bc0428 wrote:
Wait a bit - take some astro images with the unmodded camera and see what you get. New cameras have higher Ha sensitivity than older ones - and the unmodded camera can be successfully used for aunt Annie as well as Andromeda.
but still I’m not getting the every signal from the object right? Clear skies here are extremely precious, i may want to fully utilise the every signal being captured, so this might be the last resort
Clear skies make your astrophotography easier. You get more of the fainter subjects and details to show up in your images. There's less need for corrections. I tend to drive away from the city to get to the areas that have less light pollution and try to time my short sessions to coincide with no moon in the sky. I'm only out for a few hours so it's not terribly serious work for me just yet. But getting away from the light pollution makes an enormous difference in image quality for me.
Go for the North America nebula and the Rosette nebula for a first look. I have successfully imaged both objects with an unmodded Sony A7III - and the unmodded Canon should be a much better camera for deep sky photography (very pleased with the Sony for everything but astrophotography - have an astromodded Canon 6D lying around).
Oh I have heard some good things about the 6D, this was actually one of my plans too. Is it wise to trade the R with a 6D? I’m not sure it’s mk1 or mk2 specifically, but it’s popular around the community. Should I trade a used 6D and mod it?
I'm in the Southern Hemisphere so my selection of targets (and convenience) is slightly different. I can tell you that the new EOS R6 is quite decent for Astro work. The large pixels and -6.5EV certainly help but the general signal/noise ratio is quite decent and of course it can use the new RF lenses, some of which are excellent for astrophotography. It's certainly a long way forward from the EOS 6D - which used to be (and probably still is) an old favorite for Full-Frame astro work. I showed the results from the Ra to a group of 6D users who were astrophotographers and they were astonished at how much difference there was. One chap with more than 15 years experience with the tracking/stacking methods was almost in tears for some reason. I was even accused of "faking" the images from the EOS Ra - until I uploaded a video showing the camera taking the shots and then revealing the results on the Live screen.
.
R6 + RF 85mmL - Unedited JPEG image, straight from the camera. 5 Second exposure.
R6 + RF 85mmL - Edited image (same image as above).
Saturation, hue, curves, contrast and levels have been enhanced.
.
The 6D is a camera I've used for many years and produces excellent terrestrial photographs. The difference between the 6D (DSLR) and the new R6 (Mirrorless) and considerable. Though they have similar sensor sizes and builds, the R6 is by far a lot more advanced and has a lot more control for AutoFocus ability. A lot of the results from Astrophotography will come down to the lens that was used and the nature of the sensor on the camera.
.
The EOS 6D produces better results than many other DSLRs... yet compared to the R cameras, it produces noisier images but was limited with ISO. I was getting similar results from the original EOS M + EF-M 22mm f/2 STM lens that I was getting with the EOS 6D using the EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM lens. This is interesting because the EOS M platform is APS-C. In the end, I gave up using the EOS 6D for astro because I could get almost the same types of images from the much smaller, lighter and cheaper EOS M + 22mm lens. When the newer EOS M6 came along, higher resolution and even less noise was on the table if I needed it.
.
When Canon released the EOS R6, I immediately conducted a few tests on that first week to see how it would perform against the EOS Ra. Of course, the Ra is more sensitive to certain spectrum levels of light but the R6 was fairly decent. I would say the R6 is noticeably better than the 6D because of the increase in usable ISO levels with less noise. It also appeared that the 6D was a little more sensitive to a wider range of light frequencies than the 6D... yet this is just speculation on my part. Although I'd say the Ra is better for both noise and sensitivity. With the first two images below, you can see how similar the results were when colors were enhanced (no color was added). I'm only using a tripod and am not stacking images yet.
.
EOS R6 + RF 85mm f/1.2L USM lens - 4x JPEG Panorama (5 second exposure) - no colors added
EOS Ra + 85mm f/1.2L USM lens - 3x JPEG Panorama (5 second exposure) - no colors added.
The bright area on the left is from city light pollution from the city of Sydney.
EOS Ra - LCD Screen during playback of a 10 second JPEG exposure with a 50mm lens.
EOS Ra - JPEG (after editing). No colors added. Older EF 50mm lens used.
EOS Ra + RF 85mmL lens
6-second JPEG with no major edits at all. 3 images stitched into a Panorama.
EOS Ra + RF 85mmL - Single 6 second JPEG exposure
No color added - but saturation, levels, contrast and curves have been edited.
EOS Ra - Live Preview of the Orion Nebula rising - with 30x Magnification.
.
After looking at the images from the R6, I can see why people might give the Ra a pass. In my personal opinion, it's something of an indulgence. If you only dabble in Astrophotography occasionally, then the Ra is unnecessary. But is you enjoy Astrophotography, it's an amazing thing to use. The only differences between the EOS Ra and the regular EOS R is the IR-Cut sensor and the 30x Magnification. That's it. And the only reason I bought the EOS R6 is because I wanted to use the RF lenses and editing Terrestrial images from the Ra was both unreliable and a bit tedious. But since I'm intending to get deeper into Astro than I already am, the Ra was the way for me to go. But I think the R6 would have suited me fine if the Ra hadn't come along from Canon. They tend to release one Astro model "roughly" every ten years or so and they don't usually make many when they do.
