Benefits of Using a Dedicated Astro Camera Compared to a Modified DSLR

Joe Linington:
It has been beaten to death but a lot depends on which astrocam. Coming from a 20mp full frame, the change in sensor size and pixel pitch will be as big (or bigger) a change than just the cooling. Cooling improves noise, how much depends on where you live (how cool your nights are). Using a dark library can be a huge time saver. Smaller sensor and smaller pixels can be a huge advantage but also a disadvantage. Most modern cameras are much more sensitive than your 6D.

The real quantum shift for me was, permanent mount setup, full automation and mono camera. That is a whole new world. I went from an astro modified Sony A7r and A6000 to mono imaging and it was a giant leap forward.

From your gallery I can see that you have a Radian 61 and a Star Adventurer. You are already guiding so you also have some basic automation. Might I suggest that a much larger goto mount is a much better investment at this time. I would highly recommend getting a mount and using your Canon for a while longer and then jumping right over a cooled OSC and into mono imaging.

I agree, I have found that more modern cameras are much more sensitive than my ancient 6Da. It's still a very capable camera but it is showing it's age now that it's over 10 years old.

I would like to one day have a permanent mount setup at home, but at the moment I don't think it's justifiable as it's a lot of money and work to get one setup. Hopefully that will change in the future.

I have been meaning to upload more to my gallery as a kind of portfolio as part of my free trial, but I have been busy with life and also a hint of procrastination lol.

I am aware that my next upgrade should be a new mount, and that's what I am saving towards. I am looking at either the ZWO AM5 or the ZWO AM3 as both mounts should serve me well in my astrophotography journey once I begin my next upgrade path after the mount. The Sky-Watcher mounts are great but they are all too heavy for me to lift, so that's why I have narrowed it down to the ZWO mounts.

The point of this post was for me to find out what I would be in for when I do switch to a dedicated astro camera. I was thinking of getting the ZWO ASI2600MC Pro or even the ZWO ASI2400MC Pro after the mount upgrade. Both are very capable cameras and I have heard nothing but great things about them. Of course there are other offerings from other brands, but I really like ZWO's range of products.

Zak

I would agree with the 2600mc pro unit. Currently I use my 294 & 071mc pros and love them. Like you however I’m procrastinating about moving to the 2600mc pro just because I’m not in a hurry to spend the money for it and honestly I’m happy with what I have for now.

As for your mount I’ve heard good things about the AM’s, but for me I’m happy with my AP1200GTO and converted to OnStep CGE Pro mounts.

Dale

A good jump is to double the focal length. So a 90-115mm (500-650mm focal length) telescope would be an excellent scope to add to your collection. The 102mm scopes are very popular and common, there is lots of selection in that focal range. A 150mm newt is also in that range at 600mm FL. An AM3 should carry scopes in that range with ease, possibly using a counter weight.

Zak Jones:
I am aware that my next upgrade should be a new mount, and that's what I am saving towards. I am looking at either the ZWO AM5 or the ZWO AM3 as both mounts should serve me well in my astrophotography journey once I begin my next upgrade path after the mount. The Sky-Watcher mounts are great but they are all too heavy for me to lift, so that's why I have narrowed it down to the ZWO mounts.

If you’re willing to spend the money, you can’t go wrong with the AM5. It’s a very flexible mount. I recently migrated from an AZ-EQ6 and have used it successfully all they way up to a C9.25. The portability is a game-changer. I find myself imaging a lot more than I used to.

Joe Linington:
A good jump is to double the focal length. So a 90-115mm (500-650mm focal length) telescope would be an excellent scope to add to your collection. The 102mm scopes are very popular and common, there is lots of selection in that focal range. A 150mm newt is also in that range at 600mm FL. An AM3 should carry scopes in that range with ease, possibly using a counter weight.

Thank you for your suggestions, they are noted.

I do like wide-field imaging though. Plus, with my low muscle tone, I am unable to lift equipment that is too heavy, so that's why I am considering smaller, lighter telescopes to make it easier for my low muscle tone.

I have also looked at the Askar 80PHQ and Askar FRA500 as alternatives, with my preference leaning slightly towards the 80PHQ for it's longer focal length. I could also get a reducer with the 80PHQ and make it faster if I ever wanted to. The 600mm focal length is appealing, but I am sure that people produce excellent images with it's slow aperture at f/7.5.

I don't really know of too many branded telescopes that are 102mm in diameter. It might be because I live in Australia and there's only big-named brands such as Sky-Watcher, Askar, Celestron etc. In fact, one of the vendors that I purchase from is the only dealer in Australia that stocks Takahashi telescopes. No-one else in Australia stocks them, and even then, the waitlist is so long it could take months to actually get one yourself. They are fantastic telescopes for what they are, but the prices of them are so exuberant over here in Australia compared to the rest of the world, plus it will cost extra to actually get it configured for imaging, so they are definitely off the table for me unfortunately.

Zak

André Bremer:

Zak Jones:
I am aware that my next upgrade should be a new mount, and that's what I am saving towards. I am looking at either the ZWO AM5 or the ZWO AM3 as both mounts should serve me well in my astrophotography journey once I begin my next upgrade path after the mount. The Sky-Watcher mounts are great but they are all too heavy for me to lift, so that's why I have narrowed it down to the ZWO mounts.

If you’re willing to spend the money, you can’t go wrong with the AM5. It’s a very flexible mount. I recently migrated from an AZ-EQ6 and have used it successfully all they way up to a C9.25. The portability is a game-changer. I find myself imaging a lot more than I used to.

I will hopefully try and go the extra mile and get the ZWO AM5 over the ZWO AM3, but I can't guarantee it unfortunately.

I know that a lot of people have said to me on the forums that I should get the AM5 over the AM3, but I am still undecided at this time, as the AM3 is lighter for my low muscle tone, plus it's nearly identical to the AM5, except it's got a smaller payload capacity, which I don't mind.

Zak

Zak Jones:

Joe Linington:
A good jump is to double the focal length. So a 90-115mm (500-650mm focal length) telescope would be an excellent scope to add to your collection. The 102mm scopes are very popular and common, there is lots of selection in that focal range. A 150mm newt is also in that range at 600mm FL. An AM3 should carry scopes in that range with ease, possibly using a counter weight.

Thank you for your suggestions, they are noted.

I do like wide-field imaging though. Plus, with my low muscle tone, I am unable to lift equipment that is too heavy, so that's why I am considering smaller, lighter telescopes to make it easier for my low muscle tone.

I have also looked at the Askar 80PHQ and Askar FRA500 as alternatives, with my preference leaning slightly towards the 80PHQ for it's longer focal length. I could also get a reducer with the 80PHQ and make it faster if I ever wanted to. The 600mm focal length is appealing, but I am sure that people produce excellent images with it's slow aperture at f/7.5.

I don't really know of too many branded telescopes that are 102mm in diameter. It might be because I live in Australia and there's only big-named brands such as Sky-Watcher, Askar, Celestron etc. In fact, one of the vendors that I purchase from is the only dealer in Australia that stocks Takahashi telescopes. No-one else in Australia stocks them, and even then, the waitlist is so long it could take months to actually get one yourself. They are fantastic telescopes for what they are, but the prices of them are so exuberant over here in Australia compared to the rest of the world, plus it will cost extra to actually get it configured for imaging, so they are definitely off the table for me unfortunately.

Zak

I don’t know exactly what your budget would be but the Esprit 100 would be a very good scope if you could get one on the used market. Add in a Starzona Apex-L Focal Reducer and essentially you end up with 2 scopes. Thats what I did recently and waiting for enough clear skies to get enough data to process the image I’m working on.

If the 100 is on the big side you could go the 80mm route. Might be a good compromise.

Dale

Arun H:

Zak Jones:
I think the poor dynamic range in Canon cameras is because Canon make their own sensors, whereas Nikon uses Sony sensors, plus like you said, all of the ZWO cameras I have seen often have Sony sensors in them.

Maybe one day Canon might up their game when it comes to dynamic range...

Modern Canon sensors are fine, see the R6 below compared to the A7R V. The 6D just is an older sensor. Of course, you shouldn't buy an R6 just for astro!

The funny thing is I actually own an R6 lol. I use it for a bit of everything, including some astro, and it does well.

I might consider getting a modified mirrorless camera or something similar one day seeing that the Canon EOS Ra has been discontinued for quite some time now, which is unfortunate for me as I really wanted to get one.

Zak

Joey Conenna:
I went from an Astro-Modded Canon 6D to the ASI2600MC-Pro when it came out. The difference in data was drastic and well worth the change.

Later on I  used the FujiFilm X-T100 with great success. While it has an amazing sensor, it cannot be tethered for a computer to receive images for the purpose of autofocus which makes using it a bit of a pain.

That's great hear about your improvements from switching cameras!

It gives me hope that it will be a great investment that will improve the quality of my astrophotography.

I haven't used a Fujifilm camera before, so I can't provide any feedback about how my experiences were sorry. That's odd that it can't be tethered... I have seen a couple of other cameras that do the same thing, although I cannot remember what they were off the top of my head lol.

Zak

André Bremer:

Zak Jones:
I will hopefully try and go the extra mile and get the ZWO AM5 over the ZWO AM3, but I can't guarantee it unfortunately.

I know that a lot of people have said to me on the forums that I should get the AM5 over the AM3, but I am still undecided at this time, as the AM3 is lighter for my low muscle tone, plus it's nearly identical to the AM5, except it's got a smaller payload capacity, which I don't mind.

The weight difference between the AM3 and AM5 is not as drastic as compared to a classic equatorial mount at the same capacity.

Look at it this way... practically speaking, 20kg payload is a reasonable upper limit for a portable setup (as in - not permanent). Anything beyond that gets unwieldy quickly. In that sense, the AM5 will be the only portable mount you'll ever need. I suspect you will find the 13kg on the AM3 to be limiting as you improve your skills and want to invest in better scopes that tend to be heavier.

Thanks for the additional information!

I am also hoping that I can get the ZWO AM5 too, as it will be a much better purchase than the AM3, although it will be down to my budget, plus as I have said before my low muscle tone is restrictive too, which is a bummer.

I will most likely not get a scope that is too bulky either. Wide-field setups are fantastic for my needs!

Zak

how does the Ha sensitivity compare between an Astro camera like the ZWO/QHY, etc. and modified DSLR? Does the Astro camera have that 656nm band pass fully opened up, or is the Bayer matrix pattern similar to a DSLR with 656nm suppressed?

The sensitivity of an unmodded Canon DSLR to H-alpha is about 25% of that of a modified one, so the improvement is substantial. TO compare to an astro camera: after the original filter is removed, you are left with the quantum efficiency of the base silicon chip. There have been improvements made in this area in recent years (eg. compare the ASI1600 to the 2600), so, given that the Canon 6D uses an older sensor, I'd expect a 294MC or 2600MC to do a bit better, but I don't think the improvement would be anywhere close to the difference between an unmodified and modified 6D.