who needs a CCD camera? - Page 3

alistairsam · #41 03-06-2014, 04:33 PM

hi Ray,

yep, nothing wrong with learning to walk before running, learning one's equipment before going mono imaging and so on, but have you come across instances here were someone was advised to go mono or use expensive cameras?

I completely agree that dslr's are very capable cameras, you can take very good images and if someone starting already has a dslr, it makes the journey a lot easier before going CCD and most progress this way, myself included.

I'm just a bit surprised that as you mention, experienced imagers would offer advise to beginners to start with complex gear. I haven't come across such threads, did you mean in this forum or generally in all forums?

My point is that majority of the advice given by imagers for beginners is more than reasonable and practical.
Dslr's have their limits and maybe that's what gives the impression that its a poor man's camera, but we all know it isn't.
In the end, its worth knowing the pro's and con's of all options out there before investing.
Many encourage beginners to visit astro clubs to get a hand with mounts and alignment and so on.

Cheers
Alistair

cometcatcher (Kevin) · #42 03-06-2014, 05:22 PM

I can see where you're coming from where newbie has a couple of grand to spend and wants the biggest bang for their buck, so they get recommended an EQ6 or HEQ5 and 10 inch or 8 in imaging newt. In capable hands yeah they are powerful but definitely hard to master. The best starter pack for newbies might be an EQ5 with an ED80. The problem is, the ED80 costs the same as the 10 inch newt. If I was starting out in astronomy and someone told me I could either have this itty bitty refractor or this big powerful reflector for the same price, well I think you see the problem.

LightningNZ (Cam) · #43 03-06-2014, 07:46 PM

In Raymo's defense I've also seen seen someone repeatedly pushing mono CCDs to beginners as the only way to go. I could name the person but won't. Personally I think this is a lousy thing to do as it encourages people to pour a lot of money into something that they might not stick to. Given that you can get good images from a DSLR for a relatively minimal outlay and decent resale value (not to mention other uses) I think it's irresponsible of them to push the mono CCD as the only way to go.

alistairsam · #44 03-06-2014, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LightningNZ

In Raymo's defense I've also seen seen someone repeatedly pushing mono CCDs to beginners as the only way to go. I could name the person but won't. Personally I think this is a lousy thing to do as it encourages people to pour a lot of money into something that they might not stick to. Given that you can get good images from a DSLR for a relatively minimal outlay and decent resale value (not to mention other uses) I think it's irresponsible of them to push the mono CCD as the only way to go.

That is surprising and unfortunate indeed.

My suggestion would be to ask questions and try and understand if the solution fits you before deciding.

Cheers
Alistair

blink138 (Pat) · #45 15-06-2014, 08:09 PM

well actually raymo i am prepared to explore my dslr and build up my field and processing skills over a three to five year period and then i would like to move to an OSC
i think the best thing is to have a three year plan where in that time you do not buy anything "exorbitant" and enjoy what you have and what you are learning............ i love it ha ha!
yours truly
contented

raymo · #46 15-06-2014, 09:35 PM

Hear Hear Pat. This thread generated a lot of views didn't it.
raymo

cometcatcher (Kevin) · #47 15-06-2014, 10:10 PM

Well, I've been exploring my DSLR for two years now and I'm ready to buy another more betterer one, in spite of understanding the advantage of astro CCD. My present DSLR cameras are 5 and 9 years old and specs have improved much with consumer DSLR's in that time.

raymo · #48 16-06-2014, 12:13 AM

Well said Kevin. I see no reason why DSLRs shouldn't continue
to improve.
raymo

Camelopardalis (Dunk) · #49 16-06-2014, 10:57 AM

My take on it is that, there are so many amazing images posted in IIS and many from very dedicated and talented individuals with clearly outstanding kit. I find these really inspiring, and a never-ending source of interesting targets to peek at

But what actually pushed me over the edge to get a DSLR was raymo's results with his 1100D. Already owning an equatorial mount and a couple of scopes, what an excellent low-cost entry into this imaging world I thought. I almost couldn't believe it was possible without spending heaps on more fancy kit but the evidence was presented to us right there, with his blood, sweat and tears.

And with the help of a couple of patient chaps at star parties (eternally thankful, they know who they are

), who have given me lessons on photography basics and paying attention to my mount setup, I've started getting results...not so much that I'm brave enough to post them on IIS, but it's given me the confidence to get out there snapping!

I appreciate the physics of a cooled CCD...and accept that my little 1100D is not going to give me that kind of results in a Sydney summer. But it has given me a lot of enjoyment so far and I'm keen for more dark skies to capture some more data

I'm not after Hubble like images, or the real professional-level images we are fortunate to see every day here on IIS...but something I can readily do myself, exploring the sky, capturing memories, and just having fun with the wonders above. Maybe one day I'll graduate to a OSC CCD too...there's always more better, but it's interesting to see what the "old tech" can do

I guess what I'm getting at, in a roundabout way, is that there's a lot of enjoyment to be had from this at any and all levels, of budget, skill, experience...at least, that's my point of view

Rob_K · #50 16-06-2014, 11:15 AM

I think a lot of you guys equate/confuse astrophotography with technical perfection. The same way many visual observers equate/confuse observing with aperture. Astrophotography, like visual observing, can be as simple or as complex as you want it to be. Don't follow the herd and especially don't rely on advice - think for yourselves and find your own level of enjoyment and reward.

Cheers -

glend (Glen) · #51 16-06-2014, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camelopardalis

I appreciate the physics of a cooled CCD...and accept that my little 1100D is not going to give me that kind of results in a Sydney summer.

Get inventive, there is no reason that the DSLR can't be cooled. Have a look at what this guy did with his dry ice cooler. Summer temps won't mean much with one of these babies:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAq6Zb-MoSQ

Now where the heck do you get dry ice?

Or there is this very neat looking IceCube for DSLRs:

http://www.jtwastronomy.com/products/icecube.html

Amaranthus (Barry) · #52 16-06-2014, 01:59 PM

Pre-peltier days, they used to use dry ice to cool CCDs in professional astronomy. I know, I used to play with the leftovers as a kid!

raymo · #53 16-06-2014, 04:05 PM

Hi Dunk, I'm glad that I've inspired somebody to do something; it's not
something that I often do. Don't be shy, let us see how you are going.
I'm trying to find an economical way to cool my camera, so can you.
cheers raymo

cometcatcher (Kevin) · #54 16-06-2014, 04:42 PM

Lol, I can be a bit stupid sometimes. I once put my camera in the freezer to cool it before a photo session, only when I took it out it immediately fogged up in the heat.

LightningNZ (Cam) · #55 16-06-2014, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaranthus

Pre-peltier days, they used to use dry ice to cool CCDs in professional astronomy. I know, I used to play with the leftovers as a kid!

While in university I'd stay on yahoo chat during the night while my friend at Mt John would pour fresh liquid nitrogen into the CCD cooling system there.

Amaranthus (Barry) · #56 16-06-2014, 05:16 PM

Yep Cam. They still regularly use liquid N for cooling instrumentation - hard to beat on the cooling/cost trade-off curve.

Ever tried dropping an insect into a beaker of it? I have...

Camelopardalis (Dunk) · #57 16-06-2014, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glend

Get inventive, there is no reason that the DSLR can't be cooled. Have a look at what this guy did with his dry ice cooler. Summer temps won't mean much with one of these babies:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAq6Zb-MoSQ

Now where the heck do you get dry ice?

Or there is this very neat looking IceCube for DSLRs:

http://www.jtwastronomy.com/products/icecube.html

Very...erm...cool

OzStarGazer · #58 19-06-2014, 05:17 PM

For a sec I was impressed when I found these two cameras (the title says they are CCD cameras):

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...st_camera.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...st_camera.html

But then when you read the full description you see they are not CCD cameras, but normal CMOS cameras. I think they are just an upgrade of the Neximage 5.

Always read the full description!

Camelopardalis (Dunk) · #59 19-06-2014, 06:46 PM

What makes you think CMOS puts them at a disadvantage? There's a lot of popular planetary cameras that are based around CMOS sensors...

OzStarGazer · #60 19-06-2014, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camelopardalis

What makes you think CMOS puts them at a disadvantage? There's a lot of popular planetary cameras that are based around CMOS sensors...

Of course (mine will also have a CMOS sensor), but the page says
Celestron NexImage Burst Color CCD Eyepiece Camera (1.25")
(copied and pasted for the colour one) and it might be a bit misleading at first sight... They just shouldn't mention CCD if it has a CMOS sensor.