It is not just a CCD/CMOS v DSLR thing.
First off, let's redefine terms to DSLR v. "Dedicated Astro Camera." I make this distinction because a DSLR is generally a CMOS camera anyway. CMOS and CCD are different architectures for the sensors----how they count the photons and transfer the information to storage. (Actually, the real difference is the material in the sensors. But, a long time ago, the CMOS and CCD materials took different paths in their architectures.)
And then, break it down between a standard DSLR and a modified one.
And then, mono or OSC version of either.
And then, cooled or non cooled.And Even REGULATED cooling.
So, you see, there is not just "The DSLR I used at the wedding last Saturday" versus the "Full Blown Astro Camera." The fancier you get that DSLR, the more it approaches the dedicated astro camera. In my mind, the biggest jump is in the regulated cooling.
As you move from one level of this stuff to another, yes, you see differences. One of the biggest is the dynamic range. With more dynamic range one can get more shades of gray (and therefore more shades of color, or tones and intensities. ) And nicer pictures.
And when you move to cooling, you can get substantially less noise, and as important, more control over the calibration and processing.
>>>>>>>the results of your photos that much better
Yes. In general. You can get great images from an off the shelf DSLR. But it is harder to get the very best images out of such. The top end of a dedicated astro camera is higher than that of a DSLR. Used poorly, however, you will get no better pictures out of a $15,000 dedicated astro camera than a well handled $700 DSLR.
>>>>>>to be worth the expense of a new camera, possibly new filters, filter wheel, etc?
What is money worth to you?
Edited by Alex McConahay, 10 April 2020 - 08:51 AM.