DSLR v CCD

Comment

Comment by George Novtekov on March 18, 2011 at 3:21pm

Dew is easy as I cool only the ccd and I close the air chamber with Astronomik clear glass clip system for EOS.

Comment by George Novtekov on March 18, 2011 at 3:19pm

My setup is luquid cooled and it cost me 250 grams more but the picture that I post is second version for my friend and its way better. The new version is up to 20 degree bellow ambient but consule low power (36W) and it is only 200grams more including controller for the peltier element. I used heat pipe aluminium cooler as it only 136 grams or something like that. Also the mode include 1mm thick cooper plate and 30x30mm peltier element. Controller is pulse wight modulator for best power consumption (same principal like Kendrik heater controller).

Comment by Marc Basti on March 18, 2011 at 11:08am

George, very impressive results. How much does the finished unit weigh? Any problems with dew/frost buildup. Marc

Comment by George Novtekov on March 18, 2011 at 5:01am

The discussion should in way that CCD need to be color as it's unfair to compare matrix with bayer and BW matrix with filter. So if we count that CCD and CMOS are color as there is no BW DSLR. Than we need to cool down the matrix to the same temp (Peltier mod) and than you will see how much cheaper and how close is DSLR.


Me and my friend Ivaylo Stoyanov manage to mod 2 DSLR already and the results are awesome. My mod is we liquid cooling for the peltier element and I am able to reach 25 degree below ambient temp. His mode is litghter and he use Air cooling system. The sample dark is from his system. The mode us cheaper my mode cost me 100euro his mod is 60Euro. Also we spend a lot of money for developing the mode but the mode itself is not expensive.

Two pics for my and Ivaylo Styanovs DSLR.

Comment by Philip A Cruden on February 25, 2011 at 5:55pm

Never mind, I got it when I opened the image

Comment by Philip A Cruden on February 25, 2011 at 5:53pm

Hi Emil, great comparison but to be clear is the one on top the canon and the one below the QHY or is it the other way around

Comment by Trevor Woodrow on February 25, 2011 at 1:55pm

Great example Emil!

Comment by Philip A Cruden on February 1, 2011 at 4:26pm

I do not even know what that means but all I can say is ME TOO:)

Comment by Charles Dunlop on January 26, 2011 at 8:53am

CCD's are better for sure, no doubt. But if you are shooting M31 or Orion or something, the shots don't look that much different, surely there is more dynamic range on CCD's and thus, more depth, etc... but I dunno, on bright objects it seems to me there are very impressive shots on both. But ltake some random NGC object, a planetary nebula that's faint, the DSLR will barely get it if at all, the CCD has a chance of really nailing it, again because of the much larger dynamic range.

Comment by Philip A Cruden on January 26, 2011 at 8:27am

You guys are all to funny, crack me up. Interesting reading all the comments. I am still not sure what to go with but all the info helps a great deal. BTW when Tony Hallas did is comparison in 3 issues of Astronomy Magazine he did a side by side tests, he was not promoting one or the other he was just explaining the difference and in every test the CCD images looked better and he went onto explain why

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page