13 replies to this topic

[2manyscopes]

I've used and enjoyed my Pentax K-1000, Olympus OM-1, Canon Rebel first edition and my Canon 20D DSLR. The DSLR works great and has less than 4000 images on it. I was recently looking at new DSLR options and discovered another quantum shift has occurred in cameras. Since I intend to use the new camera for astrophotography as well as terrestrial I figured I'd start here.

 

I'd like to stick with Canon if possible so I can continue to use my current lens collection acquired over the last 30 years. I see many newer cameras don't even have view finders anymore so comments on focusing these cameras would be appreciated. I know that older screens can be difficult to see in strong lighting and white light obviously affects night vision. Anything else I might need to consider?

 

Given today's advancement in imaging tech for astrophotography, it occurs to me that it might even be an option today to have a stand alone astro camera that fits 1.25"- 2" focusers and just continue to use my Canon 20D for terrestrial work. I really have not kept up with digital imaging options or tech since I bought the 20D twenty years ago. Thoughts? Thank you.

 

 

[bobzeq25]

Astrospecifc cameras have always been significantly better than DSLRs.  Until a few years ago, they were also very expensive.  They're now just expensive.

 

Things to consider.

 

DSLRs have a terrestrial filter that blocks hydrogen alpha.  They're not good for imaging emission nebulae unless modified.

 

They have more thermal noise than any cooled astrospecific camera, and it's harder to remove.

 

They tend to be less sensitive.

 

You need a computer to run an astrospecific camera, they're just a chip and an interface.

 

Bottom line.  The ZWO533MC Pro is a nice very modern camera for $799.  It has a somewhat smaller chip, less field of view.  Th ASI2600MC Pro (which I have) is $1499, and has an APS-c sized chip.  Sample image below, click on the mediocre CN thumbnail for the real thing, and full details.

 

Other points.  They make adapters to attach these to Canon lenses.  You don't want to attach one to a telescope using 1.25 tubes, the small size will vignette.

 

Your equipment is not very suitable for Deep Sky imaging, you need a good tracking mount.  Are you talking planetary?  Good cameras for that (you don't need a big chip) are cheap.  The ZWO585MC is an excellent choice, $399.

 

Edited by bobzeq25, 10 May 2024 - 08:56 AM.

[vidrazor]

I've used and enjoyed my Pentax K-1000, Olympus OM-1, Canon Rebel first edition and my Canon 20D DSLR. The DSLR works great and has less than 4000 images on it. I was recently looking at new DSLR options and discovered another quantum shift has occurred in cameras. Since I intend to use the new camera for astrophotography as well as terrestrial I figured I'd start here.

 

I'd like to stick with Canon if possible so I can continue to use my current lens collection acquired over the last 30 years. I see many newer cameras don't even have view finders anymore so comments on focusing these cameras would be appreciated. I know that older screens can be difficult to see in strong lighting and white light obviously affects night vision. Anything else I might need to consider?

 

Given today's advancement in imaging tech for astrophotography, it occurs to me that it might even be an option today to have a stand alone astro camera that fits 1.25"- 2" focusers and just continue to use my Canon 20D for terrestrial work. I really have not kept up with digital imaging options or tech since I bought the 20D twenty years ago. Thoughts? Thank you.

Although you can get a new Canon mirrorless (which no longer uses the EOS mount), the EOS mount is so prevalent that there are powered adapters for other mirrorless bodies like Sony, Fuji, and Nikon that allow you to use your autofocus EOS lenses on their bodies. So if there is a body from Nikon, Fuji, or Sony that you may find attractive, you can still use your lenses on them.

 

Not all mirrorless cameras are without viewfinders, many have electronic viewfinders. The newer models are better than older, especially for action photography.

Although yes you can use a DSLR or mirrorless camera for astrophotography, and you may initially want to start this way, you would indeed be better off investing in a separate astro camera for astrophotography.

 

You can indeed get a dedicated astro camera that can slide into the eyepiece of a telescope, but besides possible vignetting depending on sensor size, for serious imaging with these cameras they should be screwed directly to the scope to maintain axial alignment with the optics, which won't occur sliding one into the eyepiece mount. A popular astro camera is one based around the square format Sony IMX533 sensor, such as this one. The use of an off-axis guider (OAG) with it's separate guide camera, is recommended as well for autoguiding. The mount, main imaging camera, and guide camera are all controlled by a laptop or compact computer. You could additionally get a focus motor, also controlled by the computer, for continuous auto focusing through the course of the evening to compensate for temperature and mechanical shifts. The various software available, such as NINA, APT, and Ekos, will control all the equipment, and other programs, such as Siril and PixInsight, will process that data you have captured into the final image you will share.

 

I can imagine that all I've mentioned so far is rather overwhelming for you at the moment, but a little time spent, both here and around the internet, especially on YouTube, will help to you to understand the interrelationship of all these components, and allow you to make proper decisions as to what you want to invest in, and in what gradual manner. You may want to peruse some of the basic astrophotography videos on YouTube to start getting a feel for modern practices.
 

I would suggest getting a newer, more modern but used Canon DSLR body that your EOS lenses can mount directly onto (and still have an optical viewfinder), Which will be more modern and capable than your present 20D, and use that for terrestrial photography, and get a dedicated astro camera for astrophotography. Besides the IMX533 camera mentioned earlier, another astro camera, based around the Sony IMX585 sensor, may be a good first astro camera option. This particular model is quite versatile, in having built-in passive cooling, with an option for active cooling, as well as axial alignment adjustment, and can be used for deep space objects, planetary, lunar, and in a pinch even solar imaging, and is reasonably priced. It's amazing what you can capture with modern cameras, optics, mounts, and software.

I guess technically you can use your existing scopes for imaging, but beside a coma corrector and possible Crayford focuser if your scopes don't have one, you will need a modern equatorial mount that can handle their weight to accurately track and connect to a computer to control camera, mount, and autoguide, among other functions that you will need to get up to speed on. Realistically, you should invest in modern optics, either reflective or refractive. Being as you appear to favor reflectors, you may also want to look into modern Newtonian Astrographs, as they as called, which are small, lightweight, and relatively fast Newts optimized for astrophotography. Modern optics, both for reflective and refractive scopes, have come a long way since your scopes, but I suppose you can use what you have, but you will need a heavy duty mount to handle their weight.

Hope this is more helpful than confusing for you. Welcome to modern astrophotography imaging.

Edited by vidrazor, 10 May 2024 - 09:55 AM.

[michael8554]

1.  The trend with most DSLRs is to smaller and smaller pixels.

 

For example:

 

20D = 6.42um

M6 =  3.72um

 

2.  But your long focal length Cave OTAs require big pixels, to give sensible pixel scales.

 

That's why for my 1280mm FL I stick with an old modded Canon 6D, which has 6.5um pixels.

 

Quite apart from it's renowned sensitivity and low noise at higher ISO.

 

I expect though that there are newer DSLRs (and astro cameras) out there with large pixels.

 

2.  The Mirrorless cameras are focused by:

 

 Looking at the Live View screen with a Bahtinov Mask on the OTA.

 

Looking at the FWHM with software on a computer.

[bignerdguy]

FYI, if you do decide to go with the mirrorless look for a used Canon EOS R or Ra camera.  these use the new mirrorless body and the Ra is designed with a modified IR filter specifically for astrophotography straight from Canon factory.  I recently saw several used on Facebook marketplace for around $250.00 USD. Don't know if those are still out there as anyone who knows these cameras should have picked them up really quick for that price, they usually go for a LOT more.  Wish i could have, that would have been a perfect upgrade from my current modded 60D.

[2manyscopes]

Astrospecifc cameras have always been significantly better than DSLRs.  Until a few years ago, they were also very expensive.  They're now just expensive.

 

Things to consider.

 

DSLRs have a terrestrial filter that blocks hydrogen alpha.  They're not good for imaging emission nebulae unless modified.

 

They have more thermal noise than any cooled astrospecific camera, and it's harder to remove.

 

They tend to be less sensitive.

 

You need a computer to run an astrospecific camera, they're just a chip and an interface.

 

Bottom line.  The ZWO533MC Pro is a nice very modern camera for $799.  It has a somewhat smaller chip, less field of view.  Th ASI2600MC Pro (which I have) is $1499, and has an APS-c sized chip.  Sample image below, click on the mediocre CN thumbnail for the real thing, and full details.

 

Other points.  They make adapters to attach these to Canon lenses.  You don't want to attach one to a telescope using 1.25 tubes, the small size will vignette.

 

Your equipment is not very suitable for Deep Sky imaging, you need a good tracking mount.  Are you talking planetary?  Good cameras for that (you don't need a big chip) are cheap.  The ZWO585MC is an excellent choice, $399.

 

Thank you. I've got tons of equipment. Twenty six scopes of all kinds and sizes & f/ratios half a dozen mounts including a Losmandy G11. I used to be into film astrophotography but lost interest for the most part when digital came along. Computers, in general, annoy me mostly because they are huge time sinks but also because I don't want to spend all my time lugging it and all of the added equipment needed into the field. I'd only be using using it for occasional astro work like comets, solar, lunar. Unless the bug bites again, I probably won't be doing much deep sky imaging like the beautiful image in your post. Thank you again.

[2manyscopes]

Although you can get a new Canon mirrorless (which no longer uses the EOS mount), the EOS mount is so prevalent that there are powered adapters for other mirrorless bodies like Sony, Fuji, and Nikon that allow you to use your autofocus EOS lenses on their bodies. So if there is a body from Nikon, Fuji, or Sony that you may find attractive, you can still use your lenses on them.

 

Not all mirrorless cameras are without viewfinders, many have electronic viewfinders. The newer models are better than older, especially for action photography.

Although yes you can use a DSLR or mirrorless camera for astrophotography, and you may initially want to start this way, you would indeed be better off investing in a separate astro camera for astrophotography.

 

You can indeed get a dedicated astro camera that can slide into the eyepiece of a telescope, but besides possible vignetting depending on sensor size, for serious imaging with these cameras they should be screwed directly to the scope to maintain axial alignment with the optics, which won't occur sliding one into the eyepiece mount. A popular astro camera is one based around the square format Sony IMX533 sensor, such as this one. The use of an off-axis guider (OAG) with it's separate guide camera, is recommended as well for autoguiding. The mount, main imaging camera, and guide camera are all controlled by a laptop or compact computer. You could additionally get a focus motor, also controlled by the computer, for continuous auto focusing through the course of the evening to compensate for temperature and mechanical shifts. The various software available, such as NINA, APT, and Ekos, will control all the equipment, and other programs, such as Siril and PixInsight, will process that data you have captured into the final image you will share.

 

I can imagine that all I've mentioned so far is rather overwhelming for you at the moment, but a little time spent, both here and around the internet, especially on YouTube, will help to you to understand the interrelationship of all these components, and allow you to make proper decisions as to what you want to invest in, and in what gradual manner. You may want to peruse some of the basic astrophotography videos on YouTube to start getting a feel for modern practices.
 

I would suggest getting a newer, more modern but used Canon DSLR body that your EOS lenses can mount directly onto (and still have an optical viewfinder), Which will be more modern and capable than your present 20D, and use that for terrestrial photography, and get a dedicated astro camera for astrophotography. Besides the IMX533 camera mentioned earlier, another astro camera, based around the Sony IMX585 sensor, may be a good first astro camera option. This particular model is quite versatile, in having built-in passive cooling, with an option for active cooling, as well as axial alignment adjustment, and can be used for deep space objects, planetary, lunar, and in a pinch even solar imaging, and is reasonably priced. It's amazing what you can capture with modern cameras, optics, mounts, and software.

I guess technically you can use your existing scopes for imaging, but beside a coma corrector and possible Crayford focuser if your scopes don't have one, you will need a modern equatorial mount that can handle their weight to accurately track and connect to a computer to control camera, mount, and autoguide, among other functions that you will need to get up to speed on. Realistically, you should invest in modern optics, either reflective or refractive. Being as you appear to favor reflectors, you may also want to look into modern Newtonian Astrographs, as they as called, which are small, lightweight, and relatively fast Newts optimized for astrophotography. Modern optics, both for reflective and refractive scopes, have come a long way since your scopes, but I suppose you can use what you have, but you will need a heavy duty mount to handle their weight.

Hope this is more helpful than confusing for you. Welcome to modern astrophotography imaging.

Thank you for the great info and links. I do have a large assortment of scopes and gear so that is not an issue. I'd mostly be doing occasional astro imaging of comets, solar and lunar.

 

It sounds like it would be easier/cheaper to keep my 20D which is better than I need for terrestrial work and look at getting the simplest dedicated astro camera for astronomy. I've got about 1000 more interests than I have time for. Thanks again.

[2manyscopes]

1.  The trend with most DSLRs is to smaller and smaller pixels.

 

For example:

 

20D = 6.42um

M6 =  3.72um

 

2.  But your long focal length Cave OTAs require big pixels, to give sensible pixel scales.

 

That's why for my 1280mm FL I stick with an old modded Canon 6D, which has 6.5um pixels.

 

Quite apart from it's renowned sensitivity and low noise at higher ISO.

 

I expect though that there are newer DSLRs (and astro cameras) out there with large pixels.

 

2.  The Mirrorless cameras are focused by:

 

 Looking at the Live View screen with a Bahtinov Mask on the OTA.

 

Looking at the FWHM with software on a computer.

My Cave reflectors are only really used for visual astronomy but I've got a selection of Schmidt Cassegrains, a Schmidt Newt and a bunch of refractors I can use for imaging. I've also got the appropriate EQ mountings for the scopes. I probably need to spend some time with some modern astrophotographers to get a feel for what might suit my needs best. Sounds like just keeping my 20D for terrestrial use will meet my needs there. A relatively simple but more modern stand alone astro camera will probably suit my needs for astro. Thanks.

[2manyscopes]

FYI, if you do decide to go with the mirrorless look for a used Canon EOS R or Ra camera.  these use the new mirrorless body and the Ra is designed with a modified IR filter specifically for astrophotography straight from Canon factory.  I recently saw several used on Facebook marketplace for around $250.00 USD. Don't know if those are still out there as anyone who knows these cameras should have picked them up really quick for that price, they usually go for a LOT more.  Wish i could have, that would have been a perfect upgrade from my current modded 60D.

Thank you bignerdguy. I'll do that.

[bignerdguy]

Thank you bignerdguy. I'll do that.

Here is the link to the R:

 

https://www.facebook...6c-56935ca9d7d9

 

These cameras retail for more than $1000 so at the price this one is offered, if it is legit should be a quick buy decision.  You just have to be careful on any online purchase you make from anyplace like FB or other resell sites, you never know what you will get into.  If i could afford it, i would consider this one. 

[vidrazor]

 I don't want to spend all my time lugging it and all of the added equipment needed into the field. I'd only be using using it for occasional astro work like comets, solar, lunar.

Working with computers has come a long way and things are quite streamlined. Although you will have an initial learning curve, you will be greatly reward by the ability to track and shoot the comets, lunar and solar targets you primarily desire, and also DSOs if you consider going that route as well. You don't necessarily need to be lugging things around either, as nowadays you can mount compact computers right on the rig, and have their software (and your rig) controlled remotely via WiFi.

 

I probably need to spend some time with some modern astrophotographers to get a feel for what might suit my needs best.

This is a good idea, you may want to attend a local star party or astro meet and discuss these topics with the folks there, and see modern rigs in action.

Edited by vidrazor, 10 May 2024 - 06:01 PM.

[DeepSky Di]

I have an EOS 20D from approx 2004 and also an older film Canon SLR with a 70-300 zoom. I thought I would be able to use the EOS 20D and old zoom for the 2017 total eclipse. What I found: the resolution of the 20D was just too low. I obtained an EOS 80D, and then discovered that the old 70-300 zoom would not focus to infinity on the new camera. Modern lenses have increasing number of stops of image stabilization. For example, 4 stops of image stabilization means if you could hand hold a 1/120 before, now you can hand hold at 1/8th. So keeping old lenses is a goal but doesn't necessarily work in practice.

 

The 80D was how I started AP but it was not astro-modified and I missed out on all the emission nebulae - or as I put it, captured the No-America Nebula, Heartless Nebula, Soulless Nebula and Sadder Region. Getting a dedicated astro camera was a game changer. A new 533MC cooled or 585MC cooled (very new) will cost less than a new DSLR and open up a wide opportunity for emission nebula photography. 

 

If you still want a DSLR, the EOS prosumer range ended with the 90D. The new Canon mirrorless cameras with RF lenses are smaller, lighter and there's a big variety now. As usual with Canon there are pro versions with 2 card slots, prosumer versions with 1 card slot and metal bodies, and consumer versions with plastic bodies. High end models are full frame, but there are also APS-C. I think the R8 is in some ways at the same point in the range as my 80D. The sensor has the same 24MP resolution, but is full-frame. The battery is smaller and takes less shots.

 

Or you could check the classifieds here or resale sites like mpb.com.

 

Here's cameradecision.com's comparison of the 20D versus the R8. This website is very helpful for A/B comparisons if you have two models in mind.

 

https://cameradecisi...vs-Canon-EOS-R8

[DeepSky Di]

Astrospecifc cameras have always been significantly better than DSLRs.  Until a few years ago, they were also very expensive.  They're now just expensive.

 

Things to consider.

 

DSLRs have a terrestrial filter that blocks hydrogen alpha.  They're not good for imaging emission nebulae unless modified.

 

They have more thermal noise than any cooled astrospecific camera, and it's harder to remove.

 

They tend to be less sensitive.

 

You need a computer to run an astrospecific camera, they're just a chip and an interface.

 

Bottom line.  The ZWO533MC Pro is a nice very modern camera for $799.  It has a somewhat smaller chip, less field of view.  Th ASI2600MC Pro (which I have) is $1499, and has an APS-c sized chip.  Sample image below, click on the mediocre CN thumbnail for the real thing, and full details.

 

Other points.  They make adapters to attach these to Canon lenses.  You don't want to attach one to a telescope using 1.25 tubes, the small size will vignette.

 

Your equipment is not very suitable for Deep Sky imaging, you need a good tracking mount.  Are you talking planetary?  Good cameras for that (you don't need a big chip) are cheap.  The ZWO585MC is an excellent choice, $399.

 

There's now a 585MC cooled, with a rectangular sensor instead of the 533's square sensor. It costs a bit less and is the same physical size (teacup rather than coffee mug).

[KLWalsh]

Just my 2 cents worth:

I’ve been using Nikon DSLRs with the Backyard Nikon software running on Win 7 and Win 10 computers. The software is extremely user friendly, does everything I need, and isn’t bogged down with dozens of extra features nor with multiple layers of menus or tabs. It just works.

Recently I acquired a Canon M200 APS-C mirrorless camera. It’s amazingly lightweight, yet it’s a full-featured camera. I found it so nice to use that I bought Backyard EOS for it. Backyard EOS (aka BYE) was the predecessor to Backyard Nikon, and it’s just as user friendly. The only thing I might change is to send the M200 to LifePixel to have it astro-modified for improved H-Alpha response.