Analysis of 685 Astronomy Photographer of the Year images to see what cameras, telescopes and mounts were used - Forums

Topic starter

Oct 14, 2022

I analyzed 685 images shortlisted for the Astronomy Photographer of the Year competition in the past five years to see what cameras and other equipment were used.I found that:

ZWO dedicated astronomy cameras dominate for planetary imaging and the ZWO ASI174MM is the top model. 47% of all shortlisted planetary images were taken with a ZWO camera.
For deep sky imaging, ZWO cameras also lead. The ZWO ASI1600MM Pro and the FLI ProLine 16083 are the joint top models for deep sky imaging.
Celestron’s Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope types dominate for planetary imaging. 40% of all shortlisted planetary images use Celestron SCTs.
Takahashi telescopes lead for deep sky astrophotography with the Takahashi FSQ-106 the most successfully used individual telescope model over five years. 40% of deep space images were taken with an apochromatic refractor.
Sky-Watcher telescope mounts are the most successful. 32% of images used a Sky-Watcher telescope mount and the Sky-Watcher EQ6 Pro is the most popular individual model.

I hope that is useful and ok to share here.You can see the full write-up here: https://skiesandscopes.com/astronomy-photographer-of-the-year/

Helpful Engaging Supportive

kuechlew

Oct 14, 2022

I assume the typical photography wisdom applies: It's the photographer who takes the image, not the gear.

In that sense it's sort of natural that the market leaders (in terms of number of sold items, not necessarily in terms of highest quality standards) have a higher probability to win a price compared to niche products.

The dominance of Takahashi scopes over more frequently sold scopes may just prove the not so surprising advice that the lens is the most important part in the imaging train once you made sure your mount is good enough.

Clear skies
Wolfgang

Helpful Insightful Respectful

John Hayes

Frequent contributor

Oct 15, 2022

What's a FLI 16083 camera? Was this supposed to be a FLI 16803 or is this a FLI camera that I've never heard of?

John

Well Written Engaging

Rouz Astro

Oct 15, 2022 · Edited: Oct 15, 2022

Says Skywatcher mounts dominate.

Interestingly, no mention of the IMX455 or Astro-physics mounts or telescopes.

Rouz

Mark Petersen

Oct 15, 2022

It took folks awhile to realize just how good of a sensor the IMX455 really is. So I suspect you’ll see it on the list next year. AP scopes and mounts are great, but beyond the affordability of many great astrophotographers.

andrea tasselli

Frequent contributor

Oct 15, 2022

Or maybe, just maybe, you don't need very top end gear and hectare-sized sensors to take/create good pictures.

Christoph Lichtblau

IOTD Staff

Oct 15, 2022

Hi Anthony,

do you really think that the competition " Astronomy Photographer of the year" is a reference for anything? By the way, I do not. It is just an opinion of a few judges. Most of them are no astrophotographers.

Cheers, Christoph

Well Written

Tim Hawkes

Oct 15, 2022

Seems to me that there is an assumption in this that the particular equipment listed made any difference. It may not have done - e.g. it may have been more decisive that the NB filters used were 3 nm rather than 6 nm or whatever etc. My own guess would be the most important factors would be a) having frequent access to dark and steady skies and b) the skill and experience of the astrophotographers? Also surveys have to be retrospective – equipment choices over a 5 year window likely reflect choices originally made some 5 to 10 years ago - and may not be the best choices to make as of today. Still – it is interesting to see it and I guess that it does at least say that you can't go to far wrong with similar choices – if your observing conditions are similar.

Tim

Helpful Insightful Respectful Engaging

kuechlew

Oct 15, 2022

Tim Hawkes:
Seems to me that there is an assumption in this that the particular equipment listed made any difference. It may not have done - e.g. it may have been more decisive that the NB filters used were 3 nm rather than 6 nm or whatever etc. My own guess would be the most important factors would be a) having frequent access to dark and steady skies and b) the skill and experience of the astrophotographers? Also surveys have to be retrospective -- equipment choices over a 5 year window likely reflect choices originally made some 5 to 10 years ago - and may not be the best choices to make as of today. Still -- it is interesting to see it and I guess that it does at least say that you can't go to far wrong with similar choices -- if your observing conditions are similar.

Tim

I doubt that this is a logical conclusion from the data. The statistics from a repair shop most likely looks quite similar because the most frequently sold items will pop up more frequently there too (without necessarily being worse ...). From a defective gear list you most likely wouldn't conclude that you can't go wrong buying this type of equipment.

Clear skies
Wolfgang

Helpful Insightful Respectful

Tim Hawkes

Oct 15, 2022

Tim Hawkes:
Seems to me that there is an assumption in this that the particular equipment listed made any difference. It may not have done - e.g. it may have been more decisive that the NB filters used were 3 nm rather than 6 nm or whatever etc. My own guess would be the most important factors would be a) having frequent access to dark and steady skies and b) the skill and experience of the astrophotographers? Also surveys have to be retrospective -- equipment choices over a 5 year window likely reflect choices originally made some 5 to 10 years ago - and may not be the best choices to make as of today. Still -- it is interesting to see it and I guess that it does at least say that you can't go to far wrong with similar choices -- if your observing conditions are similar.

Tim

I doubt that this is a logical conclusion from the data. The statistics from a repair shop most likely looks quite similar because the most frequently sold items will pop up more frequently there too (without necessarily being worse ...). From a defective gear list you most likely wouldn't conclude that you can't go wrong buying this type of equipment.

Clear skies
Wolfgang

Yes you are right . You can't conclude that you can't go wrong -- only that - all being well - the equipment itself shouldn't be the thing preventing you from achieving similar results.

Tim

Michael von Berner-Purgstall

Oct 16, 2022 · Edited: Oct 16, 2022

I analyzed 685 images shortlisted for the Astronomy Photographer of the Year competition in the past five years to see what cameras and other equipment were used.

Hi Anthony!
Nice summary...but what you can't know is with what some of those images have been, let's call it "enhanced".
I believe quite a high percentage (10, 30%?) of those winning images - don't forget - the prizes are 1500 or even 10.000 pounds and we are all aware of human behavior, have more or less "outsourced" data (for example - besides your mentioned FSQ106 a couple of hours of a 80cm, 1m, 1.5m and so on remote scope, just downloaded) mixed in to achieve that final pump, pushing the image so the judges would choose it as category winner or overall winner.
With such prizes you can't be sure that humans won't use all "efforts" to win, including betrayal - especially as that contest does not ask for sending in real raw data showing it has only been made with your very own telescope.
:-)

jacquesdeacon

Oct 16, 2022

Hi I also enjoyed the analysis,

I like how it shows how the equipment trends evolve over the years, like you showed with the dslr vs mirrorless graphs. Really neat!

All I would maybe suggest is to refer to category ‘winners’ as ‘most popular’ rather than ‘best’ equipment. Example; just because an asi1600mm is more used than say an asi 6200mm does not make it a better camera, rather its the more popular camera. My own personal opinion however!

Regards,
Jacques

Helpful Insightful Respectful

Carl Svensson

Oct 16, 2022

I thought this was super interesting! Thanks for posting it.

Well Written Respectful

Dave Erickson

Oct 16, 2022

Thanks for the analysis and posting! The data is appreciated. I think it shows a respectable level of resource commitment by contenders. Seems its about what instruments you can buy rather than what you can build. With skills focused on image processing rather than instruments.
Dave