Full Frame camera, worth it?

Hi all,

I want to know if getting a full frame camera without having a well-designed or corrected scope for it is a good idea or the camera will be worth it then or not.

Most likely i can't afford the camera, it is not the only thing i will put all my money on it after all, so if one day i saved for a full frame cooled camera i won't afford any scope perfect for it, so then what the camera can do without issues, also not talking about filters or guiding or whatever, most likely i will think about a color full frame so i can only use one 2" filter.

Also as in another topic but in a different manner, what will be a nice telescope for a full frame camera that is cheap, and cheap i mean less or up to $2k maximum.

I have APS-C cameras, also i have Canon DSLR lenses that i use with full frame DSLR or mirrorless, i also have the old film medium/large format lenses, i also have a digital medium format cameras and 3 lenses with it so those lenses must be corrected for BIG IC then, but how good they are for astro and FOV and also how to find adapters for connections, so telescopes remain better choice if possible to afford.

Full frame cameras tend to be pricey, but are great tools used with the right gear. If your goal is to do DSO astrophotography, you will need a number of components. That will include at least

Good Goto/Tracking mount
Reasonable refractor scope
Astro camera
Guide scope and camera
Computer or similar device to manage the AP process
A lot of patience for learning curve, which can be lengthy

Good mounts are easily in the 1-2K range. Basic refractors in the 500-1000 range. Astro cameras are in the 500-1500 range. Guide scope and camera starts at about 250. Computer device at 300 and up.

The old line about “crawl before you walk, and walk before you run” comes to mind.

Ed Dixon:
Full frame cameras tend to be pricey, but are great tools used with the right gear. If your goal is to do DSO astrophotography, you will need a number of components. That will include at least

Good Goto/Tracking mount
Reasonable refractor scope
Astro camera
Guide scope and camera
Computer or similar device to manage the AP process
A lot of patience for learning curve, which can be lengthy

Good mounts are easily in the 1-2K range. Basic refractors in the 500-1000 range. Astro cameras are in the 500-1500 range. Guide scope and camera starts at about 250. Computer device at 300 and up.

The old line about “crawl before you walk, and walk before you run” comes to mind.

Thank you

I understand all these, and i already have a mount and astro cameras and scopes, i just ask if one day in future i plan to get a full frame camera then i don't know if i can have a better scope for it rather than what i already have, so i don't want to regret buying it or it will be a waste.

Computer is an issue, but i will never give up because of it, i won't do like many doing with the latest fastest strongest computer setup buying, but i will try to start building one by the time hopefully i can have one good for processing for long term, i don't need a computer to stack and process for me in 1-5 seconds if i have to spend $$$$$$, but something that can do it in couple minutes or even an hour i won't complain.

Personally I think APS-C is plenty big enough for DSO imaging. I wouldn't be interested in getting a full frame camera myself. Not only the expense, but also the file sizes. You can always make mosaics of larger targets.

A large (and I mean really large) with longish focal length (obviously) might require a FF camera but the angular field covered is still reasonable. It is when you try to couple small scopes with large cameras that things start to fall apart. SO far I haven't seen a single lens or refractor that can cope well with a FF with 3.75um pixels, even expensive ones. The only ones I know of that can pull the feat, and not without a LOT of sweating, are the Takahashi astrographs (Epsilon series and the CCA) and they do require a lot of money. So my take is, don't unless you fall in the aforementioned two categories.

Stuart Taylor:
Personally I think APS-C is plenty big enough for DSO imaging. I wouldn't be interested in getting a full frame camera myself. Not only the expense, but also the file sizes. You can always make mosaics of larger targets.

I am not worry about mosaic at all as i have enough scopes [and lenses] to cover larger targets in single frame, i only was thinking about a full frame from the quality perspective, like what it can give beside the FOV that another cameras say APS-C [IMX571] can't give, if nothing much then it is not worthy, so i have to decide between a first color cooled camera or third IMX571 [could be my second either a color or a mono].

andrea tasselli:
A large (and I mean really large) with longish focal length (obviously) might require a FF camera but the angular field covered is still reasonable. It is when you try to couple small scopes with large cameras that things start to fall apart. SO far I haven't seen a single lens or refractor that can cope well with a FF with 3.75um pixels, even expensive ones. The only ones I know of that can pull the feat, and not without a LOT of sweating, are the Takahashi astrographs (Epsilon series and the CCA) and they do require a lot of money. So my take is, don't unless you fall in the aforementioned two categories.

The simple short answer from you is ... NO

Thank you

Hi Tareq,

I disagree to most of the points written above. I am using FF on a PWI CDK14 and TEC 140. So talking from experience and not theory.

Both of my scopes can handle FF in a reasonable way even with a reducer. They are (theoretically) even serving middle format. Also you do not need a mount with high pointing accuracy. Vice versa! FF allows you to have poor pointing accuracy, since you can plate solve a much wieder area. Also the other points are not correlated to sensor size.

But now coming to the real problems:
You need extremely good equipment since any flexion will cause a sensor tilt. E.g. the focuser. You need very stiff ones. Also sensor tilt itself is getting a big deal with FF. I have refused to use tilt corrector for a long time, but it is inevitable on reduced and fast scopes. Even on very good equipment.

Conclusion:
If you want to benefit from a FF sensor and keep all your hairs and good mood, you have to invest a lot more money than your given budget. I would recommend to stay on a smaller sensor in this equipment class.

CS
Ruediger

Ruediger:
Hi Tareq,

I disagree to most of the points written above. I am using FF on a PWI CDK14 and TEC 140. So talking from experience and not theory.

Both of my scopes can handle FF in a reasonable way even with a reducer. They are (theoretically) even serving middle format. Also you do not need a mount with high pointing accuracy. Vice versa! FF allows you to have poor pointing accuracy, since you can plate solve a much wieder area. Also the other points are not correlated to sensor size.

But now coming to the real problems:
You need extremely good equipment since any flexion will cause a sensor tilt. E.g. the focuser. You need very stiff ones. Also sensor tilt itself is getting a big deal with FF. I have refused to use tilt corrector for a long time, but it is inevitable on reduced and fast scopes. Even on very good equipment.

Conclusion:
If you want to benefit from a FF sensor and keep all your hairs and good mood, you have to invest a lot more money than your given budget. I would recommend to stay on a smaller sensor in this equipment class.

CS
Ruediger

Also, your short simple answer is .... NO

Thank you very much

Full Frame is way too expensive way to go… especially if you stuggle with funds….
Just check the pictures, majority use APS-C and pics are amazing… And even if people do Astro pics using lens (not telescope) APS-C is enough.

If Astro prices do look Astronomical for you, just check pics done via Samyang 135mm lens and any APS-C camera.
it is probably one of the cheapest options with AMAZING pictures

Full Frame is way too expensive way to go... especially if you stuggle with funds....
Just check the pictures, majority use APS-C and pics are amazing... And even if people do Astro pics using lens (not telescope) APS-C is enough.

If Astro prices do look Astronomical for you, just check pics done via Samyang 135mm lens and any APS-C camera.
it is probably one of the cheapest options with AMAZING pictures

Yes i know that, it is just i am curious about why going so expensive path even if having so much money, so if i have $10k for a camera and scope then i can do it, if i have less than $5k then a full frame is not a good idea, so it is about cost then, but even if cost isn't an issue why anyone will go with so expensive everything [camera, scope, filters, mount] if something cheaper is enough and capable!!!

I still not planning on a full frame, but i want to see comments and opinions before i decide anything, in photography i am happy with a full frame no doubt because it is different story, but in astro i want to know what is that a full frame can do/give beside wider FOV which a small sensor can't even APS-C, i have two APS-C cameras and definitely happy with them, and now for next years i am thinking about a third APS-C or a full frame, so i need to know more what i gain or lose/waste by going with any.

It really depends what you are photographing, and what you are trying to achieve. If you have limited time and need to image a large area, mosaics can be frustrating. If imaging a transient object such as a comet, this is even more true. As with daytime photography, you can always crop a FF image (this would only provide a benefit if the OTA can cover more than APS-C with decent star images, however). There is no advantage on a per-pixel basis, all other factors being equal, but if you have enough pixels on a FF sensor and bin 2x2, you end up with greater full well depth and greater tolerance of optical abberations. If you aren't really interested in pixel-level quality and will be looking at the whole image (e.g. displaying it on a sceen or printing it at a certain fixed size), increasing sensor area improves the overall image quality. However, vignetting is more of a problem with larger sensors, and although you can compensate with flat field calibration, the signal to noise ratio is reduced. If you have access to a FF camera, your own testing will reveal whether it's suitable for your OTA.

My take is a bit different. Sure, you will need better optics and that has been discussed above. What has not been is how you are going to display these images.

1) 95% of the images viewed for 95% of the people are images viewed on average to medium large monitors (and don't get me started on cell phones :emoji

2) Monitors are probably not used in optimal conditions and probably not calibrated.
3) For the most part images are viewed full frame and not zoomed in to anything close to 1:1 (except for fellow pixel-peeping imagers :happy-2

So a smaller chip with a shorter focal length will probably look as good to most people as a longer focal length and bigger chip and be a whole lot cheaper (or you can put your money toward smaller but better or faster optics).

Clearly not the only consideration since there are many, many others (sky conditions, mount, skill level, targets….., the list is long).

Then there is the time to process the images - full frame takes longer (and don't get me started on medium format - that is plain crazy, IMHO).

What do I have? I have three 571 based cameras and one 455 based full frame. The latter sits on my FSQ 106 and is just barely OK optically.

I use a full-frame with for example a Spacecat 51. This is only 250mm focal length, but you can take great images with it. Larger scopes will be more expensive, but with a setup like this you can do a lot with a fullframe.

It really depends what you are photographing, and what you are trying to achieve. If you have limited time and need to image a large area, mosaics can be frustrating. If imaging a transient object such as a comet, this is even more true. As with daytime photography, you can always crop a FF image (this would only provide a benefit if the OTA can cover more than APS-C with decent star images, however). There is no advantage on a per-pixel basis, all other factors being equal, but if you have enough pixels on a FF sensor and bin 2x2, you end up with greater full well depth and greater tolerance of optical abberations. If you aren't really interested in pixel-level quality and will be looking at the whole image (e.g. displaying it on a sceen or printing it at a certain fixed size), increasing sensor area improves the overall image quality. However, vignetting is more of a problem with larger sensors, and although you can compensate with flat field calibration, the signal to noise ratio is reduced. If you have access to a FF camera, your own testing will reveal whether it's suitable for your OTA.

True that.

I do have full frame cameras for daytime only not astro modded or dedicated, and i never bother to try them for astro anyway, i started with 4/3" cooled and i kept upgrading but not yet to astro cooled full frame, i can't just buy one to test it and see, this is not possible.

It sounds that if i really will go the full frame route then i have to do many changes or upgrades, that will cost me even more than what i already spent so far until now, so from posts and comments it sounds it is not worth it to go with full frame then.

Thank you

Bill McLaughlin:
My take is a bit different. Sure, you will need better optics and that has been discussed above. What has not been is how you are going to display these images.

1) 95% of the images viewed for 95% of the people are images viewed on average to medium large monitors (and don't get me started on cell phones )
2) Monitors are probably not used in optimal conditions and probably not calibrated.
3) For the most part images are viewed full frame and not zoomed in to anything close to 1:1 (except for fellow pixel-peeping imagers )

So a smaller chip with a shorter focal length will probably look as good to most people as a longer focal length and bigger chip and be a whole lot cheaper (or you can put your money toward smaller but better or faster optics).

Clearly not the only consideration since there are many, many others (sky conditions, mount, skill level, targets....., the list is long).

Then there is the time to process the images - full frame takes longer (and don't get me started on medium format - that is plain crazy, IMHO).

What do I have? I have three 571 based cameras and one 455 based full frame. The latter sits on my FSQ 106 and is just barely OK optically.

From your last line, this is what bothering me [and feel jealous too

], that people have several cameras including full frame, and i know few others who replaced their smaller sensors even APS-C to a full frame in astro, so i feel that either they are lucky enough to have best gear for that, or they have skills and know what to do, or mostly show off as they want to be like others with high end gear.

I am not good at astro so i won't just jump to a full frame yet, not with my current budget, even in future if i feel like i am good enough with my current gear then no need to do like others, and there are always some factors that change our plans, for example i saw a new scope being out that is exactly what i am looking for, and for this i should just go with third IMX571 camera, if i do that then i don't think i really need a full frame later, i even can have 4 APS-C [IMX571] before i can afford a full frame, and then i can do that multiple Array setup, with less headache or issues i can face with full frame.

Tareq Abdulla:
From your last line, this is what bothering me [and feel jealous too ]

To further clarify if it helps:

ZWO 455 full frame on FSQ 106 (focal length 530 mm) in my backyard roll-off
ZWO 571 on AG Optical 10 inch iDK (focal length 1674 mm) in my backyard roll-off

ZWO 571 on Stellarvue SVQ 100 (focal length 580 mm) at a remote dark site
Moravian 571 on 14 inch CDK (focal length 2563 mm) at a remote dark site

Some folks would have put a full frame on the CDK but it is remote (hence the Moravian since it has a shutter and is higher quality) but remotely one also has to think about downloading images over the net and full frame is not great for that. Most of the objects for the CDK fit on a 571 anyway.

I have a DSO scope that is 2350mm (EDGEHD 925). That focal length measurement assumes full-frame.

When I shoot ASPC, it's 1.6 times that, or an apparent 3760mm. Then I have to crop out the incomplete dithered edges. That loses 10% more…so I'm at an apparent 4136mm… a bit tight for some medium-sized DSO targets.

I'd like the FF version just to have a little more space around my targets after cropping. A FF camera is better than adding more glass to the APSC (reducer) because it preserves the camera and optics' native resolution. But you sure do have to pay a premium.

Tareq Abdulla:
Also as in another topic but in a different manner, what will be a nice telescope for a full frame camera that is cheap, and cheap i mean less or up to $2k maximum.

I will give my opinion on what is the best telescope under $2k (my opinion is based on the telescope that is easiest to use and up to full frame compatible):

===> an Askar FRA500 ($2k)

If you throw in the extra $500, you can get a 107PHQ which is a "dream scope" for me. Corner to corner, very tight, round stars. It will also do better for smaller objects.

And of course the cheaper wider-field FF options are:
1. Redcat 51
2. 61PHQ ($1k)
3. Askar FRA300 ($949) or FRA400 ($1.2k)

And these are all Petzvel optical designs, meaning, unless you add the reducer, you don't have to mess with backfocus. And you don't need a flattener, it always gives a flat field.

Bill McLaughlin:
Tareq Abdulla:
From your last line, this is what bothering me [and feel jealous too ]

To further clarify if it helps:

ZWO 455 full frame on FSQ 106 (focal length 530 mm) in my backyard roll-off
ZWO 571 on AG Optical 10 inch iDK (focal length 1674 mm) in my backyard roll-off

ZWO 571 on Stellarvue SVQ 100 (focal length 580 mm) at a remote dark site
Moravian 571 on 14 inch CDK (focal length 2563 mm) at a remote dark site

Some folks would have put a full frame on the CDK but it is remote (hence the Moravian since it has a shutter and is higher quality) but remotely one also has to think about downloading images over the net and full frame is not great for that. Most of the objects for the CDK fit on a 571 anyway.

No comment

Dave Rust:
I have a DSO scope that is 2350mm (EDGEHD 925). That focal length measurement assumes full-frame.

When I shoot ASPC, it's 1.6 times that, or an apparent 3760mm. Then I have to crop out the incomplete dithered edges. That loses 10% more...so I'm at an apparent 4136mm... a bit tight for some medium-sized DSO targets.

I'd like the FF version just to have a little more space around my targets after cropping. A FF camera is better than adding more glass to the APSC (reducer) because it preserves the camera and optics' native resolution. But you sure do have to pay a premium.

Paying a premium is the only or main problem here, so i go with more, or as people said "Quantity vs. Quality", i can't afford quality so then i go with quantity.

Well, i understand your point if that is the only scope you have or use, but i have many scopes, i am not forced to only use the largest or longest FL i have, i bought RC10, and for this i definitely use it for smaller targets such as distant galaxies and PNs, and for that even APS-C is big sensor camera, but i am flexible so i can go with smaller sensors too, i just don't know if adding a full frame which things will change in my setup anyway, and as you said, i am not willing to buy new bigger filters and better flattener/corrector/reducer to match a full frame now or anytime, i better think wisely if it is worth it, and i live under Bortle 8/9.

Tareq Abdulla:
Also as in another topic but in a different manner, what will be a nice telescope for a full frame camera that is cheap, and cheap i mean less or up to $2k maximum.

I will give my opinion on what is the best telescope under $2k (my opinion is based on the telescope that is easiest to use and up to full frame compatible):

===> an Askar FRA500 ($2k)

If you throw in the extra $500, you can get a 107PHQ which is a "dream scope" for me. Corner to corner, very tight, round stars. It will also do better for smaller objects.

And of course the cheaper wider-field FF options are:
1. Redcat 51
2. 61PHQ ($1k)
3. Askar FRA300 ($949) or FRA400 ($1.2k)

And these are all Petzvel optical designs, meaning, unless you add the reducer, you don't have to mess with backfocus. And you don't need a flattener, it always gives a flat field.

I have Askar FRA400 already, and yes, i am using it now without a reducer although i have the reducer, so this one is great with a full frame then.

I have my eye on the new Askar scope, 103mm APO, because they have flattener and reducers for it which i can use to match my two 90mm triplets with a reducer and use same camera, i still make my plan on APS-C cameras, i just ask about a full frame so i know what i should do or buy later if i have to, to be ready i mean rather than buy and regret or spend more a lot without much benefit.

If i buy a full frame then i will make sure the scope i should buy is matching the FOV of my 90mm F/6 + 0.8x reducer + IMX571 sensor, but honestly speaking, two 90s and one IMX571 cost me almost same as a full frame camera, that is why i didn't go with a full frame if i saved in the past, but next year i won't have much gear to add so i can save, but i still question if i should add a full frame with its all requirements while i am not good budget person and wait longer to complete the setup or just stay maximum with APS-C, in another point i still have DSLR/ML full frame, but they are not astro modified so i won't bother using them anyway, not under my LP B8/9 and high heat or humidity weather.

Anything above APS-C is not worth it. Unless you have plenty enough money to spend in equipment that can go above 130mm in aperture (in case of refractors, but I think reflectors are something like around that), but remember as high as you go, the margin for errors are tighter and tighter.

Tareq Abdulla:
Hi all,

I want to know if getting a full frame camera without having a well-designed or corrected scope for it is a good idea or the camera will be worth it then or not.

Most likely i can't afford the camera, it is not the only thing i will put all my money on it after all, so if one day i saved for a full frame cooled camera i won't afford any scope perfect for it, so then what the camera can do without issues, also not talking about filters or guiding or whatever, most likely i will think about a color full frame so i can only use one 2" filter.

Also as in another topic but in a different manner, what will be a nice telescope for a full frame camera that is cheap, and cheap i mean less or up to $2k maximum.

I have APS-C cameras, also i have Canon DSLR lenses that i use with full frame DSLR or mirrorless, i also have the old film medium/large format lenses, i also have a digital medium format cameras and 3 lenses with it so those lenses must be corrected for BIG IC then, but how good they are for astro and FOV and also how to find adapters for connections, so telescopes remain better choice if possible to afford.

***
I learned the hard way that 2" filters do not work with my QHY600. I had to sell and replace my 2" Chroma's with 50mm unmounted. Light reflected off the rings. Unless you buy top end telescopes, your stars will be absolutely horrible looking. I don't recommend going full frame if you care about how stars look.

My 2 cents…….I combined a WO RedCat 71 and a ZWO ASI 2400MC-Pro. That combo gave me a nice wide field with outstanding sharpness. My take……FF cameras work great if you are trying for wide field images.

Patrick

Is a full frame camera worth it?

Related discussions