Any Astrophotography Disadvantages to modding a DSLR

Newbie question - I am starting my AP journey with a DSLR (Canon D1300). I only need it for AP, so is there any reason I shouldn't at least get LPF2 removed.

andrea tasselli:
There isn't any.

Thanks - that’s what I thought.
No situations where anyone who choose an unmodded camera over a modded one?

I can't think of any. You would still need an IR cut filter somewhere but if you don't go full spectrum mod than this isn't an issue.

Thanks again. I plan to get rear filter removed but keep the front IR/UV cut filter.

The front anti-alias filter does not have enough IR rejection to rely on that alone. The most versatile mod is to replace the stock main IR filter with one designed for astrophotography such as the one by Baader. That way, you have sufficient IR rejection to use any refractive optics, the autofocus is still calibrated for use with lenses, and the camera can be used for normal photography with just a simple custom white balance. Over 99% of the mods I do are of this type.

Hap Griffin

Hap Griffin:
The front anti-alias filter does not have enough IR rejection to rely on that alone

So even without a "Full Spectrum mod" - I would still need some form of additional IR filtering?
To eliminate the focusing issues with UV/IR wavelengths and avoid star bloat?

A "full spectrum" mod has NO IR blocking at all. This is OK if your system uses ONLY mirrors, but ALL refractive systems have inherent chromatic abberation which causes IR light to focus at a different point than visible light and will cause red rings around bright stars because of the out of focus IR. There really is no need for a full spectrum mod unless you want to also do IR photography…all of the normal narrowband wavelengths of interest in astronomy (HA, S2, OIII, etc) fall within the passband of astronomical luminance filters, so you can add narrowband filters to an HA modded camera if that's what you'd like to do.

Hap

By replacing the stock IR filter with one designed for astronomy with its IR rejection knee moved down in the spectrum so that it passes HA, you don't need any additional IR filtering…it's all built into that replacement filter.

Hap

I wrote an article for Sky and Telescope magazine several years ago that explains it all. Hopefully, it will be helpful.

https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-resources/astrophotography-tips/shooting-with-modified-dslr-cameras/

This might be NOT OK for reflective systems as well. For OSC (RGB) imaging you need to be able to cleanly split the RGB channels with no IR leak in any of them, possibly only limited leaking into the R channel but vertainly not any for G/B channels. Worst case scenario you'll never be able to colour balance the shots.

Hap Griffin:
I wrote an article for Sky and Telescope magazine several years ago that explains it all. Hopefully, it will be helpful.

https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-resources/astrophotography-tips/shooting-with-modified-dslr-cameras/

Thanks again - much food for thought.

Hi Petestreet68. I use an unmodified Canon in my imaging as I'm partial to native (terrestrial) camera color sensitivity. I'm definitely in the minority with this. It's a personal choice of course, but I encourage you to compare some of my images to others who are capturing broader spectrum. You'll note my images have less (sometimes no) Ha showing, such as my M33. Blue and teal color come through stronger, such as my Lagoon & North America nebula images.

Kind Regards and CS
Trace

With all the rather cheap (by historical standards) dedicated cooled Astro cameras that are available, I see no reason to bastardize a perfectly good Canon/Nikon. But that’s just me.

Jim Matzger:
With all the rather cheap (by historical standards) dedicated cooled Astro cameras that are available, I see no reason to bastardize a perfectly good Canon/Nikon. But that’s just me.

How much is the modification going to cost?

How much is the modification going to cost?

I”m in the UK - going rate seems to be about £100 to remove the colour filter. Roughly another £100 to fit a custom IR/UV cut.

Jim Matzger:
With all the rather cheap (by historical standards) dedicated cooled Astro cameras that are available, I see no reason to bastardize a perfectly good Canon/Nikon. But that’s just me.

Forgive me but you seem to be suggesting that a self confessed newbie spends £1000 on a dedicated Astro camera.
I have an older DSLR (no Live-View) which I use for non-AP, so bastardizing my alternate DSLR strikes me as sensible at this stage.

Bastardizing DSLR is good, so very gooood…

How much is the modification going to cost?

I”m in the UK - going rate seems to be about £100 to remove the colour filter. Roughly another £100 to fit a custom IR/UV cut.

Fair enough.. a significant saving if you have a dslr knocking about already or can source one very cheaply......

Related discussions