Canon SLR Film cameras are over.....

This reminds me me of the "goto" or not to "goto" debate. Digital cameras are in their infancy, in SLR mode its less then 3 years old, hard to believe they were released only in Aug 2003, so I dont expect technology this new to be 100% superior over an established film technology that is decades old.

Dave - have to pull you up there. But only in terms of definitions

CCD chips (digital) are very advanced - some cost well into six figures. The peak QE of the latest Fairchild CCD is at 95%. Certainly, you can get a CCD sensor that is far more sensitive than film and as big, if not bigger than 35mm.

I guess there are a couple of issues:

1. The latest top end 'amateur' CCD chips (just the chips) will set you back between $8K and $35k. If you want to mosaic them, well, the euromillions may just cover your pet project.
2. The mid-range amateur CCD chips are probably in the $2K to $4K bracket.
3. You still need a body to put them in so that's more cost.

I guess if we are talking just astrophotography and just CCD's, the chips are very advanced. If we're talking DSLR's, I think some may argue. I know there's at least one DSLR into the $10K range that professionals rave about...

Of course, if you're talking snapshots of non-astro stuff (rainbows for example) then you may well be right if your're talking the sub $1K mark DSLR's.

I think in all fairness if we're talking astrophotography, the CCD will always beat the DSLR - though perhaps not in price. If its snapshots, there's pretty much no contest - the DSLR will win out, certainly on prce and capabilities. Unless you fancy sticking a Fairchild back-thinned sensor into the DSLR. But then prepared for it to blow apart when you take a half second snapshot on a bright sunny day

I read a soundbite the other day that said something along the lines of amateurs being able to image what the professions could only dream of 10 years ago - with their big fancy scopes and film plates....

Dave

Dave,
I'm really comparing DSLR cameras with 35mm film cameras here, "proper" CCD cameras are in a different league and are not what I'm talking about. If you want to get wide angle constellation/milkyway images you are much more likely to use a D/SLR rather then a dedicated astro CCD, so CCD cameras are not always the obvious selection for astrophotography.

In terms of "cheap" CMOS sensors, they have come on lot in recent years. The differance betwen the cheapest and dearest DSLR cameras are an increase in CMOS sensor size and alot of features which are of no real use to astrophotography (with the exception of the canon 20Da which has a few nifty tricks).

Yeah there is the problem in that some photos mightn't come out, but that doesn't happen to me much anymore.

If you're talking about rainbows or any daytime event, then I would agree, but I've yet to see a high power image of M42 or any other deepsky object using a film camera that remotely compares to the run of the mill DSLR images that are regularly put up on this site, why is this so?, I guess because it's much harder to get such an image using film, why live with the pain?