DSLR Cameras for Astronomy-which is best

[FOOTPRINT]

Hi All,
As new DSLR Cameras seem to come on the market at regular intervals, with more and more pixels, (but smaller) and I believe closer together, decreasing the sensitivity in direct proportion, making the old EOS300D Camera with the largest Pixels ( 6.3 Mp at 7.4 microns in size) better ,than say the EOS450D (the latest model) with twice as many pixels (12.2 Mp) but only 5.2 microns in size, any ideas out there ??.

Also seeing CCD image sensors (some Nikon Cameras) are better than CMOS sensors-(Canon Cameras) would not the Nikon D70 having a CCD array be better than the Canon DSLRs (pixel size being equal)`for Astronomy work, of course modification of the UV/IR filters would be required, wonder has anyone out there had experience with using both types of Camera.

regards.......Jim

[Ian Robinson]

Best camera depends on how much money you have.

[Sharnbrook (Mike)]

If what Footprint has to say is correct, then a 300D at say $300, (second-hand) would be better than a 40D at some $1200. I have both a 300D and a 40D, but have not used the 40D very much for Astro work, but the weight of the 40D makes a considerable difference to the balance on my GEM mount. Something to bear in mind.

[Bassnut (Fred)]

Well, re 300D vs a 40D?, no brainer, woefull USB1 on the 300D, really frustrating. Live focus on the 40D (and USB2) is a killer. Weight problem?, really?, dont think so, and $300 vs $1200?, well worth it IMO.

Having said that, the megapixel diff is mute for astro, if money is a prob, the 300D would do at a pinch.

[Terry B]

Originally Posted by Bassnut

Well, re 300D vs a 40D?, no brainer, woefull USB1 on the 300D, really frustrating. Live focus on the 40D (and USB2) is a killer. Weight problem?, really?, dont think so, and $300 vs $1200?, well worth it IMO.

Having said that, the megapixel diff is mute for astro, if money is a prob, the 300D would do at a pinch.

The other important difference with the 40D is that it doesn't have any amp glow compared to the earlier cameras.

[Bassnut (Fred)]

Terry, true, good (extra) bonus.

[Terry B]

Christian Buil has compared the 40D with to 50D at
http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/50d/test.htm
This gives some idea about the effect of the smaller pixels on overall performance.
Another review comparing canon to Nikon cameras is at
http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/nikon_test/test.htm

[Tandum (Robin)]

Don't buy a DLSR, spend the extra and buy a cooled camera.

[h0ughy (David)]

Originally Posted by Tandum

Don't buy a DLSR, spend the extra and buy a cooled camera.

or a cooled DSLR

[Shawn]

What wrong with the 1000D option, It has live view with a zoom doesnt it, ?
That would make focussing a breeze... I considered one myself ...

[RB (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by FOOTPRINT

Hi All,
As new DSLR Cameras seem to come on the market at regular intervals, with more and more pixels, (but smaller) and I believe closer together, decreasing the sensitivity in direct proportion, making the old EOS300D Camera with the largest Pixels ( 6.3 Mp at 7.4 microns in size) better ,than say the EOS450D (the latest model) with twice as many pixels (12.2 Mp) but only 5.2 microns in size, any ideas out there ??.

The 300D in comparison to the latest models fairs up ok but as has been mentioned, amp glow is a real issue, being early generation technology.
The best performing Canon APS-C model for astro atm is the 40D which utilises a 14-bit processor.
IMO weight should not be an issue.
If the mount can't handle the slight increase in weight then it's already close to it's limit anyway.

Also seeing CCD image sensors (some Nikon Cameras) are better than CMOS sensors-(Canon Cameras) would not the Nikon D70 having a CCD array be better than the Canon DSLRs (pixel size being equal)`for Astronomy work, of course modification of the UV/IR filters would be required, wonder has anyone out there had experience with using both types of Camera.

regards.......Jim

I have not been overly impressed with astro images from the Nikon D70 although I do suspect that the new Nikon D300 will perform well for astro.

[allan gould]

My avice is to purchase a modded 20D from Eric Styles. Low noise, clean mod, geat price and easy to use with good enough resolution. If something then comes along later it will hold its price better.

[TrevorW]

Personally it depends what you intend to do with the camera and your budget. If purely for astrophotography then buy a dedicated cooled CCD camera such as a DS III or SBIG if you can afford it.

However if you want a camera you can use every day and for astrophotography definately go with a Canon (unmodified).

[FOOTPRINT]

Hi All,
Interesting to see all the comments on this subject, and I suppose all in all the EOS300D-modified, IS a cheap Astro Camera, and a very good one at that, with matched dark frame removal one can acheive very good results, if of course the Camera is used on a Scope which will give the right arc/sec. per pixel.

Someone mentioned that the best way to go is to get a cooled CCD Camera, such as the QHY-8 or ST-4000 Etc. Etc., I agree as CCD pixels are closer together (CMOS have wider spacing due to amplifiers Etc. sitting alongside them, the micro lens used now does help matters a bit, and auto dark frame (get rid of Amp. glow) helps also (later Canon Cameras), but with all this still not as good as a modern CCD chip, However to be able to use the nice cooled Camera for nice long exposures you need a dark sky, I think most of us live near or in a city where Sky Fog is a fact of life and long exposures are not on, if you get 5-10 Min. you are doing well, but with stacking great results can be had so all in all the CMOS chip Canons do have a place in Astrophotography, comments are most welcome on this subject, come-on, have a say.

regards.............Jim

[Tilt (Michael)]

Originally Posted by Terry B

Christian Buil has compared the 40D with to 50D at
http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/50d/test.htm
This gives some idea about the effect of the smaller pixels on overall performance.

Oh dear, smaller, tightly crammed pixels = increased noise. I was reading the 20+ page review of the Canon 50D on http://www.dpreview.com and they also agree the noise levels are lower on the 40D.

Michael