Modified 300D versus CCD cameras for DSO imaging

Hi,

I am interested to hear peoples thoughts on a buying and modifying a Canon 300D versus buying a CCD camera like the Meade DSI Pro II or Atik 16 IC-C for DSO imaging.

I am planing to buy in the US a Meade LPI or DSI for guiding and either a 300D or CCD camera for imaging. My budget is around $800-1000 including guide camera.

My preference is for the 300D but that is due to familiarity with it and having a lot of spares for it.

What is peoples preferences between them and which is better for DSO imaging?

Thanks
Darragh

Darragh,

I recently picked up a second-hand 400d body for 400euro. You'll probably get a second-hand 300d body for less. I'm sure you could get a second-hand DSI for a couple of hundred max as well. That would get you up and running well within your budget. If you want to mod the dslr camera, this can be done later if required.

the great advantage of the dslrs is the size of the chip. They are absolutely massive when compared to a ccd camera.

What scope do you plan to combine this to?
What mount have you got? Can it take an autoguider?

I thought for a long time about what route i should go down, CCD or DSLR. I have never owned a dslr at all so I cant comment on the real practicalities of them in detail. This is just the reason I chose for my decision

With a DSLR you usually have a larger chip then such CCDs as the dsi and Atic. This will result in wider angle shots then a ccd. You dont need to have a pc hooked up to it so that means less power is required in the field and less things can go wrong.

But once modified to all practical purposes you will not be able to use it for ordinary terestrial photography anymore unless you intend to spend another lump of money getting a special filter made for it to cut out the uv and infrared. Thus you will be ruining a great camera. I underestand the modification is quite challenging and if you get it wrong you will have a useless lump of expensive spare parts.

DSLRs can be heavier then a ccd thus balancing of the scope becomes more of an issue.

DSLR is generally not as sensitive as a CCD chip and will have more noise being primarily designed for terestrial work. They are not cooled that will mean more calibration frames. I understand that focus is trickier as you only have the image off of the back of the lcd display instead of on the pc monitor. (Though I think there is software around which lelps this).

Only thing with a ccd is you have to get a laptop if you dont already have one so this is a cost. So for these reasons it suited me and my set up to get a ccd. May not be the same for you though.

Hope this helps

DB

Darragh,

I'll second what Dave B and Michael said. What scope do you plan to use this with as this will help you determine your choice. For pure value for money, the DSLR is hard to beat. However the sensitivity of a cooled CCD is also a big plus. If this is your first foray i'd be leaning toward the dslr. However the ATIK 16IC and the Meade DSI's do seem good value (albeit with a smaller chip).

I suppose I can put it another way which might make it clearer. Take M42 and assume a standard 80mm refractor. With a dsi or 16ic you'll just get the middle portion around the trapezium, with a dslr you'll get the whole 9 yards, M42/43, running man etc. Field of view is a big issue and one you should think of seriously.

I understand that focus is trickier as you only have the image off of the back of the lcd display instead of on the pc monitor. (Though I think there is software around which lelps this).

Yes DeeBee your right, most good capture packages have a focus conponent. Maxim DSLR, and DSLR Focus are the ones I've used.

Do they cost money though?