After seeing a lot of discussion regarding the R7 and banding, I was considering changing my R7 to an R6. I realize the R5 is a great camera but it's a bit of a reach with budget.
Is the R6 a good performing camera for DSO?
Is the R6 a good performing camera for DSO?
Well Written Engaging
What kind of astronomical work are you looking to do? Deep sky? Astrolandscape?
Also - why are you looking at a mirrorless camera for this and not an astro cam? Do you intend to use the same camera for general photography?
The R6 should be perfectly fine for general astro landscapes that you wish to take secondary to general landscape photos. But most people that do dedicated or serious astro-landscape work with generally remove the IR filter to admit larger amounts of H-alpha radiation. This will make it much less useful for daytime work.
For deep sky work, a dedicated astronomy camera like the 2600 MC Pro (if you're looking for a one shot color) will be far superior, both the quality of the sensor and the cooling which will allow for consistent calibration which is hard to do with ANY uncooled camera.
Also - why are you looking at a mirrorless camera for this and not an astro cam? Do you intend to use the same camera for general photography?
The R6 should be perfectly fine for general astro landscapes that you wish to take secondary to general landscape photos. But most people that do dedicated or serious astro-landscape work with generally remove the IR filter to admit larger amounts of H-alpha radiation. This will make it much less useful for daytime work.
For deep sky work, a dedicated astronomy camera like the 2600 MC Pro (if you're looking for a one shot color) will be far superior, both the quality of the sensor and the cooling which will allow for consistent calibration which is hard to do with ANY uncooled camera.
Helpful
Hi, thanks for your reply.
This is my first foray into astrophotohpy as a serious hobby however I want to
1: use existing equipment that I have to keep costs low at first
2: keep it super portable for now, without the need to bring along power since I live in an apartment in a city and will need to drive out each time
I have a startracker GTI on the way, and my plan was to use it with my existing canon camera and sigma 100-400mm lens
If this is something I find I want to get really deep into then I'd look into more dedicated hardware for sure
However in the meantime I would like a camera that is mixed use fully understanding that there will be a compromise in overall results
jack_miller · Dec 22, 2025 at 01:17 PM
After seeing a lot of discussion regarding the R7 and banding, I was considering changing my R7 to an R6. I realize the R5 is a great camera but it's a bit of a reach with budget.
Is the R6 a good performing camera for DSO?
A stock EOS R6 retails at about $2K (USD). As @Arun H said, you will probably want to get it astro-modded to increase its effectiveness. An astro-mod R6 body goes for about $3K (USD). Neither versions of the camera are cooled, which isn’t a deal breaker, but it is something you would have to deal with.
The cost is the real sticking point for me, since there a number of astrophotography camera makers that make cooled cameras for under that price that are very capable—including budget models from ToupTek, Player One, ZWO, QHY, and SVBony. Even the ZWO 2600 MC Pro retails under the cost of the R6.
The R6 is a fine camera, but its price point would give me pause, if I was in your scenario.
Well Written Helpful Insightful Engaging
I started with a stock DLSR, Lumix G7 so I get where you’re coming from. Despite the limitations, it’s a simple setup and can give fun results if you have access to fairly dark skies, B4 or better. Since you’re getting the star tracker I would stick with the camera and lenses you have. That will get you into the processing side which in which there is a ton to learn. After you’ve worked this way for awhile you’ll better understand the upgrade path.
Helpful Concise Supportive
Jack I have used Canon cameras for DSO work. This is an example with the 5D Mark IV:
https://astrob.in/382627/
and with the 7D Mark II:
https://astrob.in/hw7dls/D/
With my 5D Mark IV, the original copy had banding; Canon replaced the sensor as a goodwill gesture, making it clear that it was not a warranty repair but purely goodwill.
The 7D Mark II was pretty clean.
The point here is that there may be variation copy to copy and I just don't know that there is enough of a user base of Canon R6 users doing astro work for you to get a definitive opinion. In contrast, sensors like the IMX 571 are very well understood for astro work due to the substantial user base. The problem is that Canon is not really designing these sensors with astro work in mind, and whatever optimizations and variations they have, while fine for their intended purpose, may not be ideal for astro work.
The main problem you run into is that banding, which is pattern noise, is very hard to remove without highly repeatable dark frame subtraction; with a non temperature controlled sensor, it is virtually impossible to get good dark frame repeatability. And because the signal you are trying to extract is often below the noise floor of a single frame, this non repeatability, both during capture and calibration, will be highly objectionable.
My suggestion to you is this. If you already own a Canon camera, use it with your existing lenses. It is well possible that there may not be objectionable banding or that what banding there is can be corrected by tools such as Canon banding Reduction in PixInsight. If you find that you like the hobby, then upgrade directly to an astro cam. I would not recommend the purchase of a separate Canon camera for astro work in a quest for a banding free Canon camera. Also note that, other than banding, there is a lot more learning to be done. Your intention to use a 100-400 mm zoom for example. Zoom lenses can be tricky. If you get zoom creep, flat frame calibration will become impossible and there is nothing worse than a flat that is mismatched to your lights.
https://astrob.in/382627/
and with the 7D Mark II:
https://astrob.in/hw7dls/D/
With my 5D Mark IV, the original copy had banding; Canon replaced the sensor as a goodwill gesture, making it clear that it was not a warranty repair but purely goodwill.
The 7D Mark II was pretty clean.
The point here is that there may be variation copy to copy and I just don't know that there is enough of a user base of Canon R6 users doing astro work for you to get a definitive opinion. In contrast, sensors like the IMX 571 are very well understood for astro work due to the substantial user base. The problem is that Canon is not really designing these sensors with astro work in mind, and whatever optimizations and variations they have, while fine for their intended purpose, may not be ideal for astro work.
The main problem you run into is that banding, which is pattern noise, is very hard to remove without highly repeatable dark frame subtraction; with a non temperature controlled sensor, it is virtually impossible to get good dark frame repeatability. And because the signal you are trying to extract is often below the noise floor of a single frame, this non repeatability, both during capture and calibration, will be highly objectionable.
My suggestion to you is this. If you already own a Canon camera, use it with your existing lenses. It is well possible that there may not be objectionable banding or that what banding there is can be corrected by tools such as Canon banding Reduction in PixInsight. If you find that you like the hobby, then upgrade directly to an astro cam. I would not recommend the purchase of a separate Canon camera for astro work in a quest for a banding free Canon camera. Also note that, other than banding, there is a lot more learning to be done. Your intention to use a 100-400 mm zoom for example. Zoom lenses can be tricky. If you get zoom creep, flat frame calibration will become impossible and there is nothing worse than a flat that is mismatched to your lights.
Helpful Insightful
I used a DLSR for a very short time, it worked OK, but
I had to limit exposure times to around 60 seconds as it was not cooled and thermal noise was crazy
Honestly it because more of a pain than I wanted. The weight and size was wieldy, and no mid/beginner gear will cover a full frame sensor, so I had to crop every image. Honestly most beginner/mid level gear doesn’t do crop sensor well either, but it is much closer. And calibration can help that.
I was/still am, using an asiair and the transfer of the image from the camera to the device seemed slow, this made livestacking and autofocus a longer and questionable process.
The requirement to perfectly nail my calibration frames was a drag. I am kind of lazy and DSLR will require good calibration frames, where as new astro camera you can get a way with some more laziness,
Getting filters in-line to deal with lipo, or doing nebula imaging turned into more money, and for me it was wasted money, I have 2 snap in filters for my DSLR that I regret purchasing, and would have come close to covering a good portion of a starter dedicated camera.
499$ for the ASI585MC Pro would be a worthy investment, will be easier to use and give you better images. I know that’s not what you want to hear,
There is a Caviat, if you are not using a telescope and just want to use your existing DSLR lenses, but that is going to end up being pretty wide, and your message makes we think you were looking at DSO.
I saw the suggestion on getting a star tracker, which is a worthy suggestion, if you know the night sky and if you can see enough of your sky to learn to navigate your camera around manually. I personally dont know the sky well enough and cant visually see much in my bortle 7 location, so the need for platesolving, goto was a big deal for me.
I have a MoveShootMove that has never been successfully used, as I can never seem find the object I am looking for, You have to realize that a 50mm lens on a full frame camera is an enormous patch of sky, and you could actually image with 10 second exposures with no tracking device at all, but it will just be star fields mostly. I feel like star trackers might be good for milkyway, but the effort to use them for DSO feels like you are setting yourself up for frustration and lots of work.
If you are just starting with astrophotography, then use what you already have. If it’s the R7, then use it.
If you plan to do stacking, use bias and dark frames and it should be fine.
With a non modded camera focus on bright targets, which makes it easier to process.
If you want to continue with this hobby, buy a used astro camera and a small scope gather some experience :)
Helpful Supportive
Hi all, thanks for all your input.
All of your advice is greatly appreciated
I'll stick with the R7, shoot tracked shots and see how it goes! I've practiced some processing with online raw files with siril in the meantime.
I was trying to have a camera that could kind of do landscape but also astro all reasonably well rather than excelling in any one thing to which I'm fine with compromises.
I didn't even know about zoom creep!
jack_miller · Dec 22, 2025, 01:17 PM
After seeing a lot of discussion regarding the R7 and banding, I was considering changing my R7 to an R6. I realize the R5 is a great camera but it's a bit of a reach with budget.
Is the R6 a good performing camera for DSO?
When beginning, I used my DSLR for trying some Astro imaging. And it was a fallback camera for other things like comet shooting. I was using my Tamron 150-600 mm zoom lens.
But I quickly decided that for me I would need a dedicated astro camera. I didn’t want to put up with the time delay for settling after the mechanism flipped for the exposure and the other necessary quirks of using a DSLR for Astrophotography.
Just like other subjects call for different equipment’s (lenses and such) I think Astro imaging calls for its particulars. So, I’m of the opinion a dedicated Astro camera would be a better consideration. And they can come cooled, electronic rolling shutterless, ready for exactly what you want to pursue.
But it’s your money. 😉
I didn't even know about zoom creep!
I didn't either, until a bad experience with my 70-200 f/2.8L II. Zoom lenses have internal glass elements that move to achieve different overall image scales on the sensor. If, during imaging, you shift the zoom slightly, or the vertical orientation of the lens causes shift, or there is even a slight difference between the zoom positions between imaging and taking flats, you'll run into problems. Prime lenses and dedicated astronomical telescopes are much simpler and don't have this issue.
Well Written Helpful Insightful Concise
I see some really great images taken with canon cameras on here so I think I'm a bit surprised at how much they're not recommended
jack_miller · Dec 22, 2025 at 05:47 PM
I see some really great images taken with canon cameras on here so I think I'm a bit surprised at how much they're not recommended
Yes, there are and Canon cameras are fine cameras, however; there are better astrophotography options out there. I think that’s what it really boils down to. I started with a stock Canon DSLR myself since it was what I had and then moved on.
Well Written Concise
jack_miller · Dec 22, 2025, 02:25 PM
Hi, thanks for your reply.
This is my first foray into astrophotohpy as a serious hobby however I want to
1: use existing equipment that I have to keep costs low at first
2: keep it super portable for now, without the need to bring along power since I live in an apartment in a city and will need to drive out each time
I have a startracker GTI on the way, and my plan was to use it with my existing canon camera and sigma 100-400mm lens
If this is something I find I want to get really deep into then I'd look into more dedicated hardware for sure
However in the meantime I would like a camera that is mixed use fully understanding that there will be a compromise in overall results
Hi,
This is how I started >20 years ago using my telephoto lenses and a normal Canon digital camera.
Of course with a normal or even modified camera you will enver get those Ha images you see here in Astrobin.
You will be able to image galaxies, clusters, nebula (with looooooong exposures times)
When you get your Skiwatcher GTI mount, set it up on the baclony and start learning.
IMHO forget buying a so called modified DSLR for Astro. It is not worth it. I have two collecting dust.
With time (maybe after a year or two) you will find out if you really want to go into his hobby or not, and then start asking what equipment to buy.
just my 2 cents
I see some really great images taken with canon cameras on here so I think I'm a bit surprised at how much they're not recommended
For most of us, our definition of what is a great image changes drastically the deeper we get into the hobby
Things like calibration, noise levels, resolution, etc. become more important with the desire to go deeper and produce better images. It is just a lot easier and far less frustrating to do this with a dedicated astro cam!
Edit - one other thing I just remembered. I think many modern Canon mirrorless cameras use noise reduction technology in raw files that cannot be disabled. What impact this will have on astronomical images, I do not know. I would hesitate to use any kind of untested noise reduction on any of my raw files for astro work.
Well Written Helpful Insightful Engaging Supportive
jack_miller · Dec 22, 2025, 05:47 PM
I see some really great images taken with canon cameras on here so I think I'm a bit surprised at how much they're not recommended
Folks tend to use a screwdriver to chisel and pry with, too. But there are better options.
It’s not just Canons, I’m a Nikon guy, and a friend of mine up in Bergon, Canada does some great imaging with a Sony camera.
But I wouldn’t go buy a different DSLR to replace my current ASI2600MC Pro astro camera.
It boils down to the right tools for the job.
For financially costly hobbies ($$-sucking black holes😂) like astrophotography, my humble advice is this: if you’re willing to spend money, buy something you don’t already have, for example, a dedicated astro camera and a lightweight refractor, or a prime lens. Lens creep in zoom lenses is very real and very annoying. Otherwise, work with what you already have and get inspiration from the many amazing images here, many of which were acquired with modest setups like yours.
Well Written Helpful Insightful Respectful Engaging Supportive
i started with my R6 and a Redcat 51, worked perfectly fine together.
I also used a ZWO filter drawer in this setup with a L-enhance.
https://app.astrobin.com/i/57q9l6
https://app.astrobin.com/i/6y5ulk
I enjoyed using a star adventurer 2i without goto, learned to orient myself a bit. Lack of guiding was no issue, i managed to do clean 150second subs with 250mm focal length and a good polar alignment.
Checking focus on the small camera screen is not that hard since you can flip it, also one battery lasted for roughly 6 hours of constant shooting.
All in all it was a nice experience, also kept the learning curve manageable! since i was already figuring out so many other things (mount, polar alignment) i enjoyed using at least a familiar camera :)
Helpful Engaging Supportive
I own a R6, and have access to the R6 mk ii and use both regularly. They may be the greatest cameras ever made in terms of sheer versatility - landscape, wildlife, astro all in one camera. I have not (and will not) astro-modify them as I do a lot of terrestrial photography and live video with them and I don’t want to compromise the warranty’s and repairability as astro is a secondary useage for me as I have two dedicated astro-cameras.
Stock R6 is definitely terrific for wide field astro. On most scopes, you will struggle more with getting a full-frame without coma, so your R7 is probably better. I use mine mainly on actual camera lenses. My Player One Poseidon and ASI2600’s are vastly better and more flexible astro cameras, however. The cooling, and the BSI sony sensors are great.
If you want to do more astro on a terrestrial camera and be full-frame, look at the R8. Its a terrific camera, IQ as good as the R6 series, but is missing the IBIS and a few other things (different AF system)that are specific to the R6 series. It is going to perform pretty similarly (if not the same) for astro, but be cheaper. Bigger pixels than your R7, mind you.
Helpful