Compatible Canon DSLRs

[zelonisv_bob]

Which full frame Canon DSLR's are compatible with BYEOS software?

[astroman133]

I have never heard that compressed air is a good way to remove dust from a camera sensor. The canned air could actually contain oil that would be deposited onto the sensor/filter.. I would check with a camera shop and/or search the Internet for ways to clean your sensor. However this should only be done on rare occasions and as a last resort.

I have rarely used a squeeze bulb blower  and a Lens Pen Sensor Klear  to dislodge and remove dust from my DSLR sensor.

Processing with flat frames will remove dust donuts from your images that were caused by dust particles on the sensor or any filter during an imaging session. Flats will also remove vignetting (uneven field illumination; darkening in the corners of your images).

[astroman133]

You should look at the Supported cameras list on the BYE Product page in the Store portion of this web site.

[s3igell]

Remember that Full-Frame DSLRs bring their own Challenges to Astrophotography.

1. The larger format Sensor will be prone to Vignetting with most Scopes that have Focusers of 2in or less.  And even a substantial number of Canon Lenses will produce significant Vignetting (which is a lesser issue in Daytime Photography).
2. Most Scopes and Lenses have greater Aberrations near the Edges of their Image Circles, and the larger Full-Frame Sensor is much more likely to capture these Issues.  It takes substantially more expensive Lenses (L-Series) and Scopes (or Correctors / Flatteners) to reduce those Aberrations to the level that an APS-C Sensor would Capture from the same Scope / Lens.
3. Higher Pixel Count used to be a Justification for wanting Full-Frame, but the Pixel Count of APS-C Sensors have reached / exceeded those of previous generation Full-Frame Sensors.  The real "Target" is to match the actual Pixel Resolution to the Seeing Conditions of the Local Atmosphere: ((Pixel Size divided by Focal Length) times 206.265) = Arc-Sec/Pixel.  Most Areas other than the Southwest and High Deserts of Oregon and Wyoming have Seeing of 2-4 Arc-Sec.  Trying to Image at sub-ArcSec Resolutions in such cases does little more than end up spreading the Light of a Star across more Pixels (Over-Sampling).
4. Full-Frame Cameras weigh substantially more than their Crop-Frame bretheren - not just because of the Larger Size for the Larger Sensor but mostly because of Metal vs Plastic Bodies and Weather-proofing and Larger Batteries.  This weight can expose additional Issues with the Mount and Focuser.

[zelonisv_bob]

Astromann133 and s3igell,

   Thank you, both, for your suggestions.  After looking at prices for full-frame Canons, I began to have my doubts about my needs.  And now that I'm aware of the complications involved with full frame imaging, I will reconsider which camera to buy.

 

Bob Z.

 

 

[astroman133]

It is a good choice to consider your options, carefully, to make the best choice!

[zelonisv_bob]

Oh, for the "days of yore" when simply finding that "faint grey fuzzy" was quite an accomplishment and a thrill.  Now we're throwing big money at it.  

 

 

[s3igell]

In the choice of Canon DSLRs, you also need to be concerned with another Issue:  Support for Long Duration Bulb Exposures in MILCs (Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Cameras).

Canon's M-series of "Mirrorless DSLRs" (more accurately MILCs) have a debillitating "Feature" - LACK of Support for Bulb Exposures (Hardware or Software-triggered).  While the Smaller / Lighter Mirrorless Form-factor would seem a Natural for AP Imaging, Canon purposefully removed the Remote Bulb Trigger (and the Bulb Mode) from the M1/M2/M3 Cameras - making them USELESS for AP Imaging,  The newest M10 offered some glimmer of hope, but I've not seen a Full Review that shows whether it has a Physical Remote Control Port.

[AaronSmall]

Bob,

Are you using flats?  A row of circular spots on brighter images (sun and moon) sounds like dust on the sensor.  Without looking at images I can't tell but it sure sounds like it.

[zelonisv_bob]

Aaron,

I'm still floundering around with astrophotography.  Recently, I began using Deep Sky Stacker and have not yet taken the time to image flats, darks, etc.  However, I can see that my results need more work.  I'm considering using canned compressed air in order to hopefully dislodge those dust particles from the sensor.  Do you think that would be a dangerous thing to do?

Bob Z. 

[zelonisv_bob]

astroman133,

Yes, you're probably correct about a can o' air possibly having a contaminate in it.  But, then, what is it good for?  I have both a squeeze bulb and a lens pen and will try the squeeze bulb first.

Will flats, darks, etc. do anything about the seemingly random red and blue micro spots in my images?  They show up in the black or almost black backgrounds in my images.  I have used the eraser tool in my photo editing software.  That's okay if there are only a few spots.  When I most recently used Deep Sky Stacker, I ended up with hundreds +/- of tiny spots.  Some of them look like short lines, a few pixels long, maybe?

 

Bob Z.

[astroman133]

Bob,

Here is a link to a page that describes how to test for dust on the camera sensor.

Dust donuts will be much larger than single pixels.

The short lines that you are talking about could be hot pixels that are not being removed during image calibration. When the light frames are aligned, the hot pixels that weren't removed can show as short lines that are red, green, or blue in color. You may want to talk to members of a support group for your image processing software to get guidance on hot pixel removal.

 

[zelonisv_bob]

Thanks again, Rick(?).  I did a quick read at the web site you provided.  There's a lot of info there that could prove useful.  People who replied to that article had possibly worthwhile suggestion as well.  The amount of good stuff on the World Wide Web is almost overwhelming.

Bob Z.

[AaronSmall]

Bob,

I agree with Rick.  No canned air, use a squeeze bulb.  I have seen the hot pixel lines as well.  Darks take them out.  It is all about getting comfortable with your post processing.  I'm very much a novice since I tend to over process to get more of an image out of a few exposures.  I need to exercise more patience and spend more time under the stars.  Hard with a full time job, kids, and other interests/organizations.

[zelonisv_bob]

Aaron, I've been spending too much of my astro time trying to get my CGEM mount polar aligned, and so, the result has been to take mostly snaps of 15 to 120 seconds duration.  I then post process to obtain ANYTHING resembling what I see in other people's results.  I've been thrilled thus far to accomplish that much.  But now, with the mount almost perfectly aligned, I'm set to do things with better technique (including guiding, using flats, darks, etc.) and more patience.  Thank you for your encouragement.

 

Bob Z.

[zelonisv_bob]

Aaron and others, I recorded darks and flats to add to the lights of the Cacoon Nebula that I captured a couple of nights ago.  After processing with Deep Sky Stacker, I ended up with a clean image with no red and blue marks.  Again, thanks for your support.

 

Bob Z.

[zelonisv_bob]

To s3igell:  I just now realized that your post was new.  Thanks for warning me about the Mirrorless DSLRs.  I've been a subscriber and user of this forum for some time and already knew about the mirrored and non-mirrored DSLR issue.  I use Canon's Rebel 500/T1i camera already.  Now that the question about whether to get a full-frame Canon camera is settled, done and forgotten, I'm deciding if I should upgrade to a newer Rebel, at least one with an articulating LCD screen.  My old T1i is okay except for having a row of circular spots (artifacts?), probably on the sensor, that show up only on photos with no starry backgrounds such as images of the Moon and Sun.  So, I'll go over the list of BYEOS-compatible Canons to see if newer ones offer any worthwhile advantages over my T1i.