounted on them; some of them know
nothing much about the sky, let alone anything about the things that are in it. They then proceed to ask on IIS what they need to start taking
pictures, and often get pointed toward expensive CCD cameras, which
means they then also have to have a laptop handy, and either an OAG
or a guidescope, plus an autoguider.[I don't think many newbies today
would want to guide manually.] DSLRs seem to often get rated as the poor man's way of imaging.
These newbies have often bought a mount they have no idea how to
set up, align, or use, so the learning curve is immediately massively
steepened by having to learn how to set up and use an autoguider, and
take darks, flats, etc: and then learn image processing.
What is wrong with learning to walk before learning to run?
My point in a nutshell, is that there is a whole world of simpler
imaging out there to be enjoyed, whilst learning to use one's
equipment competently, before moving on to more complex imaging.
raymo