Terry,
My only experience has been with a Canon T3i, and I was able to get good
exposures with a 5" refractor and a small Orion autoguider, interfaced to a
laptop.
But you should also consider stacking video frames. It's cheap, easy, and
gives absolutely stunning results at minimum cost, and you'll have more
hair left afterwards too. The new astronomical USB video cameras are great
and easy to use. My friend Ed Ting has done a comparison of photos with a
3" Meade ETX (a few hundred $) and a 3" Questar (a few thousand $) using
stacked video frames. See if you can tell the difference here
<https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10211952491785247&set=a.10211952442144006.1073741878.1160893664&type=3&theater>.
This is so easy to do, Ed usually is recording video during public
skywatches while he shows people lunar craters on the monitor screen. Then
he goes home and comes up with those kind of pictures from the videos.
If you are going to start with still cameras, I would suggest starting with
a Canon DSLR. There is free software called Backyard EOS which will talk
to the camera and let you control your exposures (length and number) from
the laptop. This is very useful.
I can't emphasize enough (as others have done) that your experience will
make much more difference than your equipment. You should not even think
about investing in expensive, cooled cameras until you have satisfied
yourself that your procedures, processes and workflow are well understood
and have become second nature. You should also start simple so that you
will be able to isolate and fix problems as they occur.
Start with a 3" or 4" refractor, not a long focal length SCT.
Software to process your pictures is just as important. It will take you a
long time to get good at it.
And most importantly, your mount stability, carrying capacity and alignment
will make much more of a difference in your chances of success than your
camera.
AP (astrophotography) is like a completely new hobby. I am 11 years into
amateur astronomy and have only tried it once. You must build on a sturdy
foundation of experience to avoid frustration.
Ted
On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Terry Dancer <tmranger86@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I would probably prefer something color as well. That way I don't have to
buy a filter wheel and filters.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 11, 2017, at 9:55 AM, schwim@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:go quite far with it. However, I found it tedious to constantly deal with
It depends on what you're after. I started with a DSLR and was able to
temperature variation from session to session. This meant I wanted
something that could be cooled to a set point, which would reduce noise
substantially and allow for the creation of dark and bias frame libraries.
on mono so I could go for narrowband data as well as RGB. Yes, you can get
Next in my decision tree we to go with a color or mono camera. I decided
narrowband data with a color camera but it is far less efficient. Also,
color cameras are generally less sensitive and efficient because of the
fixed Bayer matrix on the sensor.
that are good for DSO are not necessarily very good for planetary and vice
Next you need to decide the type of objects you wish to image. Cameras
versa. There is some compromise to be had if you choose well, but it may
leave you wanting for more. Not sure, haven't owned one.
written about these subjects and it gets quite complicated.
From there you're left with sensor and pixel size. There has been much
relatively inexpensive these days and have been a solid workhorse for many
To throw a general starter out for you, the KAF-8300 sensors are
imagers. The newer CMOS cameras coming out are competing with this sensor
and I'd look to those as an option as well. The ZWO ASI1600 for example is
worth considering. I have a KAF-16200 sensor and am very happy with it, but
it's not inexpensive.
Hope this helps....
Greg
